Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators
Bare_Truth wrote:The pending sale of MoNatureMan's 100+ acres as a clothing optional tract would appear to be a plausible sort of trust specifying that the tract must be preserved as a habitat for naturists. It would appear that such a land trust would confer the right to practice a naturst life style to any and all future owners of the land tracts derived therefrom, and that in spite of any objecting textile owners of other tracts of the same land. This would be in the same vein of preserving forests, or wetlands, or farming use, etc. This would apply to all of the land as a single entity, or parts thereof in perpetuity. It would not enforce nudity but it would make it allowed.
MoNatureMan wrote:This idea could work very well in an estate situation. After all, in a case like that you are not really conserned about land value, but perpetuating a lifestyle.
In a regular sale it could be bad. It would lessen the field of buyers and therefor lower the value. Also any restrictions tend to move people away from purchase.
Ramblinman wrote:I love this idea, but with the exception of Arkansas, a property owner does not need state or local government permission to allow nudity on his land, provided that neighbors cannot see nudity from their land. So why do we need a land trust clause that permits what is already every man's right?
You make good points but note that there would be no requirement that neighbors would have to interact with each other only that the terms of the trust not be vioated, Such terms could include subdivision tract size and land uses, and might specify fence sizes or no fences at all that would interfere with movement of wildlife, but once set those restrictions would prevail immutably If more control was deemed necessary then perhaps a combined land trust Plus a neighborhood association layered atop that might be a consideration but also county law would prevail to block antisocial behaviors. The near immutability of the land trust is of course the feature to preserve the basic nature and likely more resistant to change and preservation of original purpose. My understanding (limited as it is) is that land trusts focus on what land use is allowed and protected against diversions to other uses or diversion to uses that interfere with what use the trust is to protect. So for instance the trust might prevent establishment of retail outlets owned by entities with larger than total floor space exceeding (PICK A NUMBER). Maintenance of a limit of what percentage of a tract could be occupied by buildings, etc. etc. The object of the land trust is to maintain the character of the designated tract and its uses. to a limited and unchanging specification of function. There appear to be similarities but differences.Ramblinman wrote:In the latter case, however, residents living in reasonable proximity to a proposed massive multi-resident nudist development (whether merely residential, campground or resort) do indeed deserve some say-so in a development that could affect property values, flood local schools with new kids, jam roads on holidays, etc.
My biggest concern is not a few prudes trying to make nudity on private land illegal.
Rather, it is more likely that swingers, drunks and advocates of a sexually-charged form of nude recreation would take over a resort at some point.
This is not mere conjecture. I have seen family naturist venues decimated by a determined, crude minority of guests until the park doesn't resemble the wholesome community that its founder intended.
Some venues become so dominated by men that women stop attending. In an ideal world, this sort of thing would not happen, but...
I am not up on all the details but I think it is a matter of getting the State government on your side by getting the trust established in the State's Jurisdiction. Indeed some Trusts are international in scope and they have to have recognition in all the countries where they operate. The in's and out's of all this are unfamiliar to most folks (me included). I was hoping for someone here to be more familiar with the matters, hence my plea for "Is there a Lawyer in the House"MoNatureMan wrote:This idea would be easy if we got a developer and local government on our side.
jasenj1 wrote:I suspect one could donate land to one of these Trusts with a stipulation that the land allow naturist use - and then the org might place signs at entry points. Such an arrangement would still have to worry about people being seen from adjoining property.
Ramblinman wrote:jasenj1 wrote:I suspect one could donate land to one of these Trusts with a stipulation that the land allow naturist use - and then the org might place signs at entry points. Such an arrangement would still have to worry about people being seen from adjoining property.
Again, no one needs to ask the government what we should wear when we are unseen on our own private property.
Return to What is nudism / naturism?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest