I have reviewed the lease which I downloaded from the Valley Morning Stars website. Generally with regards to public access I found the lease did not define what the public access constituted and left this largely to and under the control of the contractor. I found this lease does not support statements made by County officials and Mr. Doyle Wells.
Following are excerpts from the lease and my concerns:
Section 1.1 Definitions:
Concern:
Definition of Public Access Tract very vague & ambiguous.
Continued next page.
Section 1.2 Leased Premises and Easement. 
Concern:
Subparagraph (a) Exhibit A not included with download.
Subparagraph (c) This could mean if the developer (tenant) builds say a surfers village on the Public Access Tract that tract would then “be subject to all the terms and conditions of this Lease.” In effect then being under the Tenants control. Following clauses will substantiate this concern.
Subparagraph (e) this gives the Tenant a free hand to do infringe on the Public Access Tract.
Continued next page.
Section 1.3 Use of Additional Areas. & 1.4 Terms and Commencement.
Concerns:
Paragraph 1.3 gives tenant at his discretion ability to restrict or infringe upon Public Access Tract.
Section 1.4 (c) With this clause in the lease giving the Tenant “the absolute right, in its sole discretion to terminate this Lease” “upon the loss of the license granted by the applicable Texas governmental authority to conduct gaming activities on the Leased Premises. Since gambling has not passed in Texas the County would be foolish to proceed with this lease, it is a one sided agreement with the County assuming all of the risk.
Continued next page.
Section V.1. Tenants Obligation.
Concern:
Subparagraph (b) this gives the tenant the discretion to build or not build whatever he pleases based on their “business judgment”
Section VI.1. Use of Leased Premises.
Concerns:
Subparagraph (a) I believe Judge Hinojosa has been reported to say by the VMS that there will be no condos, specific language here regarding condos & timeshares.
Subparagraph (d) Both Doyle Wells & Judge Hinojosa have said the intent was not to restrict or limit public access, specific language here doing exactly that. We have a real credibility issue, cannot believe what these men say.
Continued next page.
Section VI.2. Operation of Business.
Concern:
Subparagraph (d) During the Construction period Tenant has the right to construct & operate gaming facilities on another tract belonging to Landlord. This could mean the Public Access Tract, another clause giving the Tenant the right to infringe on public access.
Continued next page.
Section VII.3. Parking and Relocation of Public Park Facilities.
Concern:
Subparagraph (b): They’ve told us about relocating the RV Park they have not told us about subparagraph (b). Under this clause the developer could relocate the beach access to who knows where, probably a worthless interior sagebrush lot.
Section IX.2. Use of Leased Premises and Public Access Tract.
Concern:
They are giving the tenant the authority to limit public access yet they are not aware of no moratorium or ordinance in effect which would prohibit the use of the Leased Premises or the Public Access Tract in the manner contemplated by this Lease, what about the conditions of the gift deed of the property to the county for public use.
Continued next page.
ARTICLE XVI. EMINENT DOMAIN.
Concern.
Since they are limiting access and giving control of the public access tract to the tenant in the language of this lease under this clause cancel the lease & give the tenant back any money he has paid to the County. This is a possible painless way out of this fools bargain and a way to avoid significant project risk for a poorly planned & to date executed project.
Continued next page
Section XVIII.I. Use.
Concern:
Seems OK out of context but other Sections of the lease gives the tenant authority to build what he wants based on his business judgment, restrict public access & parking, infringe on the public access tract, and gives control over the public access tract to the tenant. Ref Section XXII.1. Landlords Covenant.
Continued next page.
Section XXII.1. Landlord’s Covenant.
Concern:
This section gives the tenant the right to do as he pleases even with regard to the Public Access Tract “without hindrance or interruption by Landlord or any other persons lawfully or equitably claiming by, through or under Landlord, subject, nevertheless, to the terms and conditions of this Lease.” This contradicts what has been stated publicly, reported, and the supposed spirit and intent of this project.
In addition to Public Access concerns given this and the other Sections in this lease outlined here, what has been stated and reported by County Commissioners and the Developer’s representative Mr. Doyle Wells I cannot accept that they are credible and competent to execute a project of this magnitude without incurring significant program risk onto the taxpayers of Cameron County. This lease and project should be cancelled.