I understand, but I think it would be appropriate for all those involved in reviewing and negotiating a lease to be aware of all information available.

Anyway, let's consider this from another angle -- Seacrets' angle.

It is always difficult in any negotiation to know a topside for what the other party is willing to pay. However, we do know this -- Seacrets apparently felt the parking spaces were worth at least $65,000 a year to them at the time the prior lease was signed. $30,000 lease and $35,000 tax payment.

With the new lease they are apparently paying $40,000 lease and $15,000 tax, for rough total of cost to Seacrets of $55,000.

On our side perhaps we might have considered asking Seacrets for a lease sum of $55,000 rather than $40,000 with them also paying the taxes at $15,000 for a total cost to Seacrets of $70,000. This would represent only a $5000 increased cost to Seacrets over what they were prepared to pay a year or so ago, based on a lease our consultant said was under market value.

Given Seacrets probable need for the parking spaces to comply with any laws related to their business operation, I suspect they would have, privately, been prepared to pay a total cost of $70,000 (maybe even more), thus increasing the benefit to OPA association members by $15,000 per year.

It's a done deal, but based on all I have discovered, I believe it could have been better for OPA.