Oct 24, 2023·edited Oct 24, 2023Liked by Evan Nicks
It really would be a shame if Lupin didn't remain a naturist resort. Personally, I prefer Laguna del Sol, which is larger, has more amenities (4 swimming pools, including one indoors, modern hotel-style accommodations, lots of camping space, etc.) Of course, it's also closer for me - and welcomes pets accompanying their people (Lupin doesn't).
Lupin's location, just outside Los Gatos, is sort of a problem. The place is literally just 10 or 15 minutes away from some of the priciest real estate anywhere. There are 80-year-old modest 3-bedroom homes listed for over $3,000,000 - especially if they happen to be anywhere near the campuses of Apple, Google, Nvidia, or Meta. (I used to own one such home many years ago when prices were much lower.) Lupin, realistically, is sort of run-down, and will be expensive to renovate - but would make sense with extensive renovation. That would be a very attractive investment being turned into a luxury woodsy (but non-naturist) resort for Silicon Valley multi-millionaires. Not that it should be, but that's just how capitalism works.
For much less than the $32.8M valuation of Lupin as it is - plus renovation expenses - I'm pretty sure some property in adjacent Santa Cruz county could be obtained and developed into a world-class naturist resort, yet still with a rustic appeal. Plus, that would be closer to several nude beaches on the coast and some great redwood forests. I'm not knocking Lupin as it has been, but perhaps a move would be a good idea, and offer naturists a much better experience.
This could be a further blow to naturism. While I am thankful for all that Lori has done to keep it going and to create a vibrant community, it would be devastating if California were to lose yet another resort. . Lupin Lodge is my favorite naturist resort here in the Bay Area, and there is really only one other. Although it is a long drive south for me, it is well worth it as the location is unique and rustic but these days is well maintained and well managed. Let's hope the Lupin members will be able to do something to retain our beloved spot.
I can't recall if a nudist beach or Lupin was actually my first foray into nudism back in the early 2000s. But without doubt, Lupin was the first nudist club that I visited. Each time I am in the Bay Area for my work, weather and schedule permitting, I try to make my way to Lupin for an afternoon of nudity, hiking and relaxing. I always enjoyed my time there and I thank all of the club members and the owners (the Stout's as I now am aware) for providing this wonderful and secluded natural location for naturism.
Not to be critical of Mrs Stout's decision to sell, but perhaps I would question in this case (and other recent cases), that if these owners support the future of naturism in CA, then why can't these properties be sold for a more reasonable price (still allowing them a comfortable retirement) to the club members in a co-op type of sale. Perhaps there is a way to try to solicit funding from some of the national naturism entities or from a public type of fund raising campaign. I believe that the sale of these properties could be covenant land use restricted in such a way as to require the future use of the property to include naturism. I am not a lawyer so I do not fully understand how these restrictions work but I do see them applied to properties here in NJ as they have changed hands (i.e. some of the Atlantic City closed gaming casinos were covenant restricted from being used for gaming in the future and are now just hotels).
As a person that lives in an area (South Jersey) with no landed clubs and no officially nude beaches, it is a shame to see other areas losing these long standing naturist safe locations. It seems our movement is going in the wrong direction at the moment.
It really would be a shame if Lupin didn't remain a naturist resort. Personally, I prefer Laguna del Sol, which is larger, has more amenities (4 swimming pools, including one indoors, modern hotel-style accommodations, lots of camping space, etc.) Of course, it's also closer for me - and welcomes pets accompanying their people (Lupin doesn't).
Lupin's location, just outside Los Gatos, is sort of a problem. The place is literally just 10 or 15 minutes away from some of the priciest real estate anywhere. There are 80-year-old modest 3-bedroom homes listed for over $3,000,000 - especially if they happen to be anywhere near the campuses of Apple, Google, Nvidia, or Meta. (I used to own one such home many years ago when prices were much lower.) Lupin, realistically, is sort of run-down, and will be expensive to renovate - but would make sense with extensive renovation. That would be a very attractive investment being turned into a luxury woodsy (but non-naturist) resort for Silicon Valley multi-millionaires. Not that it should be, but that's just how capitalism works.
For much less than the $32.8M valuation of Lupin as it is - plus renovation expenses - I'm pretty sure some property in adjacent Santa Cruz county could be obtained and developed into a world-class naturist resort, yet still with a rustic appeal. Plus, that would be closer to several nude beaches on the coast and some great redwood forests. I'm not knocking Lupin as it has been, but perhaps a move would be a good idea, and offer naturists a much better experience.
Another nudist resort runs into the reality of running a business in the 21st century. 😮
This could be a further blow to naturism. While I am thankful for all that Lori has done to keep it going and to create a vibrant community, it would be devastating if California were to lose yet another resort. . Lupin Lodge is my favorite naturist resort here in the Bay Area, and there is really only one other. Although it is a long drive south for me, it is well worth it as the location is unique and rustic but these days is well maintained and well managed. Let's hope the Lupin members will be able to do something to retain our beloved spot.
I can't recall if a nudist beach or Lupin was actually my first foray into nudism back in the early 2000s. But without doubt, Lupin was the first nudist club that I visited. Each time I am in the Bay Area for my work, weather and schedule permitting, I try to make my way to Lupin for an afternoon of nudity, hiking and relaxing. I always enjoyed my time there and I thank all of the club members and the owners (the Stout's as I now am aware) for providing this wonderful and secluded natural location for naturism.
Not to be critical of Mrs Stout's decision to sell, but perhaps I would question in this case (and other recent cases), that if these owners support the future of naturism in CA, then why can't these properties be sold for a more reasonable price (still allowing them a comfortable retirement) to the club members in a co-op type of sale. Perhaps there is a way to try to solicit funding from some of the national naturism entities or from a public type of fund raising campaign. I believe that the sale of these properties could be covenant land use restricted in such a way as to require the future use of the property to include naturism. I am not a lawyer so I do not fully understand how these restrictions work but I do see them applied to properties here in NJ as they have changed hands (i.e. some of the Atlantic City closed gaming casinos were covenant restricted from being used for gaming in the future and are now just hotels).
As a person that lives in an area (South Jersey) with no landed clubs and no officially nude beaches, it is a shame to see other areas losing these long standing naturist safe locations. It seems our movement is going in the wrong direction at the moment.