Comments on: Saturday…Date-Laau pits apartment owners against land owner, a rainy morning, and Conrow on blogging http://ilind.net/2009/07/04/saturdaydate-laau-pits-apartment-owners-against-land-owner-a-rainy-morning-and-conrow-on-blogging/ Ian Lind • Online daily from Kaaawa, Hawaii Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:21:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: wlsc http://ilind.net/2009/07/04/saturdaydate-laau-pits-apartment-owners-against-land-owner-a-rainy-morning-and-conrow-on-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-1833 wlsc Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:10:09 +0000 http://ilind.net/?p=2765#comment-1833 I agree with your interpretation but the wording of the press release, and subsequent "reporting," certainly seems to imply that no right of first refusal will be given to the owner-occupants. Thus, it appears that the sales contract for the land contains a provision that contravenes applicable law. No doubt there's a loophole somewhere. I agree with your interpretation but the wording of the press release, and subsequent “reporting,” certainly seems to imply that no right of first refusal will be given to the owner-occupants. Thus, it appears that the sales contract for the land contains a provision that contravenes applicable law. No doubt there’s a loophole somewhere.

]]> By: Ian Lind http://ilind.net/2009/07/04/saturdaydate-laau-pits-apartment-owners-against-land-owner-a-rainy-morning-and-conrow-on-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-1831 Ian Lind Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:18:13 +0000 http://ilind.net/?p=2765#comment-1831 But shouldn't the sale by Lum Yip Kee to Iolani trigger the right of first refusal? It certainly looks that way. But shouldn’t the sale by Lum Yip Kee to Iolani trigger the right of first refusal? It certainly looks that way.

]]> By: wlsc http://ilind.net/2009/07/04/saturdaydate-laau-pits-apartment-owners-against-land-owner-a-rainy-morning-and-conrow-on-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-1830 wlsc Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:03:09 +0000 http://ilind.net/?p=2765#comment-1830 "The master lease and the subleases covering the leasehold improvements all expire Dec. 4, 2012. Lum Yip Kee is selling the entire area and the fee will not be available to current owner-occupants for purchase." Sounds like the right of first refusal doesn't exist in this case; I interpret "will not be available" to mean that there's no intention to offer the land to any of the owner-occupants. Could Lum Yip Kee have made this a condition of the sale? Is this legal? I wouldn't be surprised if they're still bitter over the big Date-Laau fight from 25 years ago. “The master lease and the subleases covering the leasehold improvements all expire Dec. 4, 2012. Lum Yip Kee is selling the entire area and the fee will not be available to current owner-occupants for purchase.”

Sounds like the right of first refusal doesn’t exist in this case; I interpret “will not be available” to mean that there’s no intention to offer the land to any of the owner-occupants.

Could Lum Yip Kee have made this a condition of the sale? Is this legal? I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re still bitter over the big Date-Laau fight from 25 years ago.

]]>