Anyone been turned away from campground for older rig?

[drsolo]

I am a snowbird working my way north from Orlando each day. I called Add-more Campground in Clarksville, IN to make sure they were open and had a spot for one night. She started asking me a lot of questions and when I told her my "B" was a 17' 1992 GMC conversion van she they dont allow anything older than year 2000. When I asked why that information wasnt on their website she said "Well we got a lot of rules and they arent all on the website."

Has anyone else run into this kind of discrimination? Does it matter if a travel trailer is vintage?

And one more question. Is there some sort of "black list" for campers that campgrounds refer too?

[JaxDad]

CavemanCharlie wrote:
Why would you need more money to put up with the So Called Deadbeats?

And, what is the definition of a "Deadbeat"?

Someone that is not rich and can't afford a new camper is not necessarily a deadbeat.

The laws have been twisted by the soft-hearted, and IMHO the soft-headed, to the point that the honest working folks are the ones more often than not on the wrong side of it.

I'll leave the definition up to the folks that publish the Merriam-Webster dictionary. " noun dead·beat \?ded-?b?t\ : a lazy person : a person who does not work. : a person who does not pay money that is owed."

Doesn't sound like either of us.

BTW, lots of BLM, State, County and other 'public' parks are adopting, 'age rules' in the last few years, not just private campgrounds.

Oh yeah, my Class C is as old as your TT is too. What's your point?

[CavemanCharlie]

drsolo wrote:

CavemanCharlie wrote:
I'm 51 years old and have been employed all my life. I've never declared bankruptcy or even bounced a check.
I think a deadbeat is someone that buys more stuff then they can afford, then goes broke, declares bankruptcy, and expects my tax dollars to bail them out. Maybe we should bring back debtors prison.

People who are secure in who they are, who are proud of being a responsible citizen dont get sucked into playing the game of keeping up with the Joneses, dont get sucked into mindless consumerism. But easy credit combined with the constant barrage of ads equating happiness with owning the right things, more things, new things is a recipe for bankruptcy. Shop til you drop is an addiction like overeating, like gambling, like drugs. It is a short term fix. And evidently people are going to prison for debt, but maybe those who hand out the credit cards should be in the cell next to them?

I agree with that for sure.

[drsolo]

westernrvparkowner In Montana, if a person rents an RV site for a consecutive period longer than 6 months they automatically become "tenants" and the person renting the site becomes their "landlord". When that happens, many things change.

Yes, and it should include a regular and very specific "terms of use" agreement between the landlord and the tenant, just like the one I have them sign AFTER I sit down with them and go over the whole thing with them. In Montana you have, 70-24-311. Landlord authorized to adopt rules. In fact, it is even more specific than in Wisconsin 70-24-321. Tenant to maintain dwelling unit.
The best way to avoid all the hassle is a month to month lease. (7) The landlord is not bound by this section in the event that the landlord elects to use the 30-day notice for termination of tenancy as provided in 70-24-441. (7) The landlord is not bound by this section in the event that the landlord elects to use the 30-d...
Like Wisconsin, non-payment of rent is not "cured" by just paying rent, a second non-payment in (IIRC) 60 days is the second bite of the apple as is any other non-compliance and good for termination. If substantially the same act or omission that constituted a prior noncompliance of which notice was...

The reason I check credit worthiness is precisely because it gives tenants a stake in protecting their credit rating by paying, complying or getting out without hassle to me.

I hope this isnt too boring to everyone else.

[westernrvparkow]

drsolo wrote:

westernrvparkowner wrote:
There are actually many laws that require landlords put up with deadbeats.
The fact is if there is a long time tenant, you will be violating a number of laws if you just tow the rig away, even if they are behind on the rent. The guy who said "he is going to get it out or we will" actually didn't know the legal aspects of his business.

Perhaps you have an online citation you would care to share regarding Montana's laws regarding campgrounds? It is otherwise hard to imagine that campground tenancy would be stricter than the laws governing landlords and rental housing.

"He" is in Florida, I dont know that the tenant was behind on rent or not, I dont know what he knows about the law or not, but I believed he would motivate the guy to move his trailer sooner rather than later and he did.

In Montana, if a person rents an RV site for a consecutive period longer than 6 months they automatically become "tenants" and the person renting the site becomes their "landlord". When that happens, many things change. To evict them I would have to send them a "notice of right to cure", outlining their violations and giving them a minimum of 20 days to fix that violation. Then I would have to file with the court for an eviction that typically takes 30 days. Also, the reasons I could evict them for is greatly restricted. As an "innkeeper" I can have and enforce just about any rule I want. Things like quiet hours, 6' leash rules, clean up after your pet, no campfires etc. And I can enforce those rules without any restrictions. As a "landlord" not only can I not enforce many of those rules, but I have to give the "Tennant" notice of any violation and allow them "cure" that violation moving forward instead of being able to just send them on their merry way. Big differences! And if you want to do the research on the specific laws, the entire Montana Code Annotated is searchable on line for a fee.

[drsolo]

CavemanCharlie wrote:
I'm 51 years old and have been employed all my life. I've never declared bankruptcy or even bounced a check.
I think a deadbeat is someone that buys more stuff then they can afford, then goes broke, declares bankruptcy, and expects my tax dollars to bail them out. Maybe we should bring back debtors prison.

People who are secure in who they are, who are proud of being a responsible citizen dont get sucked into playing the game of keeping up with the Joneses, dont get sucked into mindless consumerism. But easy credit combined with the constant barrage of ads equating happiness with owning the right things, more things, new things is a recipe for bankruptcy. Shop til you drop is an addiction like overeating, like gambling, like drugs. It is a short term fix. And evidently people are going to prison for debt, but maybe those who hand out the credit cards should be in the cell next to them?

[CavemanCharlie]

Why would you need more money to put up with the So Called Deadbeats?

And, what is the definition of a "Deadbeat"?

Someone that is not rich and can't afford a new camper is not necessarily a deadbeat.

I'm 51 years old and have been employed all my life. I've never declared bankruptcy or even bounced a check. Instead I live within my means. I have a 10 year old pickup, a 20 year old, but still nice looking TT, and 1984 Lincoln Mark VII that is clean and get me some compliments, and a 1973 boat that gets the job done. Yet, I think by some of your definitions you would call me a Deadbeat.

I think a deadbeat is someone that buys more stuff then they can afford, then goes broke, declares bankruptcy, and expects my tax dollars to bail them out.

Maybe we should bring back debtors prison.

[drsolo]

westernrvparkowner wrote:
There are actually many laws that require landlords put up with deadbeats.
The fact is if there is a long time tenant, you will be violating a number of laws if you just tow the rig away, even if they are behind on the rent. The guy who said "he is going to get it out or we will" actually didn't know the legal aspects of his business.

Perhaps you have an online citation you would care to share regarding Montana's laws regarding campgrounds? It is otherwise hard to imagine that campground tenancy would be stricter than the laws governing landlords and rental housing.

"He" is in Florida, I dont know that the tenant was behind on rent or not, I dont know what he knows about the law or not, but I believed he would motivate the guy to move his trailer sooner rather than later and he did.

[westernrvparkow]

drsolo wrote:
Personally, I would rather the owners werent too lazy to find out what the laws are and file the paperwork to get them booted. There are no laws that say people have to put up with deadbeats. We had tenants (with a good FICO) for a couple months that moved in an additional "roommate" against the rules of the contract they signed, let their dog******in the back yard against the rules and put a BBQ out on the second floor wood balcony against our rules and city rules. We filed the paperwork and they were out in a month and we lost no rent. They got out because they didnt want to screw their credit rating.

OTOH, I just scored the best site in my chosen campground that has very few rules by persistence. For me to get that spot the guy who owned the 40 ft 5th wheel who wasnt living there anymore had to pull it out of there. I knew it would happen because the guy at the front desk growled "he is going to get it out or we will" in a tone of voice that left me no doubt at all. I really appreciate people who know their business.

There are actually many laws that require landlords put up with deadbeats. That is why we never allow occupancy to go from an innkeeper status to a landlord status. That determination is generally determined both by time of residency, nature of the accommodation and contractual status. The fact is if there is a long time tenant, you will be violating a number of laws if you just tow the rig away, even if they are behind on the rent. The guy who said "he is going to get it out or we will" actually didn't know the legal aspects of his business.

[drsolo]

Personally, I would rather the owners werent too lazy to find out what the laws are and file the paperwork to get them booted. There are no laws that say people have to put up with deadbeats. We had tenants (with a good FICO) for a couple months that moved in an additional "roommate" against the rules of the contract they signed, let their dog******in the back yard against the rules and put a BBQ out on the second floor wood balcony against our rules and city rules. We filed the paperwork and they were out in a month and we lost no rent. They got out because they didnt want to screw their credit rating.

OTOH, I just scored the best site in my chosen campground that has very few rules by persistence. For me to get that spot the guy who owned the 40 ft 5th wheel who wasnt living there anymore had to pull it out of there. I knew it would happen because the guy at the front desk growled "he is going to get it out or we will" in a tone of voice that left me no doubt at all. I really appreciate people who know their business.

[toedtoes]

What does charging more have to do with laying out clear rules as to what is acceptable and what is not???

The truth is, the only thing wishy washy rules do is give park owners an excuse to discriminate against customers based on personal biases. But that's OK as long as you don't have to be at a park with some poor dweeb out on his luck.

[JaxDad]

toedtoes wrote:

JaxDad wrote:
The problem, as has been stated in many threads previously, isn't the age of the RV per se, it's the undesirables who get in then become a problem and / or won't leave.

It's like the "no overnight parking" many cities have imposed on plazas and Wally Worlds, it's a tool to deal with the few bad apples that spoil it for everyone else.

I understand the reason behind it, but I still am not going to bother with a park or campground whose policy is wishy washy. A rule that states "RVs must be in reasonably presentable condition" is very wishy washy. There is nothing in that rule that helps me determine whether I'd be welcome there or not. If my welcome is in any doubt, I'm going to choose another place to stay.

Then the simple solution is to merely charge everybody a bunch more so they have some cash in the kitty to cover the deadbeats.

You want to be first to pay the extra?

Personally, I'd rather have 'wishy washy' rules than pay extra for some deadbeats.

[CavemanCharlie]

Me ? No. I solve that problem by staying at public parks. State parks, county parks, city parks, etc. They can't keep you out for the age of your camper. They could look at you funny and gripe but, that's never happened to me.

[2oldman]

drsolo wrote:
So anyone who declines to associate with those they feel are "inferior" are snobs.

Birds of a feather flock together, the rich are no exception.

[toedtoes]

JaxDad wrote:
The problem, as has been stated in many threads previously, isn't the age of the RV per se, it's the undesirables who get in then become a problem and / or won't leave.

It's like the "no overnight parking" many cities have imposed on plazas and Wally Worlds, it's a tool to deal with the few bad apples that spoil it for everyone else.

I understand the reason behind it, but I still am not going to bother with a park or campground whose policy is wishy washy. A rule that states "RVs must be in reasonably presentable condition" is very wishy washy. There is nothing in that rule that helps me determine whether I'd be welcome there or not. If my welcome is in any doubt, I'm going to choose another place to stay.