Rant about fulltimers

[johnhicks]

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 I've been plotting our travels for the summer I've often read reviews denigrating the park for having fulltime/longtime campers, apparently as opposed to casual daily campers, and equating them to the Squatleys etc.

Where do they get off???

[down_home]

I understand this concern. In Michigan on the Huron Shore or only a few campgrounds. County Operated I think mostly.
We were through there a few years ago for a funeral. We wanted to find a Park so we could fish and spend some time there.
The one parks was full with many with insulated hookups. No tow vehicles at all or other vehicles. Apparently they were kept there all year or had them delivered there early. A lot of people do that. Then of course it was obvious the few were set up as Residents or Vacation homes. The post Board gave name and contact for camping there but no one answered in three days.
Other Parks up there are always full also and many to most in some are Residents.
Not bad for 20.00 a day and a lot less by the week and month, on a lake in the country.
In effect Local and Rvers from places like Detroit and Chicago have a low cost Summer residence, no taxes.
We tried to locate an available spot for a week or a month with no success.
At the one store near Huron there were notices of RVers wanting to or willing to sell their rented lot access at the one campground I cited,maybe others.
In other words they get in set up with the idea of a low cost summer place.
They decide to give it up, for a profit and move on. Which I believe is not legal.
At a few RV campgrounds on the Lake Michigan Shore,they are reserved for locals, as posted at entrance. All good I guess but.....
Seems I posted about this situation once before, a long time ago.

[SDcampowneroper]

I and WRVPO are not trying to be defensive, but trying to be educational. Niether of us has any involvement with booms, or the associated influx of workers. Our camps are geared to vacationers with a focus on service, site and amenity public parks (cannot by law) do not offer.
Public parks in SD are restricted to limited service and length of stay to preserve the reason they were created for, and to separate private enterprise from public intrusion into the private sector.
We have, as private businesses the flexibility to offer our facility in any manner we wish. In areas of the continent where workmen, seasonals or permanents are common, we and they are governed by law under tenants and landlords regulation.
Max

[TechWriter]

SDcampowneroperator wrote:

TechWriter wrote:

TechWriter wrote:
Do you run a lot of campgrounds?

westernrvparkowner wrote:
I run a whole bunch more than you.

One? Two? ?

One is more than your zero. Your profile does not mention you have experience in hospitality.
Camp operation is a balancing act between Hotelier and Residence state by state regulations. Back up and read the thread again
WRVPO got it right.
Max

That's true. As mentioned previously, my only experience in hospitality (besides staying at campgrounds) is that I worked at a campground for a couple of years.

I was up front with my background and was trying to determine westernrvparkowner's. Then he (and now you) got all defensive.

I understand the impact of tenant regulations on RV parks. Westernrvparkowner's business plan of not allowing his guests to become legal tenants makes perfect sense. He's reducing his risk.

However, what gets me is Westernparkowner's characterization of long-term residents:

These are problematic in that they have a different mindset from the vacationing guest. They are usually pounding out a living. Clutter, rig decay and outright disdain for the vacationer is evident with many of these residents. The clutter is easily explained in that these residents have no need to cull their possessions, since they never have to pack up and move.

These are Westernparkowner's experience with long-term residents which he's making into stereotypes. Since he's a park owner, some folks assume he's automatically right. Maybe.

But maybe his perception of long-timers is influenced by his park management policies, the effect of the Bakken oil workers in Montana, etc.

Nevertheless, I think Westernparkowner is spot on about the long-termer fear and bias many RVers have.

[SDcampowneroper]

TechWriter wrote:

TechWriter wrote:
Do you run a lot of campgrounds?

westernrvparkowner wrote:
I run a whole bunch more than you.

One? Two? ?

One is more than your zero. Your profile does not mention you have experience in hospitality.
Camp operation is a balancing act between Hotelier and Residence state by state regulations. Back up and read the thread again
WRVPO got it right.
Max

[rkortes]

Lantley wrote:

johnhicks wrote:
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 I've been plotting our travels for the summer I've often read reviews denigrating the park for having fulltime/longtime campers, apparently as opposed to casual daily campers, and equating them to the Squatleys etc.

Where do they get off???

I can see why you take offense to those comments. However there is a difference between full timers who are traveling through and full time residents.
The review does not differentiate between the two.
I prefer parks that don't allow full time residents as well.
But more importantly I prefer parks that mandate clea/cleared sites without a lot of stuff lying around and no permanent structures

I'd say that as a traveler I prefer to be at parks where folks are moving in and out. It feels like we have more in common and seem more inspired to visit, chat, and share ideas and experiences.

I consider it a necessary evil to stay at parks where there are, what appears to be, full time residents. For the most part, they seem to want their privacy and keep to themselves which just isn't as fun when traveling. I totally get the socio-economic piece as well. They aren't living their to keep me entertained.

[Lantley]

johnhicks wrote:
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 I've been plotting our travels for the summer I've often read reviews denigrating the park for having fulltime/longtime campers, apparently as opposed to casual daily campers, and equating them to the Squatleys etc.

Where do they get off???

I can see why you take offense to those comments. However there is a difference between full timers who are traveling through and full time residents.
The review does not differentiate between the two.
I prefer parks that don't allow full time residents as well.
But more importantly I prefer parks that mandate clea/cleared sites without a lot of stuff lying around and no permanent structures

[wbwood]

johnhicks wrote:
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 I've been plotting our travels for the summer I've often read reviews denigrating the park for having fulltime/longtime campers, apparently as opposed to casual daily campers, and equating them to the Squatleys etc.

Where do they get off???

Reviews are personal opinions. I don't care for parks that have "residents" that have a butt load of ****. Heck I don't like it when daily campers set up an entire kitchen (fridge/sometimes freezer, table with coffee pot, stove, food, cases of drinks, coolers, etc) under the awning. Having something out and using it is one thing, but when an entire kitchen is set up and left out there, I just don't care to look at. But that's my opinion. It's no offense to those who do it. It's just something we don't like. Kind of like the dog fences with all the little yappers out there that bark all day long. Or the unsupervised kids that run/ride through your campsite.

[westernrvparkow]

TechWriter wrote:

TechWriter wrote:
Do you run a lot of campgrounds?

westernrvparkowner wrote:
I run a whole bunch more than you.

One? Two? ?

Once again, we have a poster who does't like the message so they have resorted to attacking the messenger.

[2112]

Don't judge them until you get to know them!

We frequent a small city park in a small Texas town where my in-laws live. This park has four or five residents. One of them is Raymond. Ray has lived there for about 6 years. He chose this location because he is prone to heart attacks and the hospital is across the street as well as his sister lives in the next small town about 15 miles away.

Ray is a 'Nam vet and his life seems to have been defined by this experience. He always has interesting life stories, not all good. One experience with his daughter is what forced him financially to become a 'resident'. She flat out screwed him.

We were there for Easter but didn't have an opportunity to visit with Ray. When we returned this past weekend for Mother's Day Ray was gone. There was nothing there but an empty slab where once Ray lived. I had an empty feeling seeing this. The absence of Ray consumed quite a bit of discussion that day, wondering.

We do not know what happened to Ray. We will probably never know or see him again. I lost a friend this weekend.

Don't judge them until you get to know them!

[Lantley]

TechWriter wrote:

TechWriter wrote:
Do you run a lot of campgrounds?

westernrvparkowner wrote:
I run a whole bunch more than you.

One? Two? ?

How many CG he runs is a mute point. Long terms RV'ers certainly have a different mindset than short terms transients.
THat doesn't mean they are bad or worse then transients, just a different mindset with different expectations and requirements.
There are also laws and legalities that apply to longer stays.
I can understand a CG owner not wanting to cater to longer stays because of the legalities involved.

[ncrowley]

In reading this thread, I was thinking about the RV parks we have stayed in and what we have seen. If there are RVs that are not well cared for, with junk all around them, they are the ones that are parked at the park for years and not intended to move. Many in that condition would have a hard time moving without a lot of work. I prefer to stay in an RV park where the RVs are being used and moved at least a few times per year. I like to meet people that are traveling and seeing new places. I find them very interesting and I guess that is because I am interested in finding fun places to visit.

[johnhicks]

From my time involved in a co-op park I agree that what westernrvparkowner says is true. By staying more than a certain length of time, a month or three or whatever, a casual renter legally becomes a tenant, and while (in Florida at least) a tenant generally has to abide by the same rules and regs throwing out that tenant becomes a major expensive pain the posterior.

[TechWriter]

TechWriter wrote:
Do you run a lot of campgrounds?

westernrvparkowner wrote:
I run a whole bunch more than you.

One? Two? ?

[Lantley]

I have stayed at all variations of seasonals, permies, full timers,ownership parks etc.
As a transient I prefer to be amongst other transients. CG with seasonals are OK if seasonals are separated and given their own area AWAY from transients.
Places where transients and seasonals are mixed together are the worst, seasonals seem to consider transients as a nuisance to their community when everyone is mixed together.
Places with permanents are generally uninviting. While some are more tidy than others. Permanents always have a collection of their possessions scattered about the site.
As a vacation/weekend camper I prefer transient only campsites. The atmosphere is generally more casual and relaxing vs. places with permies.
Permanent places do not allow you to escape the rat race and the real world because many staying there are actively participating in the rat race.
It's harder to forget the rat race when it is in your face.
Nevertheless if I'm hoteling it in the RV. I will pick a CG that is convenient to my ultimate destination. In those cases I may be in town for a wedding, or a family function, holiday, birthday or whatever. I'm not camping in the traditional sense but am in town to attend some sort of event.
I will stay at any relatively safe CG that will have me. When hoteling it I am generally gone during the day and only using the RV as a hotel room.
I try to use the RV as much as possible and prefer the RV over a hotel.
When hoteling most any CG will do. The mix of transients, seasonals and permanents is less of a factor.
However when vacation camping I only stay at places that prefer and cater to transients campers

[westernrvparkow]

TechWriter wrote:

westernrvparkowner wrote:
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.

Maybe you, as the park owner, are responsible or partly so for those problems.

Do you run a lot of campgrounds?

I run a whole bunch more than you. If you had read the replies to this thread, you will see the post where I explain that the laws protecting long term residents preclude the park from enforcing many of their rules on those residents. That is a FACT. No amounts or rules, regulation or good management can overcome the FACT that a long term resident, who has gained tenant/landlord protections does not have to abide by those rules. And it is also FACT that once they have obtained those tenant protections evicting those tenants can take months and thousands of dollars.
By not having long term tenants, I am being proactive in managing and preventing issues. To me, that is being a responsible park owner.