Re: Turtle Lake sold....again! (was Re: Haulover Beach

"Rick & Chris Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >While I'm not necessarily opposed to things like Nudestock, I wonder if
> >those kind of advertise-to-the-public events were necessary to keep the
> >place afloat.
>
> Do you mean Musicfest? If so, it not only draws in money for
> the club (and, as members, we profit from that, obviously)

You mean you get a check (in the amount of your share of the proceeds)?
Or you mean the profits go to the owner(s), who then decide how much, if any,
they will plow back into the club?


> but more
> importantly it allows people who otherwise would never have visited a
> nudist facility to do so--and MANY of them find the lifestyle suits
> them and become part of our growing membership, which benefits
> everyone.

Tell me:  what's the ratio of single males attending that event, vs. single females??
Unless it's equal.....WHICH I DOUBT.....then the event is simply creating
an even greater imbalance for the future.   Perhaps *you* don't mind such an
imbalance, but many nudists, esp. females,  do.


>Besides, it gives us a weekend of particularly good music
> (assuming the bands that play are to your taste, of course) at no cost
> to the members.
>
> >> 160 acres of land with a couple hundred rv sites doesn't sound
> >> like a "big and commercial-like" nudist resort to me, but then I'm not
> >> comparing it to my back yard as you are, so the comparison is a bit
> >> different.
> >
> >I'm not comparing it to my backyard.  I'm comparing it to other private
> >nudist venues.
> >Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but 160 acres is well above average
> >size for private nudist venues....right?
> >
> >A quick web search showed most to be 40, 60, 80 acres....with a few
> >larger than 160.
>
> Some are quite a bit larger, while many are smaller. It
> depends a lot on the area of the country. Here in Michigan, land is
> relatively inexpensive (and was far more so when TLR was founded) so
> it isn't unusual for a property to be fairly large. In Florida, of
> course, a 160 acre club would pay a great deal more for the property
> (actually, a 40 acre club would pay a great deal more for their
> property there than would a 160 acre one here).
>
> Of course, not all the land is in direct use. Some of it
> serves as a privacy barrier between Turtle Lake and the residential
> neighborhoods that border it; some serves as a secluded area for
> nature walks; and some is simply "available" for future expansion.
> Mark, for example, plans to add a 9 hole professionally designed golf
> course to the resort and some of the unused land will be dedicated to
> that purpose (which, btw, won't cost as much as it sounds--the land is
> basically well structured for a golf course now, the designer is a
> member who designs PGA courses professionally but who is doing it for
> very low cost, and the club already has most of the equipment it will
> need to landscape the course). That kind of land availability just
> means that when new needs develop, there is somewhere for them to be
> installed without disrupting the club. It also allows for the open,
> spacious, look that Turtle Lake is famous for.
>
> >Aha...you now admit it.
> >Earlier you said such a place didn't exist.
> >BTW, the "elected officers" wasn't part of our original debate, so
> >why even mention it?
>
> Because it was INTEGRAL to the definition of a non-profit I
> posted (and you obviously didn't read), actually.
>
> And I never denied that a non-profit organization of that
> nature existed--I argued that the kinds of claims you made about most
> clubs being such because they were "membership organizations" were
> inaccurate--and that if a non-profit DID exist it was required to
> adhere to certain laws and standards you claimed didn't apply.

Again, in many/most states, a private membership club (that behaves as such), need not
abide
by civil rights laws.


>
> >> Looks like you were wrong again <so what else is new?>.
> >
> >
> >Let me assure you, we have been to AT LEAST an equivalent number of private
> >nudist venues (plus  6 beaches but no hot springs) in the East, Midwest, South, and
> >Southwest. But *I* won't BOOR everyone with MY list.
>
> Why--afraid they'll laugh at the concept that your neighbor's
> garage is a nudist venue, or that they'll question your judgement in
> the choice of places to visit?


No.  I simply won't engage in a pissing contest. (even though I'd probably win)

>
> YOU are the one who claimed I had no experience with clubs
> other than TLR, remember? Didn't you EXPECT me to provide a list of
> clubs as a result?
>
> >> Why "again," as though it were constantly being resold. Louis
> >> bought it from the original owner and this week the sale (that has
> >> been pending for over a year) to new owners was finally completed.
> >
> >It seems to me that it was sold back around 1991??
> >Then again around 1995 or so???
> >I'm sure I don't have the exact dates, but I think it has been
> >sold now three times in about 13 years or so?  Right??
>
> The original sale converted it to a nudist facility. That
> owner retained ownership of it until it was bought by Louis who held
> it until Mark and a group of investors bought it last week. If you
> don't count the sale the resulted in it BECOMING a nudist resort, that
> means it's been sold twice since it became one--I don't know the
> dates, we joined after Louis already owned it--but I won't argue with
> the ones you cited if you believe them to be correct. To me, that
> record isn't a particularly strange one--particularly since the both
> the first and second owner were seniors and ended up retiring after
> selling their interests in TLR. Mark, on the other hand, is younger
> (in his forties, I believe), and since a corporation now owns it
> rather than an individual or couple, it's pretty likely to remain with
> the current ownership for quite some time.


Hopefully, but that's certainly no guarantee.
If it's a money pit (and I'm not saying it is....I don't know), it won't
matter---unless that same corporation owns a lot of other more
profitable properties.

TL reminds me of another for-profit "resort" in the mid-Atlantic states.
Very, very remote.  But able to serve a particular niche of mainly
couples and singles from the Wash/Balt area.   I suppose it is
profitable...I don't know.  But I seem to recall that one or more
"members" left the place a large sum of money when they died.


>
> >> Does it bother you that a long standing resort might change hands and
> >> be purchased by someone with a great deal of experience as a nudist
> >> (and who was general manager of the club
> >
> >Wait a minute.  Is it a "club" or is it a "resort"??
> >Or is it a for-profit, membership, club-resort public accommodation???
> >(i.e., a naked motel or commercial campground that gives frequent visitor discounts)
>
> It is an LLC. That's a for-profit, limited, corporation. The
> NAME of the facility is Turtle Lake Resort, LLC. The NATURE of the
> facility is a membership club, open to the public, offering resort
> like facilities and amenities including rv sites, rustic camping, and
> a variety of lodging options (all reasonably priced) along with the
> standard nudist facilities already mentioned.
>
> To use your own (inaccurate) typology, it is closest to a
> "for-profit, membership, club-resort" OFFERING "public
> accommodations."

..no,no.  For legal purposes, the place is either a "public accommodation"
or it is not....depending on Mich. and US laws.   It really has nothing
specifically to do with the rental rooms, etc., necessarily.
A privately owned McDonald's is a "public accommodation".
The main question is:

Does it REQUIRE membership?  Does it have defined membership standards?
Or can the public visit on an unlimited basis, without any membership or
AANR/TNS membership, simply by paying a daily fee?

If the answer to either of the first two questions is NO, or the answer to the last
question is YES, then the place is a
public accommodation and must comply with all of the state and
federal anti-discrimination laws.


>
> Do you REALLY like grasping at straws that much or is it just
> a face you like to display to the public? Remember, those who attempt
> to be witty by picking at nits, are self-defining themselves as
> nit-wits.

I am simply trying to get a determination as to whether the place is
legally a "public accommodation" or not.  Ask the new owner(s), or
better yet, their legal counsel.

>
> >> >Very, very interesting.  Hmmmmm.....
> >>
> >> Sounds like you're implying something unethical or dishonest
> >> about the sale.
> >
> >No.  Not at all.
> >It just seems that every new owner of a nudist place located in Bum****, Egypt has
some
> >magic expertise or formula to SAVE the place.
>
> Was that supposed to make the slightest bit of sense or did
> your pet tarantula just walk across your keyboard?

Haven't you ever heard of "Bum****, Egypt"???
(You probably live there!)


>
> >The MEMBERS are gonna be told what their future *will* be.
> >If membership doesn't grant a voice in the the operation/future of the club,
> >and if it doesn't protect the club against the influx of the "general public",
> >then what good is "membership" other than a discount on fees???
>
> Why SHOULD the membership have a voice in the operations? Do
> you have a voice in the operations of a Sam's Club or a Costco?

No.  But such memberships are either marketing ploys, or confer
some kind of tax advantage to the company.  THOSE memberships
certainly would not protect the company against a discrimination suit.
Hell....any hunk of warm flesh with $35/yr can join THOSE places.
And what's the benefit?  Low prices (on huge bulk items, usually).
There's no "expressive association" involved with membership in
those places.


>
> TLR is a for-profit corporation. Contrary to your
> presentation, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a nudist facility
> making a reasonable profit on the investment.

I never said there was.
All I said was that I would never invest a lot in such a place where I
had no vote in how the place was run.

>And clearly the use of
> professional management and sound business practices is a benefit to
> the members--it insures equal treatment to all members (something
> OFTEN lacking at private clubs

Wait a minute.  TL *is* a private club.....at least a privately owned one.
But it sounds to me like it is a membership-optional club.
If so, it is a public accommodation.


>), and protects our investments in our
> rvs or memberships.

Oh, really?
You wouldn't be saying that if you were a member of a particular
privately owned/managed club near here.


>
> >That's why I will never invest any significant money in a lot, home, etc.
> >in a  non-coop venue.
>
> Because you might have to accept the fact that someone will
> make a profit off your membership?

NO.  Because, without a co-op arrangement, I would have
no say in how the club was run, and therefore, if the management decided to
change the way the club was run, it could hurt my investment.


>
> Gee, nudistfamily, where do YOU go shopping?

Not Sam's Club or Costco.


>
> >That's not to say that all for-profit places are bad. Not at all.
> >But I sure wouldn't risk much money at such places.
>
> Great!
>
> Then we won't be likely to see you here!

Not as a so-called "member".  That's for sure.
Exactly what are the advantages of "membership" over
simple "visitorship"?


>
> >> Doesn't exactly sound unethical or dishonest to me--and I
> >> doubt that it does to anyone else, either.
> >
> >WHERE...WHERE...did I say "unethical" or "dishonest"???
>
> You implied it with your response.

Baloney.

>
> >The only thing WRONG, in my opinion, is the place doesn't seem
> >to have long-term stability, in contrast to two clubs we know that
> >have NOT changed hands ONCE in the 15-20 or so years they
> >have existed.  (and they both have extensive facilities)
>
> How nice for them. So what?

Time will tell.

>
> >No, I've shown that YOU are wrong, but thank you for dropping
> >out anyway!  Sheesh, a 20-year nudist forensic psychologist who
> >never heard of Stayner!  Sheesh.  What rock have you been hiding
> >under??
>
> I see you ignored my response on that issue TOO. Convenient to
> make accusations and ignore the responses, isn't it?

Perhaps I missed a part of one of your long rants.
Reprint it and I will reply.