Against my better judgment, I will give you the courtesy you fail to give me, and actually take your comments and questions seriously. My questions are in bold.
You asked if I read your followups with TEPaul, whom you call "The Lurker," although given his sleazy habit of sending unwanted, harassing, and downright creepy emails to me and others, I'd say that "The Stalker" is a more apt description. I've read the comments you posted.
- Unless "the Stalker" was there in 1908, I don't much care about his opinion of whether this particular unidentified founder might have used the term bungalow instead of cabana or bath house.
- Note that in describing these structures, "The Stalker" said: "Members generally are said to own them individually, but in reality the club owns the land and the members basically rent them from the club annually and in some cases even for generations." That is the type of arrangement I believe the Founder is describing.
1. If this is commonplace at other Southampton clubs, then why are you so dismayed at the idea that it might have been considered (but not implemented) at NGLA?
2. What if anything in the article suggests to you that CBM was planning to transfer title on the land for these "small bungalows" to individual founders?
3. How do you reconcile this with the developer's statement that restrictions had been placed on the use of the property?
The Stalker described the following:
Regarding the mention in that article of bungalows with lockers, baths and necessary facilities, that might refer to what was commonly known in those types of clubs as "bath houses" or even "cabanas." Out there in the prominent old clubs on Long Island, also clubs in Palm Beach, the Bahamas etc, etc, they were very common and actually a rather generic design-----they are basically little white huts that are about ten feet wide and maybe twenty feet deep. In the front they generally have an awning off the structure with lounge chairs under it, and behind that a little hut structure that can contain a sitting room, toilets/changing rooms and showers. In clubs like Maidstone, the famous old Beach Club of Southamption, the beach clubs of the Creek Club and Piping Rock, the Bath and Tennis Club in Palm Beach and Delray etc, etc, these little structures sit side by side and can go on for maybe 50 to 75 yards (although at Maidstone's Beach Clubs their configurations and placements are quite different). They are all generally identical and are lined up perfectly perpendicular to the shore line. Members generally are said to own them individually, but in reality the club owns the land and the members basically rent them from the club annually and in some cases even for generations."
4. Is it your position that the founder couldn't possibly be referring to similar structures, whatever called?
Earlier you suggested that CBM's description of the "Bathing Facilities" was just a reference to a shared locker room in the clubhouse. I don't think this is correct. Here is the description in full:
Bathing Facilities. Realizing the importance of having proper bathing facilities immediately, I took the liberty, after consulting with some of the Directors and all of the Founders whom I met, of assuming temporarily the expense of building a bathing pavilion. I guaranteed the payment for this work—four thousand dollars—and freed the club of any liability. Some ten Founders at once stated that they would subscribe $200 each, entitling them to two dressing rooms, one for men and one for women. Following this idea, the plan now suggested is that any Founder or Associate Member desiring a dressing room may have one by subscribing $100, which will entitle him to one room, this to remain his personal property. Should more rooms be taken than are built, others can be erected in the same manner.
He isn't talking about a shared dressing room, he is talking about private dressing rooms which would be the "personal property" of the Founder or Member. And, he is talking about building additional dressing rooms as needed and paid for. The plan shares certain characteristics with the founder's description. Private dressing rooms, owned (as personal property, not real property) by the members.
5. You've mocked and ridiculed me for suggesting that NGLA would allocate private dressing rooms to members willing to pay for such things. Are you going to likewise mock and ridicule CBM for doing the same thing? Does it really make a difference whether the rooms were separate structures?