Rant about fulltimers

TechWriter wrote:

westernrvparkowner wrote:
Like it or not, experience has taught us that long term stays are not compatible with how we want to operate our parks.

Instead of "not compatible" maybe "not economical".

From my experience at working at an RV campground, long-term residents tend to contribute less to a park's bottom line than one-nighters or short timers . . . short timers pay more per day -- in some cases, much more -- than long timers.

However, long timers are typically guaranteed income. Unless you're running a very popular campground, you can't count on every one of your sites being occupied every day. The park I worked at set aside a fixed number of sites for long-term residents.

We do not set aside any sites for long term residents. It is not part of our business plan. We do not want the issues created by long term guests. Long term residents detract from the desirability of the park as seen through the eyes of the short term guest. You need to look no further than RVparkreviews.com to see that.
It is a fallacy to look at long term residents as guaranteed income. They can leave, they can not pay the rent, they can run up expenses as easily as any other guest. On top of that, they are occupying a site at a low daily rent when the site could be rented for a high fee. I would rather have $50 a night for 40 to 50 nights in peak season than $400 a month for six months The expenses are less, the wear and tear on the facilities is less and the opportunity still exists to rent those sites the other 120 plus days. Even if I don't rent a single additional night, the expenses saved by having a site only occupied 40 days instead of 180 makes the short term stays much more profitable, which is my ultimate goal.