Joe,

Your characterization of this as a "debacle" just goes to show how you have come to make judgments without a clue as to the facts.  I happen to believe it is a well-thought out and "good" document with proper safeguards and a fair lease payment for OPA. 

Why not just make the new lease public?  We will, as soon as it is returned, signed.  Not doing so is a courtesy to the other party.  There is no high priority need for you to have the information NOW, before we have the signed copy.  How your competition, the Progress, was informed I do not know, but the membership will be informed soon.  The information is not time sensitive.  Your calling the agreement "top-secret" is just your way to attempt to cause undue concern to forum members.  But, as you say, this is just a forum and people can post what they want.

You complain about you or the membership not being involved in the lease agreement process.  Well, too  bad.  This is not a democracy.  We were elected to represent the membership and to do such things as agree to leases.  Read the Articles of Incorporation, Article THIRD, paragraph 8.  To do so with another party in public is not a good idea, nor do we require membership approval by referendum.  If you don't like the governing documents, get them changed, but we are "paid" to do our jobs.  There is no way that this agreement should have been "approved" on this forum, or at town meetings, or in the press.

The agreement has been reviewed by our attorney, the newly formed contract/lease advisory "team," and by each member of the Board.  If, once you see it you don't approve of what we have done, then fire away.  If you believe that we should have gotten more in lease payments, fine.  That would be an opinion based on facts and then you could tell us how we screwed it up IYO.

If the lease were for parking use only,  It is for parking only, but it also recognizes the minor encroachment and allows that encroachment to remain while protecting our absolute right to require removal at the end of the lease period.  (You can keep patting yourself on the back for repeatedly pointing this out to us and the readers of this forum, but some of us did not need such constant reminding.)

As for a walkway being farfetched, I don't consider anything farfetched when it comes to what some board may decide.  Really?  Under what conditions in the next four years can you come up with anything to justify spending one cent for a new walkway? 

In fact, it might be a good idea to build the walkway.  Really?  Again, do you really think this could be a "good idea."  How much money would you suggest we might spend that might support this "good idea"?  Maybe you should run for the Board with such "good ideas."

I can't offer an opinion without more information.  But you have been offering lots of opinions without much information, so why stop now?

You have made comments on such things on an interim and initial report by a committee that the information on wetlands may be incorrect.  Could be, but this is an interpretation based on some vague and remotely possible official's opinion that something "might" be able to be negotiated to change the classification.  Filling the wetlands in is something you postulated as a result of this reclassification, and IMO is farfetched even should reclassification be approved.   

Not having seen the lease agreement, it is difficult to describe any concerns ....  Yes, but you have shown that you have been able to overcome this "difficulty" and offer your opinions anyway. 

Okay, now you will respond with if we only would keep you informed ....... Well, in this case, I'd like to know exactly why you feel the need to speculate on this without waiting for the facts to be presented.  Don't say the lease is "top secret"; you know that as soon as it's signed you have a right to a copy.

 My cast on my right hand came off today.