The right of first refusal is not an issue.

I didn't say it was an issue. I said it was not in the prior lease. Obviously Seacrets wanted it in the new lease. In any negotiation what the other side wants has a bearing.

As to the ability to fill the land in I hope Art is able to get that confirmed in writing. There are conflicting opinions on the ability to obtain a permit to fill in non-tidal wetlands. However, if we were able to do so I would favor filling the area in tomorrow to gain ground before the rules change again.  I would hope Art can definitively report back to the Board in the next ninety days.

Confirmed in writing? Impossible. The only way to find out is to begin the permitting process. There may be conflicting opinions but Seacrets did what good business people do -- they wanted something, tried, and were successful. OPA, on the other hand, spends all its time coming up with reasons why we can't do something.

However, as you pointed out this does not take into account what Mr. Moore was willing to pay.

And therein lies the very heart of any negotiation with Seacrets. OPA can't really know the Seacrets upside. However, as you know, either side in a negotiation is at a distinct disadvantage if not prepared to walk away entirely. Moore knows his walk-away point. I doubt OPA does, or would.

Regarding the encroachment you write:

Please note we inserted "without prior written consent of the Board of Directors" to address that possibility in the current lease.

Well, the 2004 lease contained the same language. This is the kind of thing that is somewhat disturbing. Association members are told this is some new protection, but the same protection was in the prior leases and Seacrets apparently ignored it. The penalty for doing so? Nothing. The benefit of Seacrets doing so? The current blessing of the encroachment. One board member took great pride in a clause in the new contract saying if the lease was not renewed at some point then Seacrets would have to remove the encroaching structures. Now that is really tough negotiating.

Obviously, we can't easily change it today but I am interested in the future.

I agree. Maybe OPA should consider someone like an Ed Moran to negotiate for us.

Again, I appreciate you discussing the issues in a rational manner, rather than assailing my intent in raising the issues or making my "adjectives" more important than the issues. We may not always agree, but you always express your opinions in a thoughtful manner. How can we clone seven of you for the board?