More RV Regulations

captnjack wrote:
.

Much ado about nothing, IMO. Please check paranoia at the door. The government is not coming after your RV.

just remember that paranoids can have real enemies.
bumpy

4X4Dodger wrote:
This article does and says only ONE thing, it brings into serious question Mr. Gerbers reading comprehension skills, which apparently are nil.

He has gotten the entire thing backwards. Not just wrong but backwards.

And it's a good thing many of you are not lawyers cause you wouldn't win any cases.

The seminal point in the EXEMPTION of RV's from the proposed regulations (which is what this so called "regulation" which is really just a rule making exercise up for comment, is; that RV's will remain classed as non housing.

THIS DOES NOT affect the way you can choose to use them. It merely takes them out of play in any dispute over the housing regulations.

The Bottom line...the take-away here is: There is nothing to worry about...except Mr. Gerbers education and why it appears to have been so deficient.

From what I have read of his prior to this he at least is consistent in his inability to read a document like this and get it true significance.

He failed to understand the proposed regulation and wrote about it. Now a bunch of members of this forum are further misunderstanding. This is how wild non-sensical rumors spread.

Much ado about nothing, IMO. Please check paranoia at the door. The government is not coming after your RV.

Our 5th wheel is built for full time or part time. It says in their paperwork..."We want our customers to enjoy our 5th wheels, part time and full time. Our 5th wheel is built very well and takes a big commercial vehicle to pull, it is extremely heavy. We have pulled it coast to coast and north to south.
Have heard from some people.....there are no RVs built to live in full time. I think they are misunderstanding the different kinds and manufactures of 5th wheels, trailers, motor homes. Some are built better than others...... People get what they pay for.
We full timed in this one for 8 years. Been RVing for several years before that and this is our 4th 5th wheel. So we have experienced a few different brands. All 5th wheels.

Dick A wrote:
This may also be of interest to those RV'ers who are also week-end stock car racers.

That is insanity.

This article does and says only ONE thing, it brings into serious question Mr. Gerbers reading comprehension skills, which apparently are nil.

He has gotten the entire thing backwards. Not just wrong but backwards.

And it's a good thing many of you are not lawyers cause you wouldn't win any cases.

The seminal point in the EXEMPTION of RV's from the proposed regulations (which is what this so called "regulation" which is really just a rule making exercise up for comment, is; that RV's will remain classed as non housing.

THIS DOES NOT affect the way you can choose to use them. It merely takes them out of play in any dispute over the housing regulations.

The Bottom line...the take-away here is: There is nothing to worry about...except Mr. Gerbers education and why it appears to have been so deficient.

From what I have read of his prior to this he at least is consistent in his inability to read a document like this and get it true significance.

Yes sir, I have a permanent residence. It is the second bench on the left in the park. :R

... but on really rainy days I sometimes move to the space under the highway overpass. ;)

Sam Spade wrote:

Bumpyroad wrote:
regulation will merely require a sign/plate/or whatever saying something that is widely known already,

Just because YOU know it doesn't mean that most other people do too.
In ALL of my shopping and purchasing and using an RV, I have NEVER heard this......not once.

So my experience makes me believe that it is NOT "widely" known.

any body who steps into a RV be it a A,B,C, park model, 5er or TT and can't tell that they are not stepping into a Pulte built McMansion probably wouldn't be able to read this new sign anyway.
bumpy

If I recall correctly, Fed. Income Tax was to be a temporary thing. and every govt. agency that has been established historically grows and grows and grows.

bumpy

tatest wrote:
The proposed amendment is about "truth in labeling." The current method of distinguishing recreational vehicles (exempt from building codes and HUD standards) from manufactured housing (built to permanent housing standards) was size, and this has become broken by larger park model RVs and large fivers. In addition, park model RVs, particularly, are being sold into the permanent housing market in places where building codes allow this. Many people buying these are led to believe they are getting a mobile home rather than a RV.

The proposal is that RVs built to RV standards be labeled as such, for buyer awareness. It proposes no restrictions on what RVs can be manufactured (indeed, it allows for larger RVs by removing size as the criterion for the HUD standards exemption). It proposes no changes in building codes, which are local, and are the real determinant as to what is considered adequate housing where.

are you aware of the sale of "larger park models" that exceed the 399 sq ft limit. if so, they are not legal now. and since an additional govt. regulation will merely require a sign/plate/or whatever saying something that is widely known already, I just see it as more red tape that serves no useful purpose. will enable setting up a few thousand govt. employees with a job however.
bumpy

The proposed amendment is about "truth in labeling." The current method of distinguishing recreational vehicles (exempt from building codes and HUD standards) from manufactured housing (built to permanent housing standards) was size, and this has become broken by larger park model RVs and large fivers. In addition, park model RVs, particularly, are being sold into the permanent housing market in places where building codes allow this. Many people buying these are led to believe they are getting a mobile home rather than a RV.

The proposal is that RVs built to RV standards be labeled as such, for buyer awareness. It proposes no restrictions on what RVs can be manufactured (indeed, it allows for larger RVs by removing size as the criterion for the HUD standards exemption). It proposes no changes in building codes, which are local, and are the real determinant as to what is considered adequate housing where.