DETAILS OF FREEPORT RESORT & CLUB and CLUB BAHA LTD
GRIEVANCES and DAMAGES :
BEFORE HARCOURT CAN PROPERLY APPRECIATE HOW IT CAN MITIGATE OUR
GRIEVANCES AND AVOID DAMAGES WE HAVE EXPERIENCED AND ARE STILL
FEELING, IT MUST UNDERSTAND THE DETAILED BASIS FOR THEM.
BASED ON HARCOURT‟S LETTERS OF JAN 14/08 AND JULY/08 EMAIL, WE KNOW THAT
HARCOURT DOES NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATE THE DAMAGE TO US AND WE HAVE
TRIED TO CREATE A DESIRE FOR HARCOURT TO NEGOTIATE A RESOLUTION,
WHICH APPEARS TO REQUIRE THEM TO WALK A MILE IN OUR SHOES. The Pictorial
View of our grievances vividly shows the impact and damages and they are numbered andcolor
coded. There are others that are not shown in the photo, so this section is intended to provide the
details of our three main grievances, those prefixed with an “A” relate to ACCESS issues, those
prefixed with a “B” relate to BEACH issues and those prefixed with a “G” relate to GOLF.
These 3 grievance categories have been breached for over three years by Driftwood, and now nearly
9 months by Harcourt, since their Nov/07 Royal Oasis closing.
A - SHORTCUT PATH / ACCESS ( Re-open immediately )
A1-Its denial and stoppage is unconstitutional
A2-Eminent Domain / Land Taking requires restitution and mitigation
A3-Prospectus and related docs showed Sunrise Hwy was a two lane public thoroughfare , which was to
become four lane. GBPA approved our shortcut path in 1981, which was used for nearly 25 years
before it was suddenly „taken‟ for a private use, which violated our access rights
A4-Benefit to one at the expense of another is immoral
A5-CB / FRC were the only entities directly affected by Sunrise Diversion -Ruby Swiss to Int‟l Bazaar
A6-Alternate shortcut path after the Sunrise diversion was agreed to verbally, but it too was later closed
A7-Denial of access to Int‟l Bazaar, causes us an insecure route, 7 times further (2000 yds from 300 yds)
A8-Easement wording must be in writing, enforceable by law, and in recordable form, or reverse this
violation by re-opening Sunrise Hwy and remove man made beach, at Harcourt expense.
A9-Access must never be denied again, by any successor land owner or operator
A10-Some lots are now land-locked without ability to enter or exit – this must be rectified
A11-Secure shortcut path approved by GBPA and used for nearly 25 years before closed. GBPA‟s
April 7, 1981 letter stated “approval has been granted for one footpath access onto West Sunrise
Hwy.….furthermore, should any further widening of West Sunrise require destruction of the
footpath this will be done without compensation to you.” –clearly shows it was a permanent
public road. If this public road section formerly known as Sunrise Hwy was sold to Driftwood,
with funds received by the GBPA and the land conveyed to Driftwood without mitigating
the access issues of Club Baha Ltd. and Freeport Resort & Club, then this damage can be
corrected by creating “easement language” that corrects the access problems, which is to be
in recordable form, so as to stop any future attempts at such access interference by successors
and future operators of any of the adjacent facilities. If the diverted Sunrise Hwy strip of land
has not been conveyed to Driftwood, then it is even easier to correct such past access injustices
by including such “Easement Language” in any future conveyance to Harcourt.
A12-Land value has been negatively affected and must be corrected
A13-Local reasonable vehicle traffic (incl golf carts) should be allowed
A14-Owner / operator must pay any costs to permit this access –whether it be insurance, safety, etc.
and regardless of whether construction is in progress or not
A15-Our Access damage is not only to 2600 unit week vacationers at FRC, but present and future
land owners and occupants on the adjacent undeveloped acreage affected
A16-Golf cart access throughout the area and other zoning concessions should be allowed since
Driftwood was able to ease its access between its two hotels, due to the diversion
A17-Some of the undeveloped adjacent land should be re-zoned to commercial to offset the isolation
and negative impact of access restrictions vs. requiring Sunrise diversion be reversed
A18-Generous signage should be allowed to offset the caged-in effect, to help restore value of the view
from the street (former Sunrise) and help restore lost business that the diversion caused
A19-Conflict of Interest – Princess/Driftwood/Harcourt misusing its zoning influence to our detriment
A20-Unfair competition – Princess/Driftwood/Harcourt were/are in the timeshare business and used
unfair business practices and abused their conflict of interest powers on access, golf and beach club
issues, all of which harmed Freeport Resort & Club
A21-Compensatory and punitive damages should apply against responsible parties
G - MEANINGFUL GOLF PRIVILEGES (restore ASAP with a „real‟ privileged rate)
G1-Provide what Bahamia Prospectus promised / delivered vs. using erosion tactics, before being stopped
G2-Golf privilege amenity was a legal consideration in the land purchase and should not be stopped for
any reason, company bankruptcy/insolvency, change of operator or sale of property
G3-The aerial photo shows that FRC is located only 300-500 yards from the Golf Centre, Emerald
Tee and Ruby Tee, so this golf privilege was of paramount importance in the purchase of this
property in Bahamia, and is a valuable amenity to both FRC and the adjacent undeveloped lots.
G4-The cost to provide the golf privilege amenity was a small price the original developer paid as one
incentive to sell the lots in Bahamia, in comparison to the $ millions in proceeds obtained from
the sale of some 3000 lots, and considering the even greater associated development costs. It
should not be abused just because there are no more lots left for sale, or a successor has a
different agenda - it was intended for the lifetime of the 3000 lots, not be stopped in 2004.
G5-Any disruption should have the consequence of restitution of all costs associated with a
replacement of this important amenity
G6-Most importantly, the privileged rate, which began at 50% - 60% off the public rate, should be
re-established in writing and enforceable by law to prevent cheating in the future.
G7-Because the „golf privilege‟ rate was breached, FRC could not qualify as a „golf resort‟ in the
Interval International exchange network of resorts, which the Bahamia Prospectus qualified us
to be, so this denial robbed us of our otherwise superior exchange attractiveness in the past.
Getting this „real‟ golf privilege rate, in writing, is key to permanently rectifying this.
G8-Failure to restore the meaningful golf privilege rate in the future should be compensated for at
the true value of this lost amenity – established by a professional golf consultant, not just for
the 2600 unit week vacationing owners at FRC but for the adjacent undeveloped land as well.
G9-Damages should be established for the consequential impact of the past selfish policies, not only in
lost business, but losses due to dissatisfaction of previous owners who felt betrayed.
G10-Not only compensatory damages but punitive damages also should apply to the violators.
B - BAHAMIA BEACH CLUB and BEACH ACCESS (commit to rebuilding it now)
B1-Like the „golf privilege‟, the Bahamia Beach Club was another amenity promised in the Bahamia
Land Prospectus and must be honored
B2-This promised amenity was built, used for several years, then mysteriously closed and some time
later sold with the sale proceeds retained by the developer
B3-Whether the culprit was Princess or not, Driftwood bought the Princess companies, but even if
Driftwood did not buy the Princess companies, this obligation was a responsibility of the
land developer and the Prospectus Commitments encumbered those physical assets, and
Driftwood inherited these obligations…and the same applies to Harcourt as Driftwood‟s
successor. A new buyer / operator cannot escape this obligation simply because of ownership
change. Each successor should have determined these facts during its „due diligence‟ phase,
and it is important to note that they were told of these obligations twice before their purchase
B4-Both Driftwood and Harcourt made weak statements that they would honor this Bahamia Beach Club
obligation. However, recently in a Jan 14/08 letter from Harcourt, they not only deny
responsibility to replace the Bahamia Beach Club, but made outlandish statements such as:
-“no actual beach ever existed”
-“you‟ll just have to accept that this facility is no longer available”
-“nor should it be considered part of any amenity of the Bahamia development”
and then they had the further audacity to threaten future access by saying:
-“For your information, your owners do have access to the Xanadu Beach area but
with future development thereto, this may be subject to change.”- they are referring
to their beach front hotel they plan to build, and further restrict our beach access !
B5-Ironically, the Sunrise Hwy diversion truly exemplified the selfish thinking of Driftwood and now
Harcourt - they not only destroyed our access rights, but since they too are not on the beach,
they used this “land taking” to create their own „man made beach‟, and at the same time
deprived us of the Bahamia Beach Club that was committed, built, put in use, then sold with
sale proceeds retained, and they also have the audacity of threatening future beach access.
Restitution for this cavalier, greedy attitude should be to return the Sunrise Hwy to its
original state unless all of our access beach & golf grievances are met. Driftwood was
arrogant and shortsighted, and Harcourt should not follow suit.
B6-The Bahamia Beach Club promised amenity at today‟s costs could be well over $1 million to
replace and it must be done or compensation paid for its replacement, and the latter may be
the most appropriate solution, unless Harcourt changes its attitude on its inherited obligations.
B7-Harcourt, or any other developer, must never be allowed to deny the public access to the beach, as
Driftwood tried to do with its Princess Isle development, and it is especially egregious to try to
accomplish the same with FRC / CB and the Bahamia Land Owners, who demand that the
Prospectus Commitments be met, and due to the past breaches, be exceeded or pay the resulting
damages ! Threatening future „beach access‟, after failing to do the same with its Princess Isle
development is not only counter productive, and very distasteful with the Bahamian public, but
truly revealing as to its self-serving agenda. The “old guard staff”, originally with the Princess
companies, then with the same companies but under Driftwood ownership, now with Harcourt
companies, should be taken to task for perpetrating such malaise on the Bahamia community.
Harcourt knew of these obligations long before it closed on the Royal Oasis purchase, and
have been given generous incentives by government, so there is no reason for Harcourt to
begin its future as successor to the Royal Oasis fiasco, adopting the same avaricious tactics as its
predecessor. It would behoove Harcourt to set high moral standards !
CONFLICT OF INTEREST and ABUSE OF AUTHORITY AND POWERS:
Harcourt, in its capacity of successor developer of the Royal Oasis property as well being in
control of the Bahamia Service Company, which controls, maintains and enforces zoning matters in
the community, must not be allowed to exert undue influence on any matter that permits predatory
practices or causes it to engage in policies and procedures that clearly create unfair competition,
particularly with regard to its timeshare / vacation club offering and especially with regard to our 3 major
grievances, which was prevalent in the Driftwood era.
Harcourt must be made to comply with the Bahamia Prospectus commitments and conduct its
successor developer duties in compliance with legal, moral and ethical norms.
The foregoing should be useful to make rough calculations of alleged damages to CB / FRC, the
timeshare vacationers of FRC and the land owners of Bahamia, and others, as applicable.