A rather strange opinion, in my opinion.

It's my opinion and not strange at all.

This encroachment issue was never consider even an issue by the BOD when it was mentioned last year.  Didn't even make a ripple in the water for the BOD.

This prevailing attitude is as such, "the entire encroachment "issue" means nothing to us except the "nerve" of them to use any of that space without (written) permission. It's a principle some may get angry about, not a substantive matter."

The BOD could have cared less and now OPA has protected the encroachment by the new lease.  Fact!

Seacrets couldn't get the 99-year lease so they got the next best thing, a lease which protects these "minor" encroachments.  Fact!

Why does one renegotiate a two year old lease?  Who benefits?  Who has benefitted the most by this new lease?  How much is $40K worth to OPA after IRS taxes?

So it's a big concern to voice my opinion based on what I've seen, heard or read, but it's apparently no big deal for the BOD to tell the members that OPA financially benefits by X dollars because Seacrets is paying the taxes - when there are no taxes for OPA to pay.  That's laughable.

Besides, didn't somebody recently say that facts are just speculation?