Opinion: Spend money on traffic studies, not lawsuits
(Editor’s note: At tonight’s combined meeting of city council and the planning commission, two public hearings will be held on: 1) the zoning ordinance amendments relating to agricultural transformation, and 2) the zoning ordinance for the temporary moratorium. Potential Council action may occur on both counts. The meeting will take place at the town hall at 7 p.m., and you can consult the agenda and the files on the municipality’s website. here. Read on for Lou Santucci’s op-ed, in which he says another moratorium lawsuit could be coming soon. Do you have something to say ? Write it down. Send it to me, [email protected]. -jb)
Township court costs are heading towards $1,000,000, and for what?! This month’s legal bill was $95,000 for the winery lawsuit, and this is in addition to previous bills from our new law firm of approximately $150,000. In addition to the accusations made by previous lawyers, we’re talking serious money, folks!
Help us support Old Mission Gazette – Click here
Before this is complete and before the damages are assessed, the bill could easily reach $1,000,000.
There will most likely be another lawsuit regarding the Township’s illegal moratorium and Township Planner’s refusal to accept several Special Use Permits (SUPs) that individuals have attempted to submit. She claimed there was a moratorium in place. Albeit illegal, as recent proposed remedies show.
The Protect the peninsula (PTP) people said at a recent township meeting that they have the back of the township. Do they also have our wallets?
All of this borders on the absurd. What are they fighting for anyway? The main complaint seems to be traffic, including traffic that will be caused by weddings and catering.
Here is a suggestion. Instead of spending money defending lawsuits that the township will most likely lose, why not use that money to undertake a real traffic study? In the end, I think you’ll see that there really isn’t any major disruption to your life caused by traffic.
I live on Center Road and can attest that the traffic going cellar to cellar is not bumper to bumper, not every day or any time of the day. Maybe at its peak a winery will have 30 to 50 cars, and they sit there and then slowly peel off to another winery or back to town.
Let’s be real here. Who cares if a winery hosts a wedding at its facilities? Who cares if they serve food in their establishment? Only a few. And their cheerleading of the township’s continued intransigence serves no purpose other than to bankrupt the township.
One has to wonder what was the compromise that the Township cavalierly rejected $250,000 ago…? Is our township concerned with enriching downstate law firms rather than seeing that their fiduciary duty lies with OUR wallets, not the law firms’ wallets?
It’s time to compromise before you get empty chests. And the duck all wineries had to do was come to the table – which they did repeatedly – proved wrong when the township recently rejected a request from a potential winery to exempt them from the illegal moratorium.
At that time, the township knew the moratorium was illegal, and instead of ordering the planner to accept his SUP and others, they denied his request. This action borders on the malfeasance of their sworn duty to uphold state and local laws. Is this a sign of good government?