To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: Mike Dettmer shares a personal perspective on the Citizens Coalition of Old Mission Peninsula’s (CCOMP) “strategic plan” email, urging the Peninsula Township Board to stand firm against disruptive tactics and continue their work for the community. Read on for his letter to the Board ahead of their meeting tomorrow at 7 p.m. -jb
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
Dear Township Board Members,
I recently read the CCOMP email included in the March 10 Board meeting packet. My initial reaction was outrage, and I even began drafting an outraged response. However, after taking time to reflect, I want to share some sincere and personal thoughts that I hope will help you continue your important work with confidence and pride.
I have practiced litigation-related law since 1972. In 1975, my family moved to the Old Mission Peninsula, where we raised our children and found peace in this unique community. Over those years, I have gained valuable life experiences in both the public and private sectors, and I have learned to distinguish good government from bad government. I can recognize the difference between people who genuinely serve the public and those who seek to mislead it.
I have seen the positive effects of building up communities and the harm caused by tearing them down. The Fred Woodruff/CCOMP email mistakenly sent to the wrong recipient — which you have transparently included in the meeting packet — demonstrates a troubling current political mindset.
CCOMP is an organization, as stated in its Articles, seeking “… limited regulation of their activities on their property,” which effectively means doing whatever is necessary to undermine the common community good for self-centered personal and monetary exploitation. With specific regards to the Township, it necessarily means upending good government.
The content of the CCOMP email, involving Fred Woodruff, Amanda Danielson, Bern Kroupa, Kent Wood (WOMP’s paid PR person), and Todd Anson as its messenger, outlines a strategy to “take out” opponents on the Peninsula, launch a “strategically sequenced” campaign, potentially use PDR farmland preservation funds to pay wineries, terminate the Township’s Joint Defense Agreement, and pressure Board members to resign by targeting their families. There is not a single constructive idea presented in the email, nor in its Strategic Plan attachments.
You should set aside the content of that email and continue the excellent work you have been doing. You were elected to serve all residents of the Peninsula — including those who seek to disrupt and undermine your efforts. You are upholding decades of thoughtful zoning and planning that have shaped our unique residential-farming community. Your perseverance and commitment, despite constant pressure, are recognized and valued by the vast majority of township residents.
Recent amicus briefs filed in federal court by organizations such as the Michigan Township Association, Michigan Municipal League, American Farmland Trust, Michigan State Bar Government Law Section, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association speak volumes about the Township’s accomplishments and your role in sustaining them. In contrast, CCOMP, by exposing its intent via the Woodruff email, has birthed itself as a fringe group engaged in nothing more than sophistry.
While CCOMP’s mistake in sending its email to the wrong Todd might seem comical, its attached Strategic Planning document is not a joke. It reeks with truth that the members of CCOMP are unwilling to engage thoughtfully through constructive ideas, nor do they trust the legal system to resolve the WOMP case through due process and the application of the Rule of Law. Their efforts are not directed “for” anything positive, but rather “against” progress and effective governance. Their primary goal seems to be making your lives and those of your loved ones more difficult.
During my time in government service, I encountered groups like CCOMP. As my experience grew, so did my resilience. The key lessons I learned about leadership are: 1) Accept the ineptitude of fringe groups at face value and trust the public to see them for what they are; 2) Do not waste energy responding point-by-point to those whose only intent is to tear down, as logic or law will not change their minds; and 3) Stand firm on your principles and avoid engaging with such groups, as that is exactly what they seek — to distract and vex you.
We, the people, elected you because we trusted your vision and ideas. Now, with the support of respected organizations such as the Michigan Bar, the Farmland Trust, and municipal governments associations, our faith in you is affirmed.
As township residents, we have also now seen CCOMP’s so-called “strategic plan.” It is a damaging and misguided effort, reminiscent of slapstick rather than strategy. You should trust that the public knows you have our best interests at heart, just as we trust and support you.
– Mike Dettmer
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Superb piece! Thank you. Your 3 points of advice to our elected officials are right on.
“You are upholding decades of thoughtful zoning and planning that have shaped our unique residential-farming community. Your perseverance and commitment, despite constant pressure, are recognized and valued by the vast majority of township residents.”
Thank you for saying this. One of the reasons we chose to make our home on Old Mission Peninsula is because of its extraordinary beauty and the obvious care that has gone into protecting it over many decades. That kind of landscape and community doesn’t happen by accident.
For more than 40 years, Protect the Peninsula has worked to preserve the thoughtful balance that exists here — a place where residential life, agriculture, and wineries coexist within a framework of carefully developed zoning and planning. Their work has often required persistence in the face of pressure and criticism, but the peninsula we see today is, in no small part, the result of that long-standing stewardship.
And before anyone responds with the “you just don’t embrace change” trope, communities evolve, and thoughtful change can be healthy but responsible change requires clear public benefit and careful consideration of potential impacts — particularly when it involves altering long-standing policies that have shaped the character and livability of a place. Preserving the balance that has guided Old Mission Peninsula for decades is not about resisting change; it is about ensuring that change serves the broader community and protects what makes this place so special.
Thank you, Mike, for your articulate, informative and non-reactive letter. Well done. I look forward to the time when we will be able to heal this rift that has split our lovely peninsula into separate camps: a time when we don’t encounter someone we thought was a friend up at the Peninsula Market who looks right through us; when our town board meetings are less confrontational and maybe we even share a laugh together; when the township’s expenses are comprised of improvements to parks and infrastructure instead of legal fees—a time when we can disagree and still remain friends.
Greetings Mr. Dettmer,
Thank you for your measured tone. It genuinely creates the kind of space where civil discourse can happen.
The substance of my op-ed has been overshadowed by the so-called “errant email.” I understand why people are reacting to that, but I’d ask that the essay be taken on its own terms. It discusses the inception of Protect the Peninsula, and it makes a point I think matters: the current Township Board did not create the situation we’re in.
I wrote the piece on behalf of no one, but from a place of real concern that farmers’ ability to make a viable living is getting eclipsed when “ag governance” on OMP is dominated by litigation and the gravitational pull of the winery lawsuit. The fate of the farmer shouldn’t be a footnote to the lawsuit narrative. We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time: address side issues where they belong, and still talk here about the actual governance question as to how we protect farmers and farmland with standards that function.
If you’re willing, I’d welcome your thoughts on the substance: what an adaptive, workable framework looks like that protects neighbors and supports a resilient farm economy.
Respectfully,
Amanda
Well written and thoughtful Mike. I’m glad you had your “24 hour cooling off” period, as you made honest and responsible points in your response. I, too, support the Township Board. I think they are doing a terrific job. Along with that, I thank PTP for their support of the township”s goals.
Responding to Mike Dettmer
Mike Dettmer has rightfully earned his standing as an elder states-person in our region. A powerful and influential voice, to be sure. The simple point I’ll make in response to Mike’s two recent careful statements is to remind all that the $49M predicament we confront is at least partially the result of PTP’s advocacy.
The JDA Question
Once the subject of informed speculation (in one earlier Op/Ed, I wondered whether PTP had cast a “spell?”) the recent revelation of PTP’s secretive Joint Defense Agreement, initially characterized by my esteemed colleague of the bar as a “veto,” and, now exposed to sunlight dragged clarified as significant sway over OMP strategy, places PTP at odds with resident sentiment. PTP’s advocacy for the restrictive ordinance and continued defense strategy contributed to the exposure we now face.
The Survey Speaks
In his Op/Ed, Mike is clear that PTP does not want the board to settle this suit. PTP is pressuring our board to litigate to conclusion. He has placed PTP at odds with the view of the majority of residents, who, when surveyed, expressed an overwhelming (59%) preference for changing direction. For your convenience, I link that survey here because the township has for some reason removed it from its website: https://share.google/HbppycsRGQvMgYfft.
Resident’s Opinions Matter More Than PTP’s
Each should decide for themself whether any rural land use planning issue merits creating such exposure? Each should decide for themself whether a critical planning policy should be ceded to a special purpose eleven member organization of un-elected officials like PTP?
A helpful reminder regarding Mr. Woodruff’s unfortunate email misstep, as seen in recent revelations about behind-the-scenes efforts. Not everyone curious and concerned about finding a WOMP solution is complicit in something other than providing farming a fair opportunity to succeed on OMP because they see its enormous value to bucolic OMP.
Towards Civility & Resolution
Last, I would like to make a point about civility. In an offensive comment to Jane Boursaw’s post, a commenter demonstrated contempt for all who disagree with his views. Despite strongly differing views, I would like to encourage us all to be keep our tone civil. Calling anyone “contemptible” for holding an opposing view ensures at least two things. One, our community fabric erodes further, and, two, this complex situation becomes more difficult to resolve.
A Word in Response to John Jacobs
Thanks to PTP for its advocacy, but, $203M was never the damage amount. The exposure was $49.4M after court review, and, likely never would have been created without PTP’s involvement. The real question for residents is “Does prolonging this serve the majority view? I have vast experience managing complex matters. No trial counsel ever gives much better than 50-50% odds.
Finally, in my assessment, the wineries are not looking for retribution against their neighbors. They are seeking stability and certainty through our viticulture governance overlay. Amanda Danielson has written thoughtfully about why this is critical to sustainability of the PDR and conservation easement programs, both valued on OMP.
My hope has always been to see this resolved with minimal-to-no additional taxpayer exposure. That requires certainty of ag rights as Ms. Danielson has expressed.
Let’s prioritize transparent resolution that protects our rural character without endless litigation.
Todd J. Anson
3/12/26
Todd, I can’t agree. WOMP is very interested in putting damages on us. OMP residents have to start acting. I have tried to listen to all the arguments, read more legal documents than I want, I am going through all the SUP details and sat down with WOMP and Peninsula Township leaders.
Residents need to start paying attention to what this is likely to do to them and our community.
Today is March 14th, known to many as Pi Day. It’s a day for logic and circles. For me, a logical day to make the difficult decision to cancel my memberships at our local Old Mission Peninsula wineries.
I don’t do this out of malice, but out of a growing concern that the numbers being presented to our community simply don’t circle back to the truth.
First there is the inflated $49M damages claim, more money than these 11 Wineries have made in many years. A new PR firm, why because the truth needs polishing? A WOMP legal team that isn’t working on contingency, but keeps racking up hours. A new “ citizens coalition” that isn’t at all interested in finding a solution for citizens. 11 so called neighbors that were “damaged” by not going through normal zoning requests.
I worry that this orchestrated chaos is being used to mask a deeper goal; making it harder for normal, long-term residents to stay on OMP, potentially opening the door for land to be repurposed into high-density development for those with the means to exploit this chaos.
I can no longer, in good conscience, provide my financial support through memberships and visits. #OMP #Community First