Graeme Walker
Never owned bungalow at CHM-Montalivet nor been permanent resident there. Testimony different than families who lived, built, repaired, planted, returned and remembered for decades… may testimony be useful, even so?
I, Graeme Walker, visited CHM during 5 consecutive summers (2020-2024). Near end of 2024 I (myself) enquired about purchasing a bungalow, but asked too many questions. My attachment to CHM was chosen, not inherited. I recognised something rare: a naturist landscape where body freedom, forest, memory, health, eccentricity and social experiment survive in apparent ecological harmony.
I asked ordinary questions, e.g., if I buying a bungalow:
What would I own?
What would I lease?
To whom would I pay rent?
What rights would I have?
What obligations would bind me?
What documents govern land beneath bungalow?
These were not intended as hostile afronts or side-comments, but basic questions any prudent buyer might ask before entering into a property arrangement involving land, residence, annual charges and long-term personal commitment. Answers received and not, changed my understanding of “the CHM”.
During August 2024 meeting with Francis Hoppenot (a person employed by SocNat SA, European Camping Group ± other legal entities), I politely requested permission to read contract between Soc. de financement des centres de Nat.ure (SA à conseil d'administration) and Vendays-Montalivet Commune. Francis Hoppenot affirmed that such contract existed, but claimed that it was held in secret by his boss. Francis Hoppenot appeared verbally-familiar with everything in that contract, but claimed that he was prohibited from sharing a typed or printed version. During same in-person meeting, Francis Hoppenot affirmed (more than twice) that such contract existed and referred to its content. This contradiction stayed with me. It was my third or fourth clear impression that CHM de Montalivet may be governed by documents that everyone is expected to obey, but that ordinary users, residents, potential purchasers, resident-homeowners and non-resident extra-homeowners are not allowed to read or see. I was also informed (consistent with prior impressions) that ~300 people lived locally but were legally recognised only for obligations, not rights.
Operators speak of residents when residence is useful, yet deny residence when rights or responsibilities become inconvenient. Under existing arrangements, persons may be treated as:
clients, when payment is due;
occupants, when control is needed;
problems, when questions are asked;
legal fictions, when protection is requested.
I asked what I would be required to pay if I bought a bungalow. I asked what rights would come with those payments. I asked what obligations would bind me. I asked for a model sublease or occupation agreement. I was told that an example would be sent to me by email after the meeting. It was not sent.
In this case, refusal to disclose public information was not a minor administrative omission, but controlled by an operator whose own rights derived from a lease over communal land. In such context, withholding or failing to provide basic document governing the purchaser’s future position is not merely discourteous: it prevents informed consent.
I left the meeting with a sense that important facts may have been intentionally-hidden behind a fog of white-collar & organised-financial-crime, e.g. there were:
Residents who were not residents.
Homeowners who did not own the land beneath their homes.
Invoices whose legal basis was opaque to those expected to pay.
A communal site whose public character was difficult to distinguish from private commerce.
A toponym belonging naturally to Abu Dhabi Royal Family.