โJul-09-2016 08:12 AM
โJul-15-2016 03:41 AM
โJul-14-2016 04:10 PM
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
โJul-14-2016 03:47 PM
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.
โJul-14-2016 03:34 PM
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
โJul-14-2016 10:33 AM
โJul-14-2016 07:55 AM
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.
โJul-14-2016 07:47 AM
GeoBoy wrote: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".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.
โJul-14-2016 06:45 AM
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.
โJul-14-2016 06:27 AM
Us out West wrote:
If this is the CG they sure have more positive comments than negative...and by a wide margin.
Just saying....
โJul-14-2016 06:24 AM
wbwood wrote:
For what it's worth, it does state on their website that there is a $6/person guest fee and that guest arrivals are from 2pm - 8pm.
โJul-14-2016 05:17 AM
โJul-14-2016 05:13 AM
dfm wrote:
Quote.....By WRVPO....
It is this thinking that causes businesses to want to get any disabled person in and out as soon as possible. The Drumbeat of sue, sue, sue makes businesses fear the disabled customer, not want to accommodate them. It is this thinking that causes businesses to want to get any disabled person in and out as soon as possible. The Drumbeat of sue, sue, sue makes businesses fear the disabled customer, not want to accommodate them.
As far as whether or not the requests were reasonable, in my opinion absolutely not. Why should a disabled person get to bring in guests without a fee when everyone else has to pay. Not all parks have the ability to monitor all visitors. We can, but we are in Montana and very few of our guests from Thailand have visitors stopping by. But if a park is located a short distance from major metro areas and serves primarily locals, it would be close to impossible to administer some visitors in free and others pay.
As for the golf cart, our insurance specifies that we are not to allow any non employee to operate or ride in park vehicles. Maybe as the owner I would take that chance, buy I don't empower my employees to make that decision. Unquote.
I read the Op as saying they wanted KOA to allow their friends to come and pick them up.(not to be GUESTS at their site )
Does this mean that if I stayed at this KOA or at WRVPO's place It would be right to have to pay an $18.00 fee to have a taxi pick me up and then another $18.00 for a taxi to drop me off again , cause that is all the friends were going to do???
โJul-14-2016 05:07 AM
SCVJeff wrote:2gypsies wrote:and they also wouldn't prohibit visitors from going to your roomBB_TX wrote:
I just don't see providing shuttle service within an RV park as "reasonable accommodation". A nicety I suppose, but not a legal requirement.
True.
The RV park provided reasonable accommodations at your campsite. It has no obligation to drive you around.....but it sure would have been a nice gesture for a one-time thing instead of having to pay $18 to drive in and pick you up. Geez!
A hotel wouldn't drive you to your car.
โJul-14-2016 05:06 AM
soren wrote:westernrvparkowner wrote:avan wrote:It is this thinking that causes businesses to want to get any disabled person in and out as soon as possible. The Drumbeat of sue, sue, sue makes businesses fear the disabled customer, not want to accommodate them. It is this thinking that causes businesses to want to get any disabled person in and out as soon as possible. The Drumbeat of sue, sue, sue makes businesses fear the disabled customer, not want to accommodate them.
ADA requires reasonable accommodation of the disability. Based on OP's description, what was requested was reasonable if the distance from the campsite to the gate could not be easily traversed by the HC person. In addition to posting to the various campsite review sites, formal ADA complaint should be filed with a copy to the CG and to KOA main office.
As far as whether or not the requests were reasonable, in my opinion absolutely not. Why should a disabled person get to bring in guests without a fee when everyone else has to pay. Not all parks have the ability to monitor all visitors. We can, but we are in Montana and very few of our guests from Thailand have visitors stopping by. But if a park is located a short distance from major metro areas and serves primarily locals, it would be close to impossible to administer some visitors in free and others pay.
As for the golf cart, our insurance specifies that we are not to allow any non employee to operate or ride in park vehicles. Maybe as the owner I would take that chance, buy I don't empower my employees to make that decision.
You have a well earned reputation on this site, and it isn't a good one. However, this may be a new low, even for you. My wife has been severely disabled for over two decades, and has NEVER experienced the mentality you express. Fortunately, if and when it happens, there are a number of avenues available from a governmental and legal standpoint, to make somebody like you suffer a significant price for singling out disabled folks for abusive treatment. BTW, one of the most memorable experiences we had while traveling was a CG owner who realized that my DW would end up struggling while accessing one of his buildings. He asked us to give him an hour or two, and spent that time with a tractor and a crew, while he pulled a patch of unused sidewalk up, and reinstalled it, to create a smaller step in to his lodge. That is what have character means, not trying to get disabled folks of your property, ASAP, since they might have issue with your attitude and behavior. WOW, you really hit bottom on this one........................you must be proud.
โJul-14-2016 04:59 AM
Old-Biscuit wrote:
Sounds like it might be time to invest in a toad.
Relying on Class A MH for ALL transportation needs is not working out