I would expect the only people who are really upset by this are those who have "country club" properties, and are about to just become another sub division.. it would be a shame to lose the last stretch of green in the hotel zone, but its not as if it is a public space that will be lost... the course has always been a private commercial piece of land, closed to the non-paying public, so for the everyday person I don't understand what the issue would be in developing it into something else.
We have nimbys in the US too Jim, but then you haven't lived there in a long time. It's sort of like the concept of "let me in and then pull up the ladder"...let me build my house but don't let that new guy build his house. But the fact is that Cancun has almost no park land or publicly protected land. There's little to no respect for natural spaces here. My humble opinion is that it's a crying shame to take the crappy Pok ta Pok golf course and turn it into condos. A golf course is not as good as undisturbed land, but it's better than condos. Oh, and excuse me but isn't Cancun already overbuilt with condos? Aren't there like 15 developers here losing their shirts on the condos they've built that no one is buying? Nothing is going to get Kelly out of jail, he should quit trying to pull Cancun further down the sewer on his way down the drain. (Wow, am I tired or what, it's been a long week...hope I don't sound too much like a b!tch.) I say leave the crummy golf course, at least it's green instead of being a concrete jungle.
Thanks, for the link and the explanation. I have found out over the years that I have missed out on a lot of things by living here in Cancun for so long. TV shows, vocabulary and word evolution and slang like this, some news, etc. But I am catching up slowly with the Simpsons and Law & Order and the rest will come. I agree, Steve, that NIMBY's have always been around I guess. From people who were not in favor of invaders moving into their territory to the tree-huggers, old house preservationists and spotted owl protectors who try to "protect"what doesn't belong to them but belongs to someone or something else. OK, Ok, so owls, old houses and trees belong to all of us--yeh, right! Just try tearing down your neighbour's old house and see where it gets you. (After writing much more on this, I decided not to use up band width and time here and just go blog it so if anyone is interested, I babbled on further on the subject of "Cancun, Golf and NIMBY's" that you can find at www.jimincancun.com/blog
While I have no idea if this is true or not, this is what we've been told about Pok-Ta-Pok: The land that comprises the golf course is government owned, Fonatur (??), and that the Kelley Group merely leased it and had the management rights to the Course. These management rights changed hands sometime this past winter as it was then that some of the Membership aspects (cart prices mostly) changed too. As far back as 1985, I recall that Pok-Ta-Pok has been what in the US would be considered a 'public' course since anyone off the street could play for the fee. The course also has had Memberships and depending on who was running it special tee times and fees for various hotels. I wish there was some way to find out who really owns the land. But, after tying to find out who owned a house that had been empty for over five years for about two years, I know that ownership does not have to be made public if the owner chooses not to have it so. It will be interesting to see how this all pans out. I keep wondering who all is going to buy these places since the existing ones never seem to be fully occupied. ETA: After further research it looks like we were given bum info about ownership of Pok-Ta-Pok and Kelly did own it through a holding company called Hazama Corp Desarrollos. "The Court ordered Kelly to pay $1,000,000 to fund the initial phase of the restitution plan which includes the Receivership fees and to transfer $5.4 million from the sale of Hazama Corp Desarrollos, the owner of Pok ta Pok golf course, to the Receiver within one week of the Receiver's request. This money will not be used to pay the victims, it is to pay the Receivership costs first." http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/209/RipOff0209377.htm Wonder who owns it now.
By chance has anyone seen or heard anything more on what's going on with this possible development? TIA.
Nothing other than everyone involved-the government and the owners-deny that there is any such plan to build there. And we know what those firm denials mean!
This is my understanding of the current situation, Fonatur leased the land to a Japanese sports management group in November,1990 for use as a golf course, the group/corporation was Hazam. A clause in the original agreement purports to state to the effect that no land use can be changed for 30 years. Bancomer is in on the deal as a partial financier. The Japanese Hazam spun off Hazam Tourism Development Corporation SA de CV as a Mexico based company to operate Pok Ta Pok After operating the course for years, Japanese Hazam decides that the golf course is a losing proposition as a money maker and decides to sell its "rights of use" to the course. Kelly, then still well heeled and seeking investment buys the Mexican version of Hazam along with the rights to operate Pok Ta Pok as a golf course et al with the 30 year clause to Fonatur in tow. According to the Chicago Court documents previously mentioned, the now Kelly owned version of Mexico Hazam apparently sells the rights of use to Pok Ta Pok et al for 5.4 million dollars to multiple Mexican based investors involved with petroleum products, gas stations etc. The investors are alleged to be insiders and politically connected. They are also alleged to be seeking removal of the clause protecting Pok Ta Pok as a golf course via restricted land use in the conveyance of the historical documents through various lessees. Highly vague in most reports is who actually owns the land, Fonatur, the Citizens of Cancun through the Fonatur Trust or the various lessees. However it seems apparent that there is some form of restrictive lease or deed to land use for a period of thirty years which would appear to be legally effective until sometime around November, 2020. As an aside, the version of the Kelly Hazam sale price seems low for an 18 Hole (or 300,000 US per hole) "Robert Trent Jones" vintage 1976 course in the heart of arguably Mexico's premier resort city, Cancun, unless the seller and buyer recognized the effects of the land use encumbrance to the value of the land. The land obviously having higher value than the aforementioned 5.4 million should the use change with high density condominiums. Or Kelly, in a U.S. prison, may have been desperate for cash on hand and dumped the property. Then again I could be crazy...
From what I know, your history seems to be correct. Normally when Fonatur sells something to someone it stops being Fonatur property. If the no zoning change clause is there, it is either 1.- valid and survivable or 2.- changeable or 3.- invalid. If the clause is valid and survives the sale, then they have to try to get it changed if possible and we all know everything is possible. The local government has the last word on all zoning changes and building permits. No other government agency can overrule them. The question is if the clause is valid,survivable (effective for the new buyer and that he/they knew it) and unchangeable, then the point is moot and Kelly sold them "gato por liebre". If the local government can legally make a zoning change--usually for a fee-then there will soon be 5 30-story towers in the middle of the hotel zone. There are so many nice new signature golf courses in the area that Pok-ta-Pok seems to outlived its usefulness as a golf course. That is why and how Kelly got it in the first place. He only worked on distressed properties that he could pick up with financing and flip or convert to make money--and he did it quite well for quite a while and made a lot of white elephants money-making concerns and put people to work. Where he got the money to do those things seems to be the bone of contention. Concerning this, I think your last part hit the nail on the head as far as motive for the sale. Kelly can't get out of the Chicago big house until he comes up with the money to pay off what they say he took. I don't think he got what he wanted out of it but probably all it was worth as a golf course. Now the current real estate value--that's another story. I am sure for the price they paid they are willing--with all of their money and political clout they've got-- to wait until things die down and try to do what they want "as time goes by."
