NM RV PARKS EFFECTIVE 4/6/20

[wallynm]

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.

[wallynm]

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.

[wallynm]

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...

[DallasSteve]

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.

[wallynm]

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.

[Executive45]

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.

[Crowe]

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.

[DallasSteve]

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".

[Lantley]

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.

[Crowe]

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.

[Traver8]

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...

[wolfe10]

I know Galveston County where we live has implemented what I consider an reasonable compromise.

You may rent an RV site for a minimum of one month. This will accommodate full timers without exposing the local population to a large number of transients who may have the virus.

Think of it as a modified "isolate in place".

And, if coming in from Louisiana with its very high COVID 19 infection rate, you will be asked (no idea if it will be enforced) to quarantine in place for 14 days. There are now inspection stations on all the Texas/Louisiana roadways, certainly in the southern section.

[Executive45]

2 Retired wrote:
Just an honest question - no insult or anything like that intended. Does anyone have an estimate on how many 'full timers' do so out of necessity - not because they love the lifestyle? I'm certain there are some who do so because it may be more cost effective. Just asking out of curiosity.

Google Thousand Trails or check their facebook page. These people move from park to park to park to park all year long. IMO they are full timers in name only. But yes, most people, esp those in government have absolutely no clue about our lifestyle. Even my own sister often will ask when we are coming 'home'. I have to gently remind her we are home, wherever we are. :). I get tired of trying to explain to those financial gurus we deal with that "I don't have a PERMANENT address" even though they keep asking for one. The funny thing is they'll ask it once, then later in the conversation they'll ask it again in a different way. I guess they think we will change our answer. :S .... be safe, stay healthy....Dennis

[jdc1]

If you HONESTLY need a place to park your RV because you live in it, try a mobilehome park. That is essentially what you are...a mobile home. Or, place an ad in a local rag (try "Nextdoor", a neighborhood online communicatoins site), asking for relief....a place to park for a few weeks.

[DallasSteve]

wildmanbaker wrote:
Boy, this could get ugly fast. Quite a few RV parks in the Boise area, are full, and have been for 3 years or longer with full time residents. I asked on owner why, and was told that for 2 years they have been full because of the local economy. Look at their side, a monthly fee, every month, all year long. They must keep their lot clean and orderly, or they are required to vacate the area. I can see their side of it, a more or less steady income, all year long, instead of the hit or miss of the seasonal travels.

I'm in an RV park in Georgetown, Texas this morning and for the next 29 days. The park is almost full. I'd say 95% occupied. I can look around and tell you that most of these people are old and poor and (not that it matters) white. I rarely see anybody under 50 in these parks. And most of them have set up their home here with porches and patio furniture out. They're not going anywhere. The "stay at home" gestapo (the SAHG) don't care about these people, but they should. They matter just as much as the people who may get COVID-19 and the 1% of those who may die.

I'm not poor, but I'm one of those people who have given up finding a job. The younger people hiring for IT jobs don't want to hire 63 year old programmers. They don't want to violate federal hiring laws, they just naturally do so. And now unemployment has shot through the roof thanks to the fearful SAHG. How many people will turn to alcohol or drugs because of this economic crisis and die? How many otherwise good lives will be destroyed because the SAHG are afraid? The Greatest Generation would be appalled.