Seeking a win-win in Sea Pines is not ‘negative’

More than 10 years ago, The Riverstone Group purchased Sea Pines Resort. They knew then that they would have to pour significant money into the place to attract business. They have done that.

They also knew that for future development they would need to seek at least three covenant changes — additional rooms, tee times, and changes to Lawton Stables. Those items are the key to their future success and worth millions to them. They have now come to property owners to seek those changes.

Many property owners believe that offer on the table is insufficient. Those of us who feel this way are often labeled as “negative.” Actually, the opposite is true. It is in our best interests for the resort to succeed. But this is fundamentally a business negotiation, and I fail to see where seeking a “win-win” is negative.

Many of us are also identified as a “vocal minority.” And yet the smallest of minorities (about 34 Plan III golfing members) were able to get the resort to drop the tee time covenant change request. Why is it wrong for other vocal minorities (for example, those folks who wish to eliminate the right of repurchase or to retain Lawton Stables, to name just two) to step up and demand the very same treatment?

In seeking further development, Riverstone has presented property owners with an opportunity to also make the covenant changes we need to move forward. That seems pretty positive to me.

This story was originally published July 13, 2017 at 10:08 PM with the headline "Seeking a win-win in Sea Pines is not ‘negative’."