(Lake Martin Specific)
111,143 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,605 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,169 messages
Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
Catherine
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
New development from Russell Lands?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2012 9:06:32 PM
|
Several of my friends who have rented cabins from Russell for 30, 40 and even 50+ years have all received "get out" letters within the past couple of months. At first, it was only those in the Ware's Slough area (where the new "Russell Cabins at the Ridge" are going), but now many all along the East side of the lake have received their letters as well.
Does Russell have a new development planned for the Cocktail Slough area as well? Follow the path of the tornado and you'll find the areas where renters are apparently being told to start packing.
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
All the way to Jacks Hollow?
|
|
Date:
|
4/18/2012 7:39:12 AM
|
So all of the rental cabins from Dixie Sailing Club to Jacks Hollow have been told to start packing? (I assume they all have, as I've been contacted by several friends in that stretch and they have all received a letter). Why not just take it all the way to the bridge? That is a HUGE development, and if I'm not mistaken, was initially proposed as future phases of the Ridge. Why are they apparently kicking them out all at once instead of in phases as was initially proposed? Have plans changed with regard to the Ridge? JohnC? Have you heard anything? Anyone else?
|
| Name: |
John C
-
|
|
| Subject: |
2 different things
|
|
Date:
|
4/18/2012 10:42:04 AM
|
Please take the below with appropriate doubt in my knowledge because I don't work there, and the strategy at Russell Lands could change any day, but:
From what I understand these are 2 different efforts. Dixie Sailboat Club and its related renters are all in Phase 3 / 4 of the Ridge. They were told to get out a few years ago but after sales slowed down they stayed the order and told them they could hang around a few more years. This per the letter posted on Dixie's website.
"The Cabins" - there are 2 similar concepts, one of them is off of Nicholson Road and on Nichols Cove. You get there by taking the dirt roads to the east of highway 63. They are new homes, deeded, and are Russell Cabinesque in their lot type, but new homes with a Bobby McAlpine feel. Extremely nice, and if I had 900k, I would be sorely tempted. I have helped a buyer or two do research on them and came away impressed.
The other cabins thing is off of (I think it's called) Robinson Road inside the Ridge. Same deal as Nichols Cove above but you have access to the amenities of the Ridge but also the HOA fees.
Like I said, this is just my understanding as an independent agent, someone from Russell Lands can please correct me / clear me up where I am wrong.
|
| Name: |
Witt E
-
|
|
| Subject: |
2 different things
|
|
Date:
|
4/18/2012 11:29:53 AM
|
That sumarizes what I read in the newsletter article released from Russell Lands about rediscovering cabins. The thing that seems unusual is that the homes are in the $900,000 range and on dirt roads. It says it was approved by Elmore County as an "experimental" neighborhood so they could keep the dirt roads. I guess they are still "experimenting" on the second development you mentioned on Robinson Road.
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Thank you John C!
|
|
Date:
|
4/18/2012 2:35:00 PM
|
This explains the eviction notices sent out in the past week or two that affected so many of my friends well North of the Ridge. We knew the folks in Wares Slough were being evicted to make room for the Cabins in the Ridge (they got letters a couple of months ago), but none of us were aware of the expanse of the development of new cabins from Nichols Cove down past Cocktail Slough. That is a LOT of cabins to be torn down and rebuilt! I would assume they are going to do it relatively quickly by the fact that they are evicting them all at once, and all rather quickly? And do you recall if this area (Cocktail Slough up past Jack's Cove) was initially part of future phases of the Ridge? I seem to remember that, and I wonder what made them change their mind in parceling it out? Slow sales at the Ridge, or were the HOA fees turning some people away? Are you aware of any developments within that area, or will they all be individually deeded lots and/or cabins?
|
| Name: |
Lifer
-
|
|
| Subject: |
New development from Russell Lands?
|
|
Date:
|
4/18/2012 6:06:20 PM
|
Cathrine, I have no beef with you and am certainly not a Russell fan, but your animosity toward all things Russell appears to me to be borderline pathological IMHO. This thread in particular. How can you hold it against a property owner for seeking the highest and best use of their property. These friends of yours have been renting property for decades. Prime real estate I will point out too. Why would they now, as I gather from the tone of your post, be surprised, shocked, or dismayed that the owner is now ready to do something different with his property? These renters have had decades to do something different with their time and treasure in order to obtain a piece of deeded property elsewhere. Do they feel entitled to rent this property forever? If so, why?
You are not the first to exhibit this sentiment. Another, some would say prominent, local citizen was very vocal in the past when their place was converted some years back. They were displaced from their 'family place' that they had the privilege of occupying for years. In the meantime property values sky rocketed and they couldn't afford to have a lake place any longer. How is this Russell's fault? They have received excellent benefit for their rent dollars for many years. Now the party is over. Pack up and go home.
If I am missing something please enlighten me. Personally, I am baffled by folks that build on APCO lease lots. Who is going to come out on top in the long run? They own the property and as many politicians as money can buy, which seems to be about all of them.
On another note, I would love to see a bridge from Pleasure Point across to the south side of Hog Pen Slough. I think it would be of great benefit to the entire lake community.
|
| Name: |
Wakely
-
|
|
| Subject: |
New development from Russell Lands?
|
|
Date:
|
4/18/2012 6:41:10 PM
|
I can answer some of those questions, with a unique perspective, since I have seen things from both sides of the fence.
I can say without a doubt that most of the effected cabin renters have asked, most more than once, if they could buy their cabin. For decades they were told "no." So people who would have willingly been making house payments for 30 years or more instead made rental payments. For many of them, they have paid more in rent than they would have spent to pay off a mortgage. Now they are being told "even though you have paid us enough to won this place yet have nothing to show for it, we're going to take it from you, put it up for sale, and let you try to outbid someone for it." To them, it's the timing of it more than anything.
As for that person who lost his place in the Ridge, it wasn't that his family could afford a place on the lake, it's that they weren't willing to pay more for something they liked less. (Believe me, we had plenty of conversations about this, not all of them pleasant. Some of them weren't really conversations so much as arguments.) Funny thing is, a lot of what he was saying then are the same things RL people are saying now. I remember one conversation-- this one really was a conversation-- when he asked my why we wouldn't sell cabins, and all I could say was that it wasn't part of the plan. Now apparently is IS part of the plan, for the same reasons he used then. Somewhere he's probably laughing. At the least, he's saying "I told you so." Because he did.
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
What is legal, and what is decent, rarely go hand
|
|
Date:
|
4/18/2012 7:20:05 PM
|
With your "pack it up and go" attitude, I don't expect you to see the difference. I'm sure our difference in perception has to do with the way I was raised, and where you work, but I believe that when a family has had a relationship with a company for 54 years,(some more, many less), the decent thing to do is to give them more than 3 months notice that they have to get out (especially when you require them to give you 6 months notice). I haven't argued that Russell Lands doesn't have a right to do what they're doing, they most certainly do, but I will admit that I perceive the manner in which they have chosen to exercise their right is reflective of the manner in which they conduct most of their business, especially in the last 10 years. "Its ours, we're going broke, get out now so we can sell it off." That's how it appears to me. Obviously, you have a different agend....I mean...interpretation. It just strikes me as very disrespectful of those who supported the company since before it even existed (several of my friends had 99 year leases, through the Mill), but I place a fairly high value on respect and loyalty. Obviously, you do not. Nor does Russell Lands, in my experience. I know others don't as well. Its a cruel, cruel world, with rights to possession, control, and exclusion. Can't beat them, but I don't have to join them.
"Pack it up and go, granny!"
Make that the first line on your resume and I'm sure there's a VP job just waiting to be created for you with Russell Lands. Or the IRS. Maybe Homeland Security.
|
| Name: |
au67
-
|
|
| Subject: |
What is legal, and what is decent, rarely go hand
|
|
Date:
|
4/18/2012 8:41:02 PM
|
Many forum members probably don't know that without Russell Mills/Russell Corporation, Willow Point/Russell Lands would not exist as it does today. Unless you were a part of that era, you probably will not understand the point Catherine is making.
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You are exactly right au67
|
|
Date:
|
4/18/2012 9:18:17 PM
|
Many of my friends signed their initial leases and moved into their cabins almost 20 years before Russell Lands even became a company. Back then, everything was handled through the Mill, and Ben wasn't even old enough to ride a bicycle. With that amount of history and relationship, a 3 month "pack up and go" approach just seems terribly inappropriate, unappreciative, and very disrespectful.
I assume everyone knows I'm older than dirt. Sometimes, understandably, I forget that not everyone has been here as long as I.
|
| Name: |
Lifer
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Agenda? Really?
|
|
Date:
|
4/19/2012 8:47:08 AM
|
You think I have an agenda? That is laughable. I don't have a dog in this fight whatsoever. I just find your whining annoying. They had more than 3 months notice. They day they signed LEASE papers they were 'put on notice'. It was/is a RENTAL agreement, not a lease purchase and certainly not a sales contract. But you are right about one thing, it is very hard to buy something from someone who doesn't want/need to sell. As I said, they had years to use their time and talent to purchase deeded lots elsewhere. They chose not too. Don't blame RL for that. That is called personal choice. You come across as bitter and foolish.
Most reasonable folks would have used the decades of observation to see that RL selling the lots to individuals was not in the cards and started to seek property elsewhere out of control of RL. Your friend's didn't. Therefore one can assume that having a place on the lake was secondary to having the prime real estate they were renting. As for the length of the 'relationship' between the renters and landlord, it is a symbiotic relationship. They received exceptional value for their rental dollars.
And just a suggestion. Rather than spend your time tilting at windmills, you should go and help 'granny' pack!
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
As I said
|
|
Date:
|
4/19/2012 9:00:37 AM
|
What is legal, and what is proper, rarely go hand in hand.
And you sound as if you have direct knowledge in these matters? But we both already knew that, didn't we? :)
"Legal" lets you turn a profit.
"Proper" lets you sleep at night, and hold your head up high.
Everyone needs a little of both.
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/19/2012 9:48:34 AM
|
Where the renter's given the option to purchase their cleared lots at current prevailing prices (and maybe some sort of reasonable discount factor for the all the years they had rented)??
Think this would be somewhat reasonable, that is, give them right of first refusal to purchase the future improved property?
Yes their cabins would be torn down, it is called progress, but at least they would have the right of first refusal and then maybe some sort of discount factor based on the years they have paid rent.
Could be a win-win for both parties. Renters can keep their family property they have had for generations and RL would benefit and also go a long ways with the community in showing some compassion for the years the families have paid rental income to them.
Just a thought.
|
| Name: |
Lifer
-
|
|
| Subject: |
What is legal is proper!
|
|
Date:
|
4/19/2012 9:50:56 AM
|
As for my inside knowledge, well, that is laughable. My only inside knowledge is having spent all of my 53 years on the lake. The dozens of folks that come here and do know me are snickering at the fact that you seem to think I work for RL. I can assure you I don't now, nor ever have. In fact I don't work at all. I am on medical retirement. I am a full time, professional, puddin' stirrer though, but it is strictly on a volunteer basis.
The main point that matters in this discussion is that I know the difference between renting and buying.
|
| Name: |
Lifer
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/19/2012 9:59:09 AM
|
To the best of my 'inside knowledge' they have, in the past, been given first right of refusal, but with no discount.
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
As far as I know, they were not
|
|
Date:
|
4/19/2012 10:00:49 AM
|
And you are right. That would have gone a long way in handling the situation properly. But that wasn't offered, that anyone has made me aware of. Just "get out by June."
This is a matter of opinion, not a legal argument. Lifer sees and apparently agrees with the advantage of Russell's position. "Its ours, get out now" is certainly an option available to them, and the one they have apparently chosen to exercise. I tend to think it could have been handled better, with more respect, appreciation, and professionalism. But as Lifer rightly points out, the land belongs to Ben, and he can do whatever he wants with it, however he chooses to.
"Pack up and go" just strikes me as cold and uncaring for families who have supported your company for half a century and longer, but I am a softy. I highly doubt they will be able to build all of the planned cabins within the next 2-3 years, so the decision to evict all at once becomes even more mysterious to me.
|
| Name: |
Wakely
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Question
|
|
Date:
|
4/19/2012 12:58:09 PM
|
In the first two phases that wasn't really a problem, because there were
no cabins in those areas. Once they got to Phase Three and started
building in areas that had cabins, they had to come up with a plan.
First, keep in mind that they couldn't offer the actual homesites to the
tenants; many Ridge lots in Phase Three are smaller than the cabin lots were, so in
essence they could offer those people the chance to build on a part of
their old lot. So the thought that they were offering people the chance
to buy their old lot is not true.
There was NO discount offered. And, in addition to buying a piece of
your old lot, they were required-- again, REQUIRED-- to purchase an
off-water lot as well.
When all was said and done, all but one cabin tenant gave an outright refusal to the terms offered; one was thinking about it but I hear they decided against it, too. Most if not all stayed on the lake in some form or fashion.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Lake Martin Topics Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
