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

"Rick & Chris Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Thus spake "nudistfamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
>
> >> Nudistfamily, you seem fixated on paying the members. Members
> >> are the CUSTOMERS of the resort, not the owners.
> >
> >YOUR "resort" maybe.
> >But members ARE the owners of many clubs.  Coop clubs.
>
> Some members here are owners too, so what?
>
> It does NOT obviate the necessity to adhere to the legal
> requirements that address discrimination and other issues.
>
> >>Do you receive
> >> dividends from the motels you stay at? From Disneyland? From the
> >> stores where you shop? Then why should a member of a resort receive a
> >> dividend.
> >
> >I'm not talking about "resorts".  I'm talking about (landed) clubs.
>
> The difference between a nudist "resort" and a nudist "club"
> is one of semantics. As a general rule, it is assumed that a nudist
> resort has more, and more modern, facilities than a nudist club, but
> that is only a generality not a hard and fast rule.
>
> Example:
>
> Turtle Lake Resort IS a nudist (clothing optional, actually)
> resort. It has two pools (one indoors and heated), a heated and air
> conditioned club house, exercise facilities, lake access, restaurant,
> overnight accommodations, rv and camping sites, hot tub, etc.

Pine Tree Associates, near DC, has all of that, except for the lake and
maybe the exercise room.  But they are one of those places that have
strict membership requirements (last I checked), including limits on the
number of visits of prospective members.  I think they are still a private
(nonprofit?) membership club.  But I haven't heard them called a "resort".
You are correct---it is a matter of semantics.


>
> Cherry Lane Nudist Resort IS a nudist (clothing optional,
> actually) resort. It has an unheated outdoor pool, an unheated and not
> air conditioned clubhouse, rv and camping sites.
>
> Most people would view Turtle Lake as a Resort while most
> would view Cherry Lane as a Club. But from a legal standpoint BOTH are
> Resorts, since that is the identity under which they do business.

Well, again, just because it CALLS itself a resort, doesn't mean that it
would NECESSARILY be a "resort" for legal purposes, unless it meets
the criteria for "resort" as defined in whatever law you are referring to.
I'm not sure what law we are talking about here.

>
> >> Of course not, we're customers.
> >
> >Don't say, "of course not".
> >That may apply to YOUR venue, but far from all nudist venues.
>
> True.
>
> A small, member owned, club where no one other than members is
> permitted and where instead of "dues" members pay assessments based on
> their share of the annual operating expenses (and where members OWN
> equal shares of the club) differs from that model.

I'm not sure it has to be that specific, but it might vary with state laws.
And remember, nothing says that a coop club has to be "small".
Pine Tree, AFAIK, has hundreds of members.......not sure exactly how many.

>
> There are VERY few facilities that meet THAT model, however,
> nearly all charge a flat "dues" to the members, few members have
> actual ownership in a share of the club (which, of course, would mean
> that if they left the club they could sell that share to someone
> else),

or sell it back to the club itself, or perhaps (but I don't know), forfeit
their ownership if they violate rules, etc.


>and nearly all clubs allow non-members to use the facilities.

True, but the ones that are really strict allow only "prospective members",
and limit the visits.

Others require  AANR/TNS membership to visit.

Still others don't require ANY affiliation or membership, and don't limit visits.

That last category is quite clearly a "public accommodation".
The middle category may or may not be.
The first category is probably NOT a public accommodation, depending on
how they word their "purpose" and what their standards are.



>
> >> TLR is owned by a group of investors (as I stated), among whom
> >> is Mark Hammond who is also the general manager of the resort. To my
> >> understanding (and it could be wrong since it came from other members,
> >> albeit long time ones, not from the resort itself) the sale was in the
> >> multimillion dollar range. That is hardly the size of sale usually
> >> handled by "one or two owners."
> >
> >Not if there is a big mortgage.
>
> Really?
>
> Can YOU obtain a multimillion dollar mortgage on your personal
> credit?

Depends on the market value of the land or other assets used as collateral, compared
to the amount of the mortgage, right?

No, *I* could not get such a mortgage, but then *I* would probably not ATTEMPT
to get such a mortgage.  (I hate to owe money, anyway.)

>
> >>We pay a fixed price (our membership fees) for
> >> unlimited access to the facilities of the resort and we pay a fixed
> >> price (ranging from $800 to $1,600 per year depending on location and
> >> hookups) for our rv lots. We didn't pay a part of the cost of building
> >> the resort. We didn't pay a part of the cost of buying the land. And
> >> we don't invest substantial sums into purchasing a share of the
> >> corporation itself. The investors are the ones who provided the money
> >> to buy and operate the resort--they, not the members, are the ones who
> >> have a right to a profit and to make the business decisions that
> >> influence their investments.
> >
> >But that's different from the many coop clubs.
>
> So what?
>
> The coop clubs are STILL obligated to obey the same laws,
> which happens to be the subject of this thread, remember?

Yes, but the topic *here* was profits.

>
> A coop, by definition, is owned jointly by ALL members. Each
> has the legal right to sell his or her share of the club, and a person
> joining a coop as a member CANNOT be charged more than his or her
> share is worth on the open market (plus a reasonable initiation fee
> and an equal share of the projected operating expenses for the
> forthcoming year). That is, if there are 200 members and the appraised
> value of the club and its facilities is $80,000.00, each member owns a
> share valued at $400.00. Once having purchased that share, he or she
> can be assessed only an annual "maintenance" fee equal to 1/200 the
> cost of operations. If, for example, the cost of operations is
> projected to be $4,000.00 for the year, each member can only be
> charged $20. If the club generates any income (i.e., if it, for
> example, hosts a nudist convention and charges visitors for access)
> that money must either be invested in the club, held in the bank to
> increase the member's assets,

>or distributed to the members.

Not if it is a nonprofit organization. (or perhaps a "not-for-profit" organization,
I can't recall the legal distinction there....perhaps I will look that up).

 Of
> course, since ownership is vested in the members legally, by
> definition it CANNOT incorporate as a non-profit, but MUST exist as a
> for-profit business legally, and thus will be subject to legal
> limitations including all discrimination laws.

You are saying that a coop club can not be a nonprofit (or "not-for-profit") club???
What law is THAT based on??


>
>
> Now show me some clubs that follow THAT model!
>
> >> I doubt you would ask such questions about other business
> >> operations--why do you insist that a nudist club or resort should be
> >> any different than any other business?
> >
> >Because many successful long-standing nudist clubs are indeed coop clubs.
>
> See above.
>
> >To many nudists, nudism is more than mere recreation.
> >It's a philosophy, a political statement, or more.
>
> To many SWINGERS, SWINGING is more than mere recreation. It's
> a philosophy, a political statement, or more, too. So what?

"So what?"
Here's what:
Swingers can form a private membership club and avoid non-discrimination laws,
IF they do their bylaws correctly, and if they ACT like such a club.


>Simply
> because an individual chooses to view nudism as something it is not
> defined legally as being does NOT change the definition. If you were
> to take a scientific poll of nudists in the United States you would
> find that most nudists define nudism as either a form of recreation or
> as a social lifestyle. Only a very small percentage of nudists would
> view nudism as a political statement and even fewer would regard it as
> a philosophy.

Hey....a Federal Appeal Court has already said that nudism is a political statement.
That's a pretty strong precedent, regardless of whether you or I agree with it.


>
> You are free to define it as you choose--however that
> definition is not legally binding on anyone, including the government.

If it is SINCERE, it IS binding for the purpose of expressive association.
READ the Boy Scouts decision.


>
> >> Nudistfamily (btw, why not share your first name with
> >> us--obviously you are the only one in your household who is
> >> participating in this news group, it would be a lot easier for
> >> everyone to address you by name than by an email alias; most of us who
> >> participate regularly DO use our names, as I'm sure you've noticed),
> >
> >Just call me NF.
>
> You really DO want to "segregate" yourself from other nudists,
> don't you? I think it's a pretty safe bet that "NF" isn't the nickname
> your family and friends know you by (as "Chief," or "Red" may be for
> some individuals who are better known by a nickname than by their
> given names), thus you make it clear that you don't want to be
> associated with the rest of us in any real way.
>
> That, of course, is your choice.

I have used NF for the past 7-8 yrs, primarily to preserve the
privacy of my kids, so they wouldn't be harassed.  Some of the posters here
either know me personally (Cheef, particularly.....even though he IS a Xian!),
or via private emails over the years.

A very good Googler could probably find my name.  It has been accidentally
posted in the past.

>
> >> why are you so fixated on the word "membership?" There are any number
> >> of membership organizations in which membership does not mean that the
> >> individual has the right to vote or any ownership in the operation.
> >> The examples I've used before, Sam's Club and Costco, are two such
> >> organizations. So are such businesses as the Good Sam Club, Escapees
> >> RV Club, Resorts USA, and many other similar for-profit concerns.
> >
> >That's ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.  And THOSE places are INDEED
> >"public accommodations", NOT private membership clubs (despite
> >the word "club" in their names).
>
> And the same holds true of nudist clubs.

Absolutely....depending on the way they structure their bylaws, membership
standards, visitation rules, advertising, etc.,etc.  SOME would indeed be
legally a private membership club.  Many would NOT, even though they
claim they are. (although we can't get any to post here claiming they are or they
aren't!)

>
> >> By definition, non-profit clubs do NOT make "profits." If
> >> their income exceeds their expenses,
> >
> >
> >First you say they don't make "profits".  Then you talk about their income exceeding
> >expenses.
> >Look at this definition:
> >
> >Main Entry: 1prof·it
> >Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin profectus advance, profit,
> >from proficere
> >Date: 14th century
> >2 : the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of
transactions;
> >especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost
>
> Now use a legal or business dictionary. Or did you think this
> was still the 14th Century?
>
> >>they MUST either invest that
> >> surplus
> >
> >which, for all intents and purposes is indeed a "profit"
>
> No, NF, a profit is a form of "earnings" not a surplus.
>
> >> Nearly all clubs and resorts are for-profit concerns.
> >
> >ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.
>
> Prove it. You keep claiming this is not the case--but you are
> totally unable and unwilling to prove your point.

I have posted some of the ones that claim to be nonprofits.
I take their word for it that they have registered as nonprofits.
If they are NOT, then they are committing fraud.
If you can prove fraud, report them to the Attorney General
of their states.

>
> Peter Riden of the Grand Barn is a complex person. In his
> normal, "Peter," personality he is a liberal business man who supports
> nudism and freedom of choice; but thanks to being abused by a motor
> cycle gang made up of beautiful naked fundamentalist Christian amazons
> and gay pit bulls as a young man he developed a second personality
> that hates all forms of nudity, is prejudiced against everyone but
> amazons and pit bulls, and wants to discourage anyone from the "sin"
> of nudism.
>
> Since you insist that your statements should be accepted
> without a shred of proof, obviously mine should be as well. Thus, the
> definition above is an accurate one of you, right?

Peter Riden is in Canada.
I will let Canadians deal with Peter.
We have enough issues here in the USA to deal with.
I leave my hands off of Peter. (no pun!)
Don't even TALK to me about Peter.  Until I visit his place,
you won't hear me criticizing it nor praising it.


>
> No wonder you don't want to use your real name here!
>
> >> While
> >> some may be coops, they are relatively rare
> >
> >BALONEY.
> >What does "relatively rare" mean?
>
> It means they are very uncommon and/or unusual. I assumed you
> would understand the meaning of the words--they're pretty simple ones.
>
> And I STILL prefer ham, thank you, bologna has too much fat in
> it for me.

Not vegetarian bologna!

>
> >> and in nearly all cases
> >> (there may be exceptions) are smaller, less fully featured, clubs
> >> where costs are very minimal and a relatively small investment was
> >> needed.
> >
> >They vary.  Some are very basic.  Some have extensive facilities.
> >But I'm not sure if any have a nightclub and alcohol sales!
>
> Most clubs (coop or not) don't. The ones that do are usually
> high-end resorts where the cost of an alcoholic beverage license (and
> of insuring compliance with all liquor control laws) isn't a major
> factor (i.e., Paradise Lakes, Caliente, Live Oak Resort, etc.).
>
> >> A resort such as TLR--or MOST modern clubs/resorts requires a
> >> substantial investment--there is no reason on earth anyone should make
> >> such an investment if he or she doesn't have reason to expect to make
> >> a profit from it. That's just sound business.
> >
> >And (sheesh, what does it take to get this through your hard head?) I have been
saying,
> >and my postings of the various NONPROFIT coop clubs have proven, that there
> >are MANY nudists who don't want or care about having a huge RESORT!!!!!!!!
>
> You have proven exactly NOTHING. You have posted the urls of
> clubs that are coop--that is NOT synonymous with non-profit.

Correct, but how many of those coops I have posted do NOT have the word "nonprofit" in
their
description?

>
> And even if a club IS non-profit it does NOT exempt it from
> legal regulation (including anti-discrimination laws) as you keep
> insisting with absolutely no proof to back your absurd claim.

That's correct. They must be a PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP club too.
(even if they have to be nonprofit....which probably varies with state law)

>
> >Especially if they have to travel a long distance to get there.
> >All they want is a pool, a clubhouse, a sunning area, and a clean place to shit.
>
> No, NF, that's all YOU want. Most nudists want more from a
> club than that. Don't believe it? Ask them.

I would bet that *most* nudist FAMILIES would prefer a convenient, basic, clean
club, to an INCONVENIENT fancy club!  It's the DINKs that have the time and
money to travel to fancy distant clubs.

Most nudist families have commitments related to their kids' schools, textile friends,
sports, etc. that keep them closer to home than DINKs.  They would LOVE to
have a simple club 30 minutes away, rather than a fancy one 3 hours away.


>
> >> Of course they can sell it to whomever they please. So can the
> >> owners of nearly every club/resort in the U.S., including Cypress
> >> Cove, PL, Glen Eden, Lupin Naturist Resort, Lake Como, and all of the
> >> other top clubs and resorts commonly recommended here.
> >
> >BTW, here's how your Lupin describes itself:
> >
> >" A Private Club  ---Although a destination resort for many, Lupin is structured as 
> >a
> >private club to limit public access and maintain comfortable standards of behavior.
> >After an introductory visit, continuing access to the grounds requires membership,
> >affiliation or eligibility as a Preferred Guest."
> >
> >Surprised??
>
> Not at all. They don't claim not to be governed by legal
> regulations, they claim that to continue to attend you must become a
> member. So what? You can go to Sam's Club and get a temporary
> shopper's card--but to continue to use the facilities of the club
> (liquor sales excepted in some states due to the legal requirements
> imposed by law) you MUST be a member.
>
> Lupin does NOT claim not to be a commercial enterprise anymore
> than Sam's Club does--it claims the right to require membership of
> anyone who wants to make regular use of the facilities---a very
> different thing.
>
> >(I'm not saying that Lupin is a non-profit place, nor that members have any 
> >ownership
> >rights.)
>
> But that's what you've been claiming membership was all about.
> Make up your mind.

No I'm not.  You are the one who is pooh-poohing my claim
that there are PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP CLUBS that ACT like
PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP CLUBS for the purpose of (to use Lupin's
term) "to limit public access".   I have shown you to be wrong, and
I'm tired of going around and around in circles on this.

If you are saying that Lupin is not a PRIVATE (restricted 
entry---membership/affiliation
required) CLUB,
then I suggest you take them to court for false representation, because
they CLAIM that they ARE.


>
> >> Any elementary Business text will teach you about the Pareto
> >> Principle. This is an elementary concept which demonstrates that 80%
> >> of all income generated by a firm will come from the top 20% of the
> >> firm's customers--
> >
> >But this doesn't apply to the many coop clubs.
>
> Prove it.

No, you prove it.  You made the 80/20 claim:  prove that it applies at
coop clubs.  If not, state that coop clubs are an exception, or probably
an exception.

At a coop club (well an idealized coop club), each member would have
equal ownership, fairly equal dues/assessments, fairly equal lot rental fees, etc.
What else is there to spend on?  Food and liquor?

If you are talking about income from liquor, well, that's probably true:
A few drunks spend a disproportionate amount of the total money spent on liquor.
But I'm not talking about liquor clubs.
I'm talking about the typical coop club.

>
> >>and that as a result it is essential to the firm's
> >> success that it meet the needs of those customers to the maximum
> >> possible extent so they won't elect to patronize another firm instead.
> >> In the case of a nudist club or resort, that 20% represents the
> >> members. Some clubs have graduated levels of membership, from
> >> "contributing" members to "full members." Such clubs provide greater
> >> benefits to the "full members" than to those at lower (and less
> >> costly) membership levels--and it is the full members who represent
> >> the 20%. Other clubs, such as TLR, provide only one class of
> >> membership (although for varying periods of the year, depending on the
> >> needs of the individuals involved) and rely on the membership as a
> >> whole (particularly those of us who are year-around members) to
> >> fulfill that 20% role. Do you seriously think that any future buyer of
> >> the club would have become financially successful enough to spend the
> >> kind of money necessary to purchase a club such as TLR--or any other
> >> modern nudist facility--without having learned that it is essential to
> >> satisfy your current customers before concerning yourself with
> >> developing new customers?
> >
> >Ah, but you just said that it probably required many people to purchase the club.
> >In that case, each of the purchasers need not be very financially successful.
>
> I didn't say "many," I said "several."

This is getting absurd.
Without specifics (number of owners, purchase price of the club, etc., etc.) this
argument is SILLY.

>And your definition of
> "financially successful" must differ substantially from mine if you
> think that a person who is a member of a small group of investors
> (let's say less than 10 or so, which is a pretty safe bet for TLRs
> investors) can afford to invest a six-figure amount if they are not
> "financially successful." Can you afford to do so? If so, stop
> complaining about clubs that don't meet your standards and create one
> that does--for a six-figure investment that should be no problem at
> all.

Actually, I *am* interested in investing in (not for "profit", but just
to secure a nice clean simple club) a new local club, along with a few
other persons of similar standards.  Due to family commitments, I
can't take on the whole task myself, but I have told others that, jointly, we
should spend the winter looking for the appropriate site.

>
> >> From a member's perspective, the fact that a club/resort IS
> >> owned by a corporation means stability. Any of the investors could
> >> decide he or she no longer wanted to retain a share in TLR and sell
> >> his or her share without any influence on the club itself, since they
> >> would simply be replaced by another investor with equal interest in
> >> the success of the concern. Unlike a "Mom & Pop" type ownership, which
> >> bases its decisions as much on personal feelings as on sound business
> >> principles (often to the detriment of the members), a corporation
> >> tends to operate by sound business guidelines and to provide stability
> >> and dependability to its customers.
> >
> >Maybe you've never heard of Enron, Worldcom, or Tyco???
>
> Or Microsoft, IBM, Disney, MacDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc.
>
> The firms you name ALL committed criminal acts--that is NOT a
> "normal operation" for a corporation, and thus has nothing to do with
> the subject.
>
> >And privately held companies like Mars Candy, or S.C. Johnson (I think it's still
> >privately held) aren't STABLE or DEPENDABLE????
>
> Both are corporations held by a limited number of investors
> (in the Johnson case, they are for the most part related to the
> founder). NEITHER is a sole proprietorship or a partnership, the other
> forms of a for-profit business.
>
> Corporate structure doesn't depend on the number of investors,
> it depends on the legal status of the firm--and there ARE no large
> firms in the U.S. that are not corporations.

And that's probably true due to the liability protections offered
by incorporation.


>
> >Your generalizations are ridiculous.
>
> Then why do they keep proving to be accurate while yours
> demonstrate a lack of knowledge of business and law?
>
> >> 1. Serving alcohol. So what? Drinking is permitted on the
> >> grounds now--as it is at virtually every nudist club in the U.S. What
> >> difference would it make if the resort supplied the alcoholic
> >> beverages? If anything, being licensed to serve alcohol would allow
> >> the club to better monitor the inebriation of members and to enforce
> >> the rules concerning intoxicated behavior. And it would profit them to
> >> do so since the alternative would alienate the majority of the members
> >> and cost them income in the long run.
> >
> >The worst alcohol situation I ever encountered was at a place
> >where the CLUB sold the alcohol.
>
> That's one experience. Others may find the opposite to be
> true.

Oh, I'm sure that DINKs love the alcohol places.
I'm sure that nudist families with alcoholic parents LOVE the alcohol places.

>
> >At least at other places the alcohol tends to stay (primarily) at the
> >members' lots.
>
> Nonsense. At every club I know drinking is common in the
> clubhouse, at outdoor functions, and usually around the pool or lake.

Depends on the club.

>
> >When the club sells it, alcoholic behavior permeates the common areas too.
>
> It does when they don't as well. Open your eyes, NF, the world
> doesn't work the way you claim it to. If anything, a club which sells
> alcoholic beverages is BETTER able to control where they are
> consumed--for example, they can require that beverages not be removed
> from the nightclub or bar area.

A club *can* require lots of stuff.
But does LAW require customers not to remove the beverages?
Is that a state law?
And if so, which state(s)?
A club *can* require all alcohol to stay on leased lots, and away from common areas.
They CAN require that.  Most don't because so many of the members are
alcoholics.

>
> >> 3. Driving away traditional family nudists. On the contrary,
> >> this, in common with the other two items, would be a very poor
> >> business decision. Family nudists represent the largest single market
> >> for nude recreation.
> >
> >"Family nudists" meaning "parents with children"?????
>
> Meaning families.

Let's NOT get into THAT!
Do a google to find many previous threads on the definitions (for social, legal,
commercial purposes)
of "family".

>
> >THEY are the largest market????  I wish!!!
>
> Ask the AANR.

>
> There are more singles than families at PUBLIC nudist
> facilities (free beaches, etc.). There are more families than singles
> at clubs and resorts.

There are more COUPLES(married or otherwise) than singles at clubs and resorts.
There are far fewer FAMILIES than COUPLES at most clubs/resorts.

>
> >Oh, yeah.  Most nudist clubs are just SWARMING......SWARMING with young families.
> >You'll hardly EVER find OLD retired people at nudist clubs!!!!  It's SOOOOOOO
rare!!!!
> >Hahahahahahahhahahaha.  Hahahahhahahahhahahhaha.
>
> You mean that I'm no longer a family nudist because my son is
> now a senior in college and no longer lives with me?

If he doesn't attend the club with you on a particular day,
then, for census purposes, you are a single or couple THAT DAY, NOT a family, by the
commonly understood
meaning of "family" as used at private/public accommodations like restaurants,
hotels, etc.

>
> You mean that the neighbors across the street from my rv
> aren't a family because their three children and eight grandchildren
> are independent of them?

They aren't a family at a club if they don't bring any kids with them when they
go to the club.  For statistical purposes they are OR SHOULD BE counted
as a single or couple.

>
> I see that in addition to sexism you believe in ageism as
> well.

Has nothing to do with age.   I never said "young children".
I said "children".
I *did* earlier say "young parents" because, if you don't get young parents (who
would obviously be more likely to have young kids) into nudism, it is highly unlikely
that you are going to be
able to convert older kids into nudists....at least not until they are beyond the teen
years.
So, if it's just "older parents" with older "kids", it's not gonna significantly
contribute to a "family" (i.e. child-friendly)
atmosphere that clubs claim they want to maintain.

> You really are a piece of work NF.
>
> >The largest markets for "nude recreation" are middle-aged and retired couples
> >with no kids, and single males!!
>
> Middle-aged and retired couples are STILL families, NF. You
> sound more fixated on children than JonZee.

Okay.  Do a google.  End of debate.

>
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . .
>
> >A major cultural change would be required before families (i.e., with kids) become
> >the largest market for nudist clubs.
>
> Sure.

I've had it with you.
Enough.
You are an ***hole, and I'm not gonna waste one more second with you.
I hope I am better at keeping my word than I was a few days ago.