Notices

Jordan Lake Marina lease switched

Old 02-14-2012, 10:25 AM
  #41  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 2,666
Received 8 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I can't really blame the old owner. I would probably be a little bitter too, and since the government set themselves in this situation, they're going to have to deal with the consequences.
Old 02-14-2012, 10:51 AM
  #42  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Raleigh & Harkers Island, NC
Posts: 570
Received 91 Likes on 51 Posts
Default

The logical business math would imply that the starting price for the docks would be $1 more than the net of demolition and selling for scrap, and the max price $1 less than installing completely new docks. You would need to factor all the costs around this, including operating delays and permitting fees and the like. My guess is that those two numbers are a long ways apart.

Then there is the "principle factor". If the current owner believes he's been screwed and has the resources to follow through, then the logical path is to simply make it as painful and costly as possible to those he sees as responsible, with the best outcome being the state has no operation, others go out of business, and boat owners sue the state for screwing it up. Wouldn't be the first time somebody said to hell with the money, I'm just pissed.

Glad my boat's on a trailer........
Old 02-14-2012, 12:07 PM
  #43  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Beaufort NC San Juan del Sur Nica
Posts: 6,705
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Center Crusher View Post
The logical business math would imply that the starting price for the docks would be $1 more than the net of demolition and selling for scrap, and the max price $1 less than installing completely new docks. You would need to factor all the costs around this, including operating delays and permitting fees and the like. My guess is that those two numbers are a long ways apart.

Then there is the "principle factor". If the current owner believes he's been screwed and has the resources to follow through, then the logical path is to simply make it as painful and costly as possible to those he sees as responsible, with the best outcome being the state has no operation, others go out of business, and boat owners sue the state for screwing it up. Wouldn't be the first time somebody said to hell with the money, I'm just pissed.

Glad my boat's on a trailer........
You and NCCarguy have it nailed it both from what I can tell. Albert, the current vendor, is convinced that he has been screwed by the state. I get the feeling that he thinks says that the state and the new vendor assumed all along he will cave on the negotiations for the dock and stuff and used that against him. He won't say that out right, I am reading between the lines. He's been good about being tight lipped.

At the very least, the state has been totally incompetent in this, which is typical of government. Many of the bureaucrats dealing with this have never seen the lake and had no idea big boats were even on the lake. Go figure.

The new guy makes a case that what is in everybody's best interest is some kind of deal for him to buy the improvements from Albert. That does not necessarily ring true for Albert's peace of mind and sense of justice. Like it was said above, at some point with some people, its NOT about the money.

Fascinating story.
Old 02-14-2012, 12:37 PM
  #44  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I agree with you guys (CenterCrusher, NCCarguy, C.Edmund...)

Mind you, as soon as this was announced last week, and despite Albert's 30 years of experience, his gross sales, his profits, infrastructure expenses, etc., suddenly everything resets to '0' as of right now. That's just the facts, regardless of the debauchery the state made of the bidding process.

And when everybody starts getting their quotes together, something tells me that the rest will fall into place. Cooler heads will prevail when you're facing the prospect of being in the hole $50k (or whatever cost it would be) to demolish the place or gain $200k+ on your way out the door. Unless, of course, you have millions and felt this would amount to mere pocket change.

Lets just hope that both sides are honest and reasonable in what they want to accomplish, that the privilege of running the marina is for the boaters sake and we can enjoy our time on the lake uninterrupted.
Old 02-14-2012, 12:59 PM
  #45  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Beaufort NC San Juan del Sur Nica
Posts: 6,705
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

NCmac you are right - except I think the figures are probably much higher than 50K in the hole or 200K to the good. The demo would cost a couple hundred K I think and they are worth seven figures easy.
Old 02-14-2012, 01:49 PM
  #46  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Chapel Hill and PKS, North Carolina
Posts: 7,229
Received 382 Likes on 229 Posts
Default

What is there to demolish, other than towing the trailer out, and having a big crane lift the floating dock sections onto flat bed trucks? Are they going to remove all the chain link fencing, roll up the pavement, and tear down the boat storage shed on the hill, and all of Steve's buildings? Is the COE going to give them a permit to pull the pilings? Yeah, I know about the magic clause, but it doesn't say, "any and all", it says, "any or all".
I am on Albert's side, he and Jason have always been very fair and friendly and accommodating. And I want to see him compensated to the last reasonable penny. I just hate to see the state, which takes my tax dollars, be so utterly stupid in the way it writes and executes contracts.
Old 02-14-2012, 02:35 PM
  #47  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Beaufort NC San Juan del Sur Nica
Posts: 6,705
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by glacierbaze View Post
What is there to demolish, other than towing the trailer out, and having a big crane lift the floating dock sections onto flat bed trucks?

<<<< That's tens of thousands of dollars right there with the docks >>>>

Are they going to remove all the chain link fencing, roll up the pavement, and tear down the boat storage shed on the hill, and all of Steve's buildings?

<<<< That has been discussed, yes - at least with the pavement and boat ramps and fencing. Not sure about Steve's building. >>>>

Is the COE going to give them a permit to pull the pilings? Yeah, I know about the magic clause, but it doesn't say, "any and all", it says, "any or all".
I am on Albert's side, he and Jason have always been very fair and friendly and accommodating. And I want to see him compensated to the last reasonable penny. I just hate to see the state, which takes my tax dollars, be so utterly stupid in the way it writes and executes contracts.
<<<< Too late to avoid the state being so stupid. That horse done left the barn >>>>
Old 02-14-2012, 09:32 PM
  #48  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by C. Edmund View Post
Allboatme, perhaps you don't know what this website is for. It is for a discussion of boating issues - separate from the websites of those with an agenda. The website you mentioned has already been posted to this site.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but THT remains a great place for a discussion from both sides.
Ok you know all. I will not post anymore.
Old 02-14-2012, 10:22 PM
  #49  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Beaufort NC San Juan del Sur Nica
Posts: 6,705
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by allboatme View Post
Ok you know all. I will not post anymore.
You can be a smart aleck all you want, but you did come on here in your first few days of posting - and then insulted us by saying that it was silly to even discuss it on this site - that we should go TO ANOTHER SITE (not good etiquette when you are a guest on a site) and simply shut up, sit down, and get all the true information from one side of the story ON ANOTHER site hosted by someone with a vested interest in the outcome.

Old 02-16-2012, 02:22 AM
  #50  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by C. Edmund View Post
You can be a smart aleck all you want, but you did come on here in your first few days of posting - and then insulted us by saying that it was silly to even discuss it on this site - that we should go TO ANOTHER SITE (not good etiquette when you are a guest on a site) and simply shut up, sit down, and get all the true information from one side of the story ON ANOTHER site hosted by someone with a vested interest in the outcome.

Really that's what you got out of what I posted. Nice.
Old 02-16-2012, 10:36 PM
  #51  
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 87
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Ok. I've read the new owner's site and the Thread here. The current owner signed a contract 30 years ago and its up. Why do we think the state owes it to him to let him have it? If I owned the land and the lease was up and I had 2 offers one double the other why would I take the low one? As a taxpayer I am glad they took the bigger bid. If they took a smaller bid from the governor's drunk nephew or something that would be worth getting enraged. If the offer for improvements received from the new tenant is more than the net proceeds from the sale of the docks and other infrastructure and the current owner removes all the stuff anyway he is the bad guy.

Think of this scenario:

He signed a 30 year contract. It is up
It went out for bid and he was out bid by almost DOUBLE.
He has many long term customers who have kept him employed for 30 years
He rewards them by acting out of spite and screwing them over for no financial gain of his own.

It all sounds very far fetched. Smart people don't generally walk away from smart money to prove a point. I will be surprised if the docks are removed. It makes too much sense to sell them.

Heres hoping that the new tenant negotiates a deal that allows the old tenant to put some cash in his pocket.
Heres hoping that the new tenant puts in a business that looks like a business and not a state run dump
Heres hoping that the new tenant finds a way to increase revenue without raising slip prices but by increasing sales of other items like fuel and bait and tackle and gear and all the other stuff they could sell. Maybe if the place were cleaner, nicer and better run then more people would decide to spend the day there and do it more often. Just maybe they can generate enough extra revenue to more adequately cover their fixed costs leaving them enough to make it worth while to spend and upgrade. Oh, and pay the rent.
Old 02-17-2012, 06:06 AM
  #52  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Beaufort NC San Juan del Sur Nica
Posts: 6,705
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ttownthomas View Post
Ok. I've read the new owner's site and the Thread here. The current owner signed a contract 30 years ago and its up. Why do we think the state owes it to him to let him have it? If I owned the land and the lease was up and I had 2 offers one double the other why would I take the low one? As a taxpayer I am glad they took the bigger bid. If they took a smaller bid from the governor's drunk nephew or something that would be worth getting enraged. If the offer for improvements received from the new tenant is more than the net proceeds from the sale of the docks and other infrastructure and the current owner removes all the stuff anyway he is the bad guy.


He signed a 30 year contract. It is up
It went out for bid and he was out bid by almost DOUBLE.
He has many long term customers who have kept him employed for 30 years
He rewards them by acting out of spite and screwing them over for no financial gain of his own.
You make some good points, but your post does sound suspiciously agenda'd - especially with so few posts. Having said that, the point of view you have is widely published on the new Crosswinds website and in an email trail of current boat owners. I thought THT would be a good place to at least look at the other side. Your post is very one sided and mispresents a few facts - at least around the margins - but I won't debate those now.

FTR - I have no dog in the hunt. I have only a small boat at Jordan and am selling that so we can spend more time on the coast. I do however have a deep distrust of government bureaucracy and crony government relationships. I also know the very government that is now touting a new owner who has great ideas is the same government that has made it impossible for the current tenant to do anything creative for decades.

Anyone with any intelligence can smell a government rat in such a scenario.
Old 02-17-2012, 06:20 AM
  #53  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,019
Received 305 Likes on 171 Posts
Default

So basically if you have a boat there, as of right now, you need to go find another place to keep it..
Old 02-17-2012, 06:27 AM
  #54  
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 87
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by C. Edmund View Post
You make some good points, but your post does sound suspiciously agenda'd
I have no agenda. I recently bought a 2009 Carolina skiff and live in Cary. I keep it at a storage lot. If we use it as much as I hope then I was planning to get a slip at Crosswinds. I have been out there a few times. Rented boats etc. Jordan is my closest lake.

It genuinely sucks for the current guy. But doing business with the government is guaranteed to end with frustration and headache. Frankly I with they would sell 2 pieces of land to two competing marina's.
Old 02-17-2012, 07:11 AM
  #55  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Beaufort NC San Juan del Sur Nica
Posts: 6,705
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by thajeffski View Post
So basically if you have a boat there, as of right now, you need to go find another place to keep it..
Maybe. That is certainly a possibility. I pulled mine out to clean it up and do some other maintenance on it - and figured this was a good time to do it while all this gets sorted out.

I still think there's a good chance that a deal will be struck for the new vendor to buy the improvements from the current vendor.
Old 02-17-2012, 12:47 PM
  #56  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Chapel Hill and PKS, North Carolina
Posts: 7,229
Received 382 Likes on 229 Posts
Default

ttt, you make some valid points. My biggest complaint is that the state did not have the foresight to plan for a turnover of ownership on their lease agreement, and for the disruption that would cause the boat owners involved. Maybe they never anticipated 65 foot houseboats being there. They don't seem to realize they are there, now.
Ideally, the state would have built out the marina, and leased it to an operator. Or, they would have made concessions that would compensate the first operator for leasehold improvements, rather than having a new operator start from scratch everytime the lease was bid.
My view of leasehold improvements boils down to: if you can remove it with a wrench or a screwdriver, it is yours(that wrench may be a crane). Digging up pavement, and tearing down buildings goes way beyond. I know that legally, I had to forfeit a new gas water heater that I had installed in a rental in NC, because it had soldered connections. If it had couplings, I could have taken it.
If CW is currently paying 3% of gross, as has been suggested, what if the new operator goes broke in two years, trying to pay 15%. Does the state have a provision for that?

And C.E, I don't think anybody could go back over the past year or more, and all the times that you have brought this subject up, and find that you
have presented an impartial view. Challenging everyone who disagrees with you of being in cahoots with the new owners, or bringing up their post count, is pretty unconvincing.
Old 02-17-2012, 01:11 PM
  #57  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Beaufort NC San Juan del Sur Nica
Posts: 6,705
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by glacierbaze View Post
And C.E, I don't think anybody could go back over the past year or more, and all the times that you have brought this subject up, and find that you
have presented an impartial view. Challenging everyone who disagrees with you of being in cahoots with the new owners, or bringing up their post count, is pretty unconvincing.
Primarily it's been you discussing it, but you miss the point. The prevailing discussion has been telling the current vendor what he should or should not do. I was playing devils advocate - and most of the advocasy seemed to be in one direction - which would be the easiest thing on the boaters' for their immediate interests. I think there are two sides.

Believe what you believe, but I have no dog in this fight - except a prevailing distrust of government bureaucrats' honesty or competency. Now that might seem like it puts me on one side of this fight due to the nature of this fight - but my only problem is gummint - not either the current nor the new vendor.
Old 02-17-2012, 09:11 PM
  #58  
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 87
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by glacierbaze View Post
ttt, you make some valid points. My biggest complaint is that the state did not have the foresight to plan for a turnover of ownership on their lease agreement, and for the disruption that would cause the boat owners involved. Maybe they never anticipated 65 foot houseboats being there. They don't seem to realize they are there, now.
Bureaucrat's hired attorneys to write that contract 30 years ago. If you have ever had the good fortune to do business with or build a building needing approval from the city, county or state you would be shocked at how shortsighted they are. Generally they are not crooks but they are grossly disinterested in good sense.
Old 02-20-2012, 01:38 PM
  #59  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Beaufort NC San Juan del Sur Nica
Posts: 6,705
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Hot off the press: new update from incumbent vendor:


Our competitor submitted a bid to pay rent to the State of 15% on all gross income, including that of sub-concessionaires, which is almost 4 times the minimum amount required in the Request for Proposal and more than 5.5 times the 2.7% rate charged nationally by the Corps of Engineers for facilities with comparable revenues, which we have always exceeded. It would be most advantageous, in order for his business plan to work, to make a bargain purchase of our marina assets, which have a replacement cost of almost $2.5 million. We have received an offer that is approximately 8¢ on the dollar of that amount, and even this was highly conditional.

This marina has been a major part of my life for a long time. I can count on my fingers and toes the number of weekends over the past 30 years that I have not been on site working. Finally, after many years, we were able to finish paying off the debt incurred in acquiring those assets, and were just beginning to get reasonable returns on our investment. While as a businessman I can understand my competitor’s objective, I am under no obligation, and will not give him the product of my life’s work for a pittance.

During the bidding process, our competitor and the State were well aware of the potentially disruptive consequences to you and other Jordan Lake boaters for the entire boating season if there were a change in leaseholder. They knew that all of our tenant leases would expire no later than March 31 and they knew that all boaters had been notified of the situation a year in advance.

Our competitor was informed in the Request for Proposal and at the Bidders Conference that the only improvements at the Marina that belong to the State (courtesy of the Federal Government) are the hillside sewage lift station, two of the four launch ramps, and the breakwater. We funded all other improvements and for years have worked tirelessly, without success, to provide additional amenities in the face of governmental intransigence.

Our competitor was also made aware of the fact that the terms of our lease require us to remove all our improvements – real as well as personal property – and return the site to its original condition, or give them to the State. The State was made aware of the fact that we would honor the terms of our lease.

The decision to remove us was made entirely on our competitor’s offer of 15%, even without the absolute requirement for the posting of a performance bond assuring that capital would be available to replace the existing marina assets.

The new leaseholder states that he desires a “smooth transition”. We too embrace this goal, but have seen scant evidence of any genuine effort on their part to achieve it. Clearly is it up to the State and the new concessionaire to make this happen.


--- hmmm ---- getting interesting.
Old 02-20-2012, 01:47 PM
  #60  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,019
Received 305 Likes on 171 Posts
Default

Sounds like the original guy is getting farked.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.