message board home
Next
5/12/2010 11:18:50 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 5: OPA Board Subject: Seacrets Lease 4/15/2010 Msg# 738937
|
||||||
|
I think we are talking two different permissions. I looked at the 1999 and 2008 leases (the two old ones I have) and I think it is the "uses" permission you are looking at in those two not construction and doesn't spell out who could authorize other "uses" leaving it to the "Lessor". I'll quote directly from the January 1, 2004 lease: "The property hereby leased shall be used for parking only, and Lessee shall use the property for no other purpose without the written consent of Lessor." Ted, the Lessor is the Ocean Pines Association. Are you suggesting it is wrong to leave it up to the Ocean Pines Association? I'll admit adding the board is probably a good idea, but it sounds like you are suggesting we can't trust the GM or the president. The change surely is of no great benefit and Seacrets could probably care less. Are you saying the clause quoted above above would permit building a 20x120 structure totally unrelated to parking and on the opposite end of the property, structures such as bathrooms, storage and seating? Such structures and their use is seen as "parking" and compatible with the use terms of the lease? Come on. when I see some post arguments or speculation not based on any facts, comments based on hearsay or broad generalizations. Assuming you are talking about this Seacrets discussion, what did you see in my original post and newsletter commentary that was based on pure speculation? Perhaps you should be more concerned about folks like Marty and Jeff who post statements saying the property tax paid by Seacrets helps OPA's bottom line; statements then put in local papers with a net result of misleading association members. Also, keep in mind there is a big difference between commentary/opinion and the pure misinformation coming from some individuals. Had I not decided to look into this we would still be hearing the misinformation about the property taxes, the first refusal business, not know of the reduction of the assessed value from $3 million to $1.3 million, etc. Is this a burning issue for most association members? Probably not. Makes no difference to me if it is or it isn't. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Joe, 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. I think we are talking two different permissions. I looked at the 1999 and 2008 leases (the two old ones I have) and I think it is the "uses" permission you are looking at in those two not construction and doesn't spell out who could authorize other "uses" leaving it to the "Lessor". I am looking at the encroachment language in 3. (a) of the new contract which didn't exist in those two previous contracts. The draft we got was vague which is why we asked to add the written permission of the Board of Directors language to prevent a current or future GM/Board President from independently "authorizing" further encroachments without concurrence of the BoD. Maybe a small point but cleans up a potential gray area. Do you see the encroachment issue I am talking about addressed in the 2004 lease? If not we are talking two different permissions. That is not to say that I don't get nuts or worse when I see some post arguments or speculation not based on any facts, comments based on hearsay or broad generalizations. Sometimes I think they actually do harm when others blindly accept them at face value even when later they are refuted. In addition, it can be disheartening to those volunteers, including me, who are busting their butts to make the best decisions possible for OPA and leads one to question why bother? But I also understand that it is important to have a place where information can be exchanged and owners can ask questions, debate OPA issues, to say nothing of referring home improvement contractors, arguing local or national politics or a myriad of other informational services this forum provides. I have found it best to take on each issue head on and try to fully develop the reasoning to the extent possible (which is why my posts are way too long) behind a recommendation or decision. Perhaps the most important thing I personally get is a different perspective and ideas which, if I am still involved in OPA when the issue arises again, I hope to put to good use. Those on the forum who argue positions or points may not think they are being heard but they are and opposing opinions are good if only to gauge how effectively OPA is communicating with Owners! So while we may (scratch that) will disagree on some issues, I appreciate the opportunity to post.  Ted |
| Calendar |
Budget Town Hall - Golf Clubhouse
2/5/2025 - 11:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
2/22/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
3/29/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
4/26/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
5/24/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |