Bad experience Lancaster KOA

GeoBoy wrote:

Us out West wrote:
If this is the CG they sure have more positive comments than negative...and by a wide margin.

Just saying....

I went to your recommend review site and 18 out of 32 reviews said that the new owners were RUDE. In your words, just saying, whatever.

Apparently, in your world, rules equate to rude. I just looked at those reviews back to 2010 and many mention the rules and that those rules are enforced, often followed by "which we appreciate, because the park is clean, quiet and safe".
Rude and similar comments were only in 5 of the 30 or so posts, no where near your 18 out of 32.

buc1980 wrote:
i got a bad experience with KOA in Central City Co I never stay at KOA .They are one of the most expensive campgrounds.I recomand people to don't go to them.

Short sided attitude, if you go to a chain restaurant and get a bad meal do you never go to one again

For the reading impaired, here's a graphic of this KOA's reviews. And maybe those ones who reported rudeness were the ones breaking the rules.

Bumpyroad wrote:

jfkmk wrote:


If you look at some of the reviews, koa (not the owners) have responded to a lot of complaints, apologizing for rude behavior. I can't imagine that fits into the koa business plan and wonder how long they will be a koa.

did it ever occur to anybody that perhaps they are perfectly willing to disassociate themselves from the KOA annual franchise fee and having corporate "remove" them might save a lot of severance money?
bumpy

Except that having the koa name brought them a lot of business. The folks that we talked to (and met there last year) said this Memorial Day weekend it was more crowded there than it had been in years.

jfkmk wrote:


Except that having the koa name brought them a lot of business. The folks that we talked to (and met there last year) said this Memorial Day weekend it was more crowded there than it had been in years.

which could indicate that it does not need the KOA banner to operate at a profit. In my travels I have seen many former KOAs as evidenced by their office construction.
bumpy

Bumpyroad wrote:

jfkmk wrote:


Except that having the koa name brought them a lot of business. The folks that we talked to (and met there last year) said this Memorial Day weekend it was more crowded there than it had been in years.

which could indicate that it does not need the KOA banner to operate at a profit. In my travels I have seen many former KOAs as evidenced by their office construction.
bumpy

Right, except this one did NOT start out as a koa. It was slowly losing business (according to the folks we met there last year), it BECAME a koa and GAINED business as a koa. I would assume they became a koa to take advantage of the nationally recognized name. After all, why pay the franchise fee otherwise?

This campground became a KOA on 08-18-2015. Posts before that time where about the same campground but not as a KOA.

Lets put it this way, if I was in the area after reading this thread and numerous reviews, I'd go elsewhere. I don't agree with the philosophy of the place if nothing else. And trust me I'm not a complainer, never in my life have I complained about anything at a campground I stayed at except stuff which was totally inoperative and important such as power or water. I personally feel at least some extra effort should be made to accommodate handicapped people after taking care of one. I personally do not like some of the attitudes expressed here at all.

And for those concerned about lawsuits, do check into where the payouts for injuries really occur. It is for children, wage earners, people who have lots of remaining earnings potential and responsibilities. As rough as it sounds, older handicapped retirees are more depreciated in this regard. I'm sure any well run RV park would have liability insurance that would cover any ordinary practice of accommodating a handicapped individual. The danger of a high payout would far more likely be a child injured or a younger wage earner with good earning potential.

tpi wrote:
Lets put it this way, if I was in the area after reading this thread and numerous reviews, I'd go elsewhere. I don't agree with the philosophy of the place if nothing else. And trust me I'm not a complainer, never in my life have I complained about anything at a campground I stayed at except stuff which was totally inoperative and important such as power or water. I personally feel at least some extra effort should be made to accommodate handicapped people after taking care of one. I personally do not like some of the attitudes expressed here at all.

And for those concerned about lawsuits, do check into where the payouts for injuries really occur. It is for children, wage earners, people who have lots of remaining earnings potential and responsibilities. As rough as it sounds, older handicapped retirees are more depreciated in this regard. I'm sure any well run RV park would have liability insurance that would cover any ordinary practice of accommodating a handicapped individual. The danger of a high payout would far more likely be a child injured or a younger wage earner with good earning potential.

Funny I did not get the same vibe. KOA's are generally not my first choice. Nevertheless I would not eliminate the CG based solely on this post. There are 2 sides to every story.

tpi wrote:
Lets put it this way, if I was in the area after reading this thread and numerous reviews, I'd go elsewhere. I don't agree with the philosophy of the place if nothing else. And trust me I'm not a complainer, never in my life have I complained about anything at a campground I stayed at except stuff which was totally inoperative and important such as power or water. I personally feel at least some extra effort should be made to accommodate handicapped people after taking care of one. I personally do not like some of the attitudes expressed here at all.

And for those concerned about lawsuits, do check into where the payouts for injuries really occur. It is for children, wage earners, people who have lots of remaining earnings potential and responsibilities. As rough as it sounds, older handicapped retirees are more depreciated in this regard. I'm sure any well run RV park would have liability insurance that would cover any ordinary practice of accommodating a handicapped individual. The danger of a high payout would far more likely be a child injured or a younger wage earner with good earning potential.

You may wish to research "ADA Testers" . That is what has become the common name for disabled persons who go from establishment to establishment looking for minor ADA violations. These can be things as minor as the mirror over the ADA accessible sink is 1" too high. They threaten lawsuits unless they are paid a "consulting fee", in the low 5 figure range. Standard insurance policies do not cover these types of situations. Any attorney will tell the establishment to pay, it is cheaper than going to court. This money has to come out of the owners pocket.
If an establishment wanted to fight, they would have to have lots of documentation regarding exactly when each particular item was installed, replaced, repaired etc. Simply hanging the mirror an inch lower doesn't remedy the situation, the business can be liable for negligence in adherence to the ADA. There are examples from California of a disabled person filing 50+ complaints in a single year. Some call such a person an activist, I call them an extortionist.