Elsewhere in this group, several questions were asked about what ETG and their OPP (Other Project Participants) are allowed or not allowed to do with or on property leased from Waab land owners. These questions warrant their own thread... As I have not heard otherwise, I assume that the Wa’ab land owners are required (by ETG) to agree with their publicized “Land Lease Agreement” form. Since Facebook lacks certain typographical facilities, in the quotes below I have added UPPER CASE here and there, for emphasis. (Get your copy of an annotated and highlighted version of the ETG “Land Lease Agreement” here: goo.gl/h8f1SR. (it comes together with an excellent legal analysis, made by a Wa’ab lawyer)). Make no mistake: ETG has made sure, in both the “Cooperative Investment Agreement” and in the “Land Lease Agreement,” that they commit to (promise) NOTHING... except a new public park! They have NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER to worry about. Below are the first three articles of the ETG “Land Lease Agreement”… Read it and weep! Article I.1.1 defines WHAT is to be considered “leased property”: “[...] Said property includes EXCLUSIVE USE OF ALL LAND situated within the Leased Property, ANY EXISTING BUILDINGS, FACILITIES OR FIXTURES OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER, whether permanent or temporary, and includes all trees, plant life and food crops.” Anything whatsoever… No specifics listed. This means that if ETGs business interests necessitates the destruction of coconut trees, betel nut trees, banana-, papaya-, and mango trees, taro patches, stone paths, estate foundations, cemeteries, and what have you, then SO BE IT! IT IS WITHIN THEIR LEGAL RIGHT! Did I hear someone say “protecting traditions and culture”? Article I.1.2 defines HOW ETG may use the leased property: “Permitted use of the Leased Property by the Lessee hereunder shall be FOR ANY BUSINESS PURPOSE WHICH IS PERMITTED OR ALLOWED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF YAP AND THE LAWS OF THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA, AND ANY OTHER RELATED LEGITIMATE ACTIVITIES. For the avoidance of ambiguity, THE LESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO REMOVE ANY AND ALL BUILDINGS, FIXTURES OR OTHER FACILITIES; to alter the Leased Property in any way; TO REMOVE AND/OR REPLACE SOIL, ROCK AND PLANT LIFE OF ALL KINDS INCLUDING FOOD PLANTS; to fill the land at Lessee’s sole discretion; and to CONDUCT ANY CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION of the Leased Property IN ANY WAY WITHOUT LIMITATION AND WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF LESSOR.” Pretty interesting, and somewhat scary wording… One would expect the land usage to be somehow linked to the FIP and Yap State Business License, but no: This says that ETG (and their appointed OPP!) may do whatever they like with/on the property, REGARDLESS of any FIP/YSBP restrictions that may apply. Again, this “Lease Agreement” gives ETG (and their OPPs) a COMPLETELY FREE HAND to do whatever they want on or to this property. Including bulldozing it flat and covering the whole property with asphalt… Or, for that matter — drilling for oil, or digging a mine shaft. Next section (I.1.3) defines ETG/OPP “operating rights”: “The Lessee is entitled to make CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS TO THE LEASED PROPERTY FOR THE OPERATION OF ITS BUSINESS AT LESSEE’S SOLE DISCRETION AND WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF LESSOR. The ownership of all the buildings, fixtures, facilities and equipment built or constructed by the Lessee on the Leased Property (the “Assets”) for the purpose of such changes or alterations belong to the Lessee or any third party approved by the Lessee. The Lessor shall not own, control or dispose of the Assets. The Lessee or any third party approved by the Lessee is ENTITLED TO TRANSFER, ASSIGN, SUBLEASE, MORTGAGE, PLEDGE OR OTHERWISE ENCUMBER ALL OR PART OF THE ASSETS, WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT FROM THE LESSOR.” In sections 1.2 and 1.3 quoted above, the idea that the land owner has no say whatsoever over what happens to his/her land is repeated three times! It also gives ETG the right to sublease the property to whomever — entities about which today NOTHING is known — with no need to consult the land owner. Personally, I would be thinking twice, or more before entering this kind of “lease agreement” with anyone. But hey — that’s me!
Posted on: Thu, 15 May 2014 06:20:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015