To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: OMP resident Chris Moyer pens a letter to state legislators with concerns over the growing trend of “governance by litigation.” He includes an action plan at the end if you’d like to send a letter to state legislators. Read on for his thoughts. -jb
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
I am writing regarding the lack of intervention by elected state leaders in the face of a new trend: governance by litigation.
Why are you failing to step in to protect citizens’ rights in expensive legal fights with special interest groups and corporations that are undermining the foundation of Michigan communities?
Current examples that highlight my concern include the Park Township short-term rental lawsuit, the Saline Township data center dispute with Oracle, and the recent legal judgment from Judge Paul Maloney, which awarded $50 million to 11 wineries (WOMP v. Peninsula Township) in a dispute over township zoning ordinances. Each of these cases are examples of legal teams alleging constitutional issues to sidestep Michigan zoning jurisdictions.
Your silence on these issues suggests it is ‘open season’ on our communities. Special interest groups, with significant legal funds, are willing to leverage the recent “Peninsula precedent” to overwhelm communities with unimaginable damages claims and costly legal action to obtain what they desire. This destroys longstanding protection for Michigan residents.
If groups of well-funded parties dislike a township master plan and/or zoning rules, they simply lawyer up. It isn’t just one firm: it’s a proliferating legal strategy. Joseph Infante at Miller Canfield proved that you could extract $50 million from a township by suing in federal court. This “federal court cheat” was used to move local decisions to a federal court that has no real interest in local issues or citizens. Now, firms like Varnum are following that exact blueprint in Park Township — even getting the cases assigned to the same judge.
We need your help to protect Michigan from predatory litigation!
Judgments can push Michigan communities into insolvency — devaluing property, raising bond rates, and possibly bankrupting residents as townships increase property taxes to cover debts.
No elected township leader or local board member could prepare for this type of legal battle. As a Michigan resident, living on the Old Mission Peninsula, I am very concerned that these firms are using a strategy to systemically “federalize” local land use disputes. The goal is to bypass any protection from the Michigan Zoning Enablement Act to achieve favorable zoning and punitive damages. Municipality treasuries are under threat. Local democratic accountability is being destroyed.
Both the Michigan Townships Association and the Michigan Municipal League publicly support local zoning. (Read their amicus briefs in support of Peninsula township here. -jb). But where are our elected state officials? During the Flint water crisis, the State recognized the need for executive intervention. Why the inconsistency in other cases?
Do state leaders not see this trend? Could there be donor dollars influencing State leadership? Or is this just a “not big enough” issue? It feels large for those residents being asked to pay for long-running legal battles while well-funded lawyers trample on Michigan’s democratic footing.
Your silence on this matter is drawing voters’ attention. We need Michigan’s elected leaders to step in now to prevent predatory business practices and judicial overreach that threatens our local communities.
– Chris Moyer, Old Mission Peninsula resident
If you would like to send a letter to our state legislative officials, Chris has put together a template you can modify with your own thoughts and info. “I think we should remind them that we are taxpaying voters that care about our community,” he says. “The action plan is simple — insert your own details and send to the respective leaders in Michigan politics. Adjust the intro note for each representative, change my name to yours, change the (insert here) to the appropriate representative, and then email with the briefing attached. A total of four emails. Feel free to share with your friends — the more that arrive, the more likely that our representatives pay attention.”
Download the action plan letter to legislators here, and include Chris’ letter/briefing posted above, which you can download here. Real all winery lawsuit stories and op-eds on the Gazette here. -jb
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Thank you Chris for your thoughts regarding governance by judicial mandate. I agree this seems to be an increasing trend at all levels of government. Hopefully our legislators will take heed and put this on their agenda.
Initially I was sympathetic to this writer’s opinion but as I read further he does not address overzealous and intrusive township governances. I agree that the voters of a community should decide what zoning ordinances should be in place. Elected officials should put in place ordinances that reflect the desires of their constituents. However, this does not seem to be the case in Peninsula Township where private, unelected organization, seems to be driving the creation of township ordinances.
Disagree? Need evidence? The recent noise ordinance is a grand example. Any sound at any time of the night or day observed and disliked by your neighbors on their property and in their “backyard “ may qualified as a violation. Children laughing and running through the sprinkler, your high school student practicing their trumpet on the back porch, karaoke with friends on a Saturday afternoon, a graduation party, peepers croaking in the marsh on a spring evening… all could be reported as a noise violation. Nonsense. Why was this ridiculous ordinance put in place? Was it at the behest of township residents or was it a tool put in place by the township to wield even more control over the wineries. You decide. I do not oppose a reasonable ordinance that residents desire but this example is preposterous, petty, unreasonable and unnecessary. Peninsula township leadership has made our entire community into an HOA where the residents must submit to township officials desire to control us and determine what we can and cannot do on our property.
I do think we need some streamlining and increased transparency with our Township leaders. This noise ordinance is needed, but I personally liked the measured at the property boundary approach, but it concerned those having to enforce. I have friends that live in a place without noise ordinances and one person can disrupt the comfort of many and there are no grounds to force them to stop. We needed something to avoid that especially if the WOMP members were going to start evening events with neighbors so close to many of them. I trust my neighbors to be considerate and listen to reason, I am lucky to have good neighbors.
Mr. Brown,
To suggest that “Children laughing and running through the sprinkler, your high school student practicing their trumpet on the back porch,” and “peepers croaking in the marsh on a spring evening” are going to violate a noise ordinance is plainly ridiculous. These are customary residential activities and sounds. Claims such as this were discussed at the public meetings during the ordinance drafting and approval process.
Karaoke or a party that involves amplified music into the wee hours at a level that is disturbing to neighbors might reasonably violate the noise ordinance. That sounds like appropriate regulation to me.
Those “ridiculous” examples would fall within the scope of a violation as the ordinance is written. If you can’t imagine such, or similar, complaints being lodged, you’re not living in the real world. Ridiculous people to ridiculous things. Takes only a few minutes on Facebook, Insta, X, or NextDoor to see that. Are they legit? No. Do they have to be looked into? Yes. Oops, now our Code Enforcer needs another assistant and he’s running a whole (unnecessary) department on my tax dollar.
I recently talked with a Grand Traverse Sheriff and he agreed that any sound heard in a neighbor’s yard could meet the requirements of an ordinance violation as written by the township. Would someone make that complaint? Perhaps, perhaps not but they could and that is the problem.
“Government by judicial mandate” wouldn’t be an issue if local government actions and ordinances are reasonable, fair, equally applied, and constitutional
I find it hard to believe that the 1240 townships that have been managing the safety and well being of Michigan residents are foundationally flawed. This issue could have been sorted by zoning applications and public discussions vs legal aggression.
I appreciate Chris bringing this concern to our state legislators. Governance by litigation is exactly what this is — and no one should be fooled into believing all Old Mission Peninsula residents support what WOMP is pushing for.
Many of us support agriculture and wineries. What we do not support is the ongoing attempt to transform a rural peninsula with two feeder roads and a single access corridor into an event destination for weddings, receptions, parties, and high-volume commercial traffic.
That false binary — “support wineries or oppose wineries” — has always been misleading. The real issue is scale, infrastructure, and compatibility with the township’s master plan.
The math is simple: 11 wineries hosting large events on the same peninsula will inevitably create traffic congestion, safety concerns, noise impacts, emergency-access problems, and increasing pressure for even more commercialization. Residents are not imagining that reality; we live here.
What’s most troubling is the growing strategy of bypassing local democratic processes through federal litigation designed to intimidate communities into surrender. When well-funded interests can threaten catastrophic financial damages simply because they dislike local zoning restrictions, that is no longer community planning — it is governance by legal coercion.
This debate was never about being “anti-winery.” It has always been about protecting the long-term livability, safety, and rural character of Old Mission Peninsula before it is incrementally converted into something entirely different.
Well said Cary!
“…bypassing local democratic processes.” You mean like an unelected organization (PTP) armed to the teeth with attorneys? Asking for a friend.
Susie. The problem is the word “might” violate the noise ordinance. A party that goes into the wee hours at a level that is disturbing to neighbors should be a violation…period. A violation should not be contingent on whether your neighbors like you and/or whether they are reasonable people.
Great letter! It’s time everyone thinks long and hard about our future, one that the residents of OMP have long planned for, before we ruin what is so special here. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water and realize all this is making it unaffordable and unrealistic for many to continue to farm, live and vacation here. Deep pockets have for to long sued to get what the want, be dammed our zoning regulations. Yes, some say it’s too restrictive, but that’s the point of zoning. Township zoning has long been created through a public process with checks and balances and public hearings which is why the PDR has been so successful at protecting our farmland and the agricultural character the peninsula people voted for and pay dearly to manage with their tax monies. Just because a few businesses want to expand their business plans to profit more, does not mean the rest of us should suffer considering we all pay the same high taxes out on the peninsula. The incessant whining from WOMP is getting old. The only reason we are where we are at is because a few greedy winery owners want to do more than just produce good wine. You can’t always get what you want classically stated by the Rolling Stones, so maybe everyone should listen and stop with the nonsense of suing for what they can’t have as it’s killing what makes life on OMP so special.
Well said JIm!
Agree. They know this is hurting their neighbors and seem to not care.
I agree wholeheartedly Chris Moyer. Disputes that in the past between neighbors is now litigated. Deep pockets win.