Rant about fulltimers
Well..maybe... Once again today while perusing an RV Park Review (you know where) I came upon the statement praising the park for not allowing fulltimers "with all their junk and noise." As ...
Forum Discussion
One thing that I find interesting about this thread is that, depending on who is posting, the definition of "permanent" or "long-term" changes.
To many the word "permanent" connotes people who use their RVs as lodging while working at jobs in the local area. For example, my home base ownership park has several renters who will be here for years working on a major bridge/highway project. I can understand why "vacationers" with families may not feel they have anything in common with such neighbors but the lack of common interests shouldn't necessarily be a pejorative comment about these folks or how they maintain their sites.
However, I was more surprised to read in some of the posts, this same hostility being addressed towards RVers who I think of as "seasonal campers" who rent a site for an entire vacation season (either winter or summer) and who may choose to use it only when convenient. Somehow, because they are "taking up" sites that could have been rented to others they are doing something wrong. That logic would essentially make FL or TX snowbirds who go home for Christmas unfair to others who want to take holiday vacations?
There was a third perspective voiced by someone who posted that permanents were Ok as long as the RV park wasn't a "destination park" where he wanted to vacation, but, rather an along-the-way park which he used only as a hotel. But, over the years, I've come to realize that a place that might be only a hotel to you might well be a vacation spot for someone else.
My totally personal view is that I am most concerned about the appearance of a park. I fully understand the long term resident--tenant issue, but regardless of how long someone stays, IMHO the park has the right to promulgate and enforce its rules. In my experience, many parks tend to "bend" the rules with respect to their permanent residents. "Sure, he's not supposed to have all that stuff under his RV, but he's been here for so long......" Once that sort of thing starts it's a slippery slope and there's no going back.
My suggestion is that parks that absolutely don't permit stays longer than 14-30 days ought to post that on their websites. I think there are plenty of RVers who would consider that a big plus. But if you say that then you have to mean it. I used to think of KOA's as parks like that because you couldn't make reservations for stays >1 month on the KOA website. But now, there are lots of KOAs with large percentages of long term residents.
I don't think this problem is going to change anytime soon so we all need to learn to deal with it. Not making negative assumptions about the family in the neighboring RV site might be a good way to start.
To many the word "permanent" connotes people who use their RVs as lodging while working at jobs in the local area. For example, my home base ownership park has several renters who will be here for years working on a major bridge/highway project. I can understand why "vacationers" with families may not feel they have anything in common with such neighbors but the lack of common interests shouldn't necessarily be a pejorative comment about these folks or how they maintain their sites.
However, I was more surprised to read in some of the posts, this same hostility being addressed towards RVers who I think of as "seasonal campers" who rent a site for an entire vacation season (either winter or summer) and who may choose to use it only when convenient. Somehow, because they are "taking up" sites that could have been rented to others they are doing something wrong. That logic would essentially make FL or TX snowbirds who go home for Christmas unfair to others who want to take holiday vacations?
There was a third perspective voiced by someone who posted that permanents were Ok as long as the RV park wasn't a "destination park" where he wanted to vacation, but, rather an along-the-way park which he used only as a hotel. But, over the years, I've come to realize that a place that might be only a hotel to you might well be a vacation spot for someone else.
My totally personal view is that I am most concerned about the appearance of a park. I fully understand the long term resident--tenant issue, but regardless of how long someone stays, IMHO the park has the right to promulgate and enforce its rules. In my experience, many parks tend to "bend" the rules with respect to their permanent residents. "Sure, he's not supposed to have all that stuff under his RV, but he's been here for so long......" Once that sort of thing starts it's a slippery slope and there's no going back.
My suggestion is that parks that absolutely don't permit stays longer than 14-30 days ought to post that on their websites. I think there are plenty of RVers who would consider that a big plus. But if you say that then you have to mean it. I used to think of KOA's as parks like that because you couldn't make reservations for stays >1 month on the KOA website. But now, there are lots of KOAs with large percentages of long term residents.
I don't think this problem is going to change anytime soon so we all need to learn to deal with it. Not making negative assumptions about the family in the neighboring RV site might be a good way to start.
