The Town of Lake Lure released a new "Updated Public Response Regarding Second Mountain, LLC" on Monday, August 31 at 1:05 p.m. — its third public statement on this dispute in five days. It repeats the posture of the previous two: the Town says it's committed to resolving the matter while protecting taxpayers. But it adds a specific new claim — that Second Mountain's legal counsel "has not responded" to the Town's settlement offer. We've already published the document that appears to contradict that.

This is a follow-up to our exclusive report on Second Mountain's actual written proposal and our Monday morning update. For every document and on-record statement behind this story, see our running source-document index.

What the Town said Monday afternoon

The statement, in full: "The Town extended an offer to settle both pending lawsuits on the exact terms proposed by Mayor Carol Pritchett and Commissioner Jim Proctor during the August 26, 2026, Town Council Work Session and Action Meeting. To date, Second Mountain's legal counsel has not responded to the settlement offer transmitted by the Town's attorney. While the Town remains committed to resolving this matter, it is also responsible for protecting the interests of its taxpayers. As the Town is defending litigation initiated by Second Mountain LLC, it has made a good-faith effort to resolve both cases through settlement and remains willing to work toward a resolution."

This is worth noting on its own: the language here — "protecting the interests of its taxpayers," "good-faith effort," "remains willing to work toward a resolution" — is close to word-for-word what the Town told WYFF News 4 for the segment that aired that same Monday evening, which we reported on directly. It now looks like that wasn't a statement crafted specifically for WYFF's inquiry — it's this same press release, or language drawn directly from it.

A claim that doesn't square with the timeline

The new claim is that Second Mountain's counsel "has not responded to the settlement offer transmitted by the Town's attorney." We want to be precise about what we can and can't say here.

We can't see private attorney-to-attorney correspondence, and it's possible the Town is describing something narrow and technical — for instance, no formal signed acceptance or counter-signed document specifically responding to the short-form settlement agreement the Town posted August 28. If that's the distinction being drawn, it's a real one, and we're not asserting the Town's statement is false.

But it's a hard claim to square with what we've already reported and documented. Second Mountain's own attorney sent the Town's counsel a full written settlement proposal on August 27 — the document we obtained directly and published, confirmed authentic by Paul Brock. That's attorney-to-attorney correspondence, not a public statement, and it went the other direction: from Second Mountain's side to the Town's. Two days later, Lured Market posted a detailed public statement rejecting the Town's own August 28 offer outright, in the business's own words: "This is not an offer or even a good faith proposal, it is an ultimatum." Whatever else is true, Second Mountain's side has been anything but silent over the past week.

We've asked the Town directly whether Monday's statement is referring to a specific, later communication that in fact went unanswered — something we haven't seen — or whether it's describing the overall posture without accounting for the August 27 proposal. We'll update this piece with any response.

A name that's new here: Mayor Pritchett's terms

The statement also credits the settlement terms to "Mayor Carol Pritchett and Commissioner Jim Proctor" jointly, from the August 26 meeting. We've reported extensively on that meeting, including a full transcript-based account in Before the Public Spoke, the Town Did. What we documented from that meeting was Commissioner Proctor's exchange with Paul Brock — "If Second Mountain stops pursuing the boathouse and they adhere to their lease, that's the solution" — which the Town has cited before, including in its original August 28 statement. We have not previously seen or reported a specific set of settlement terms proposed by Mayor Pritchett herself at that meeting. That doesn't mean it didn't happen — we may simply not have it in what we've reviewed — but it's a specific factual claim we can't yet confirm, and we're asking the Town for whatever record supports it.

Three statements, five days, the same posture

Since Friday, the Town has now put out three public statements on this dispute: the August 28 settlement offer and its accompanying statement, the language it gave WYFF that aired Monday evening, and Monday afternoon's release. All three land on the same core message — the Town is acting in good faith, protecting taxpayers, and open to resolution — without engaging any of the specific reporting that's emerged in between: the incomplete quote in the Town's own August 28 statement, the actual terms Second Mountain proposed in writing, or the rent math behind Commissioner Proctor's public $100,000 figure.

That's a pattern worth naming plainly, and here's our own read of it, clearly labeled as such: repeating the same framing across three statements in less than a week, without addressing a single one of the specific facts that have come out in that window, reads less like an evolving negotiating position and more like message discipline aimed at the public conversation rather than the negotiation itself. We can't see inside anyone's motives, and we're not asserting the Town is negotiating in bad faith — the underlying dispute over rent and the boathouse may be entirely sincere on both sides. But when every public statement restates the same three or four phrases regardless of what's actually been reported, it's fair to ask whether the audience for these statements is Second Mountain's attorney, or everyone else who's watching this story.

What we're not saying

We're not asserting the Town's statement is false — there may be a real distinction between formal legal correspondence and public statements that we can't see from the outside, and we've asked the Town to clarify rather than assume. We're not confirming or denying that Mayor Pritchett proposed specific settlement terms at the August 26 meeting — we simply haven't seen that documented yet. And our read of the pattern across three statements is exactly that — our read, offered plainly as analysis, not a claim about anyone's private intentions.

Sourcing Note

The Town's August 31, 2026, 1:05 p.m. statement was provided to this outlet and quoted in full above. The language it gave WYFF News 4, aired the same evening, was previously reported by this outlet via broadcast transcript. Second Mountain's August 27 written proposal was obtained directly by this outlet and confirmed authentic by Paul Brock, as previously reported. Lured Market's August 29 "ultimatum" characterization is drawn from the business's own public Facebook post. The August 26 meeting account, including Commissioner Proctor's exchange with Paul Brock, is drawn from a transcript of that meeting previously reported in our coverage. We have asked the Town to clarify both the "has not responded" claim and the attribution of settlement terms to Mayor Pritchett, and will update this piece with any response.

Last updated: 2026-09-01