NM RV PARKS EFFECTIVE 4/6/20
RV Parks in NM are limited to 25% of there capacity effective 4/6/20. I would expect this to last until 4/30/20. This could be reduced even more in the future. Most state parks are closed.
Forum Discussion
- NM is not the only state doing this. Hotels and motels are also limited to 25% of there rooms.
DallasSteve wrote:
If the morons running your state close the RV parks I guess you're left with going to another state or using hotels. Except they may close the hotels, too. Maybe full timers should just stage a protest and park hundreds of RVs in front of the governor's mansion. There's some good media tactics. - I understand that oil field workers in RVs in SE NM have been given an exemption
Traver8 wrote:
No doubt this will continue to get more interesting as time goes on. I know that here in SE NM where I am most of the rv "parks" are full of long term oilfield workers. Unfortunately the oil situation is hurting them badly in addition to the Covid impact. Here where I am, out of about 30 spaces which were basically 100% full a couple of weeks ago, there have been 5 or 6 that have recently left due to the loss of their oilfield jobs. There are 4 -5 others who are just hanging on waiting for their job to evaporate. We will see... - If the morons running your state close the RV parks I guess you're left with going to another state or using hotels. Except they may close the hotels, too. Maybe full timers should just stage a protest and park hundreds of RVs in front of the governor's mansion. There's some good media tactics.
- The Governor made an announcement .
wanderingaimlessly wrote:
Dont know how to get the concept to sink in with the Government offices, but maybe deterring the vacationers and weekend warriors while still accommodating the full timers who need a place to shelter would be to allow only 14 day or longer stays.
Just an idea. Crowe wrote:
Who gets to define the "greater good"? I guess you do. Or I guess the majority does. Well, that's the system, but you don't decide truth by majority vote. The shutdown will have huge consequences, and I'm talking about the overall shutdown. As Ayn Rand said "We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality".
Never said I defined what was the "greater good". Those we elect define the "greater good". You don't have to like it but that's the reality. Reality is we have a current crisis. Reality is that people are dying. Reality is no matter how small a percentage are dying your opinion will change if it's someone close to you. You aren't the only one inconvenienced. We have an entire country that's inconvenienced at a minimum. We have officials that recognize the fact that we can't shut down forever, that the economy cannot handle it. Reality is if each of us can't do our small part to potentially save a life then shame on us. We will never know if the lockdowns truly saved lives but watching the numbers now it looks like that may be the case. I'm a firm believer in Franklin's quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The variable here we need to ask? Is the safety just temporary. Suck it up buttercup. We're all in this together.
- Who gets to define the "greater good"? I guess you do. Or I guess the majority does. Well, that's the system, but you don't decide truth by majority vote. The shutdown will have huge consequences, and I'm talking about the overall shutdown. As Ayn Rand said "We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality".
Never said I defined what was the "greater good". Those we elect define the "greater good". You don't have to like it but that's the reality. Reality is we have a current crisis. Reality is that people are dying. Reality is no matter how small a percentage are dying your opinion will change if it's someone close to you. You aren't the only one inconvenienced. We have an entire country that's inconvenienced at a minimum. We have officials that recognize the fact that we can't shut down forever, that the economy cannot handle it. Reality is if each of us can't do our small part to potentially save a life then shame on us. We will never know if the lockdowns truly saved lives but watching the numbers now it looks like that may be the case. I'm a firm believer in Franklin's quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The variable here we need to ask? Is the safety just temporary. Suck it up buttercup. We're all in this together. Crowe wrote:
Unfortunately in a situation like this you have to act for the "greater good". I don't know numbers but I'd venture a guess that the number of full-timers vs. those who only go out on weekends or for a few weeks at a time is a small percentage. When enacting rules such as this no government official can incorporate all possible scenarios. I hardly doubt there was any malice aforethought, especially in states that primarily shut down camping during the winter, by any governor. It's most likely something they didn't think about. It's virgin territory for everyone and there are bound to be mistakes. The best anyone can do is contact the governors of respective states and ask if provisions can be made for those who are full-timing.
Who gets to define the "greater good"? I guess you do. Or I guess the majority does. Well, that's the system, but you don't decide truth by majority vote. The shutdown will have huge consequences, and I'm talking about the overall shutdown. As Ayn Rand said "We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality".Crowe wrote:
Unfortunately in a situation like this you have to act for the "greater good". I don't know numbers but I'd venture a guess that the number of full-timers vs. those who only go out on weekends or for a few weeks at a time is a small percentage. When enacting rules such as this no government official can incorporate all possible scenarios. I hardly doubt there was any malice aforethought, especially in states that primarily shut down camping during the winter, by any governor. It's most likely something they didn't think about. It's virgin territory for everyone and there are bound to be mistakes. The best anyone can do is contact the governors of respective states and ask if provisions can be made for those who are full-timing.
I think the 30 day idea is a good compromise. It gives full Timers a place to stay but still limits activity.
In general the Full Timers (those who travel) are going to suffer with the rest of us. It's not going to be business as usual. For now you are not free to just move about. But those of us in stix and brix are not free to move about.
Once again the goal is to limit the spread. Shutting Down state parks and limiting available CG options helps to limit the spread.- Unfortunately in a situation like this you have to act for the "greater good". I don't know numbers but I'd venture a guess that the number of full-timers vs. those who only go out on weekends or for a few weeks at a time is a small percentage. When enacting rules such as this no government official can incorporate all possible scenarios. I hardly doubt there was any malice aforethought, especially in states that primarily shut down camping during the winter, by any governor. It's most likely something they didn't think about. It's virgin territory for everyone and there are bound to be mistakes. The best anyone can do is contact the governors of respective states and ask if provisions can be made for those who are full-timing.
- No doubt this will continue to get more interesting as time goes on. I know that here in SE NM where I am most of the rv "parks" are full of long term oilfield workers. Unfortunately the oil situation is hurting them badly in addition to the Covid impact. Here where I am, out of about 30 spaces which were basically 100% full a couple of weeks ago, there have been 5 or 6 that have recently left due to the loss of their oilfield jobs. There are 4 -5 others who are just hanging on waiting for their job to evaporate. We will see...
