Paid for but vacant sites

[BluStem]

Most state parks in Iowa consider a site occupied if it's payed for.
I find out from co-workers that some public parks they have been to require a payed site to be occupied with a camper or someone else can take it. I maintain if a site is payed for then it should be yours regardless if you have a unit on it or not. Why wouldn't it?

[Hammerhead]

Don't forget about people with motor homes that may not leave anything in the site when they head out for the day so their site would look like it vacant until the campers return that evening.

[karead7]

Interesting discussion. Our campground has been "sold out" several times this season, but there are always five or six empty sites. And when there are, do I hear about it! Always from someone who would have showed up a day or two earlier had they known. I think two policies should be instituted. One, weekend camping should be booked for a minimum of both Friday and Saturday nights. That alleviated the problem of there only being several one night sites left empty. And two, if you don't show up for your first reserved night, and we can't get hold of you, your campsite is considered abandoned, whether you paid for it or not.

www.travelwithkevinandruth.com

[korbe]

I'm beginning to see that reoccurring theme come up once again after a page or so of comments. The attitude of ME. Many campground topics end the same way. Campgrounds used to be neighborly and friendly. Not so much anymore.

[rockhillmanor]

pappcam wrote:

Javi1 wrote:

BluStem wrote:

rv2go wrote:

BluStem wrote:
I maintain if a site is payed for then it should be yours regardless if you have a unit on it or not. Why wouldn't it?

Using this principle, you are saying someone with the financial means could reserve the whole CG for weeks and weeks without occupying a site.

You bet. If it's payed for, it's taken. Very simple.

X2 If not then don't call it renting, when I rent a car for the week it don't matter to the rental company if the car sits in the parking lot or I drive it every day.

Campgrounds have limited space and a person that actually wants to camp should be able to use a vacant site. What kind of bad planning does it take to rent a site for days you aren't even there? What's so hard about actually planning and figuring out when you actually need a campsite. State and provincial parks are meant to be used by the taxpayers and they're funded by the taxpayers and having empty sites around everywhere because of lazy and selfish people wouldn't be right, hence the existing rules.

First of all I think there are 2 instances:
One: were you reserve the site with OUT paying
Two: PAYING for a site in advance

Reserving without paying, most CG's have a check in time and if there is a no show it is rented out because it has NOT been paid for.

PAYING in advance for a site and for whatever reason you don't make it???? You paid for it which insures you the site no matter what time you pull in.

And lastly I take offense of your comment in reference to "lazy and selfish people", and "bad planning".

FYI news flash for you, not everyone RV's on a "specified, given, known a year in advance date". You are not the only type of RV'er on the road. There are many more of us that ARE ON THE ROAD more than a 7 day vacation planned in a year in advance.

We pay for sites for the convenience of pulling in when ever and if ever any damn time we want. Don't rightly care if you didn't like that the site was empty all day....I PAID in full for the convenience and insurance of that site being empty and ready for me to pull in when and if I got there.

[dieharder]

If it's paid for, I don't think anyone has anything to say about it. In fact, the campground or park is even happier because there is no one hooked up to use the amenities (if any) and they're still bringing the fee in on it.

Who are we to say what others can and can not do with their money, as long as it's legal?

[pappcam]

Javi1 wrote:

BluStem wrote:

rv2go wrote:

BluStem wrote:
I maintain if a site is payed for then it should be yours regardless if you have a unit on it or not. Why wouldn't it?

Using this principle, you are saying someone with the financial means could reserve the whole CG for weeks and weeks without occupying a site.

You bet. If it's payed for, it's taken. Very simple.

X2 If not then don't call it renting, when I rent a car for the week it don't matter to the rental company if the car sits in the parking lot or I drive it every day.

Campgrounds have limited space and a person that actually wants to camp should be able to use a vacant site. What kind of bad planning does it take to rent a site for days you aren't even there? What's so hard about actually planning and figuring out when you actually need a campsite. State and provincial parks are meant to be used by the taxpayers and they're funded by the taxpayers and having empty sites around everywhere because of lazy and selfish people wouldn't be right, hence the existing rules.

[Lantley]

powderman426 wrote:

MURPHY55347 wrote:
Minnesota parks also require the site to be occupied on the first night of the reservation. There are only 5,000 sites in all the parks here and it only seems fair to give someone else a chance at the site. Many people are now reserving a site for every weekend during the summer and using it as their weekend getaway.

I'm just wondering if you had a spot reserved and had a breakdown. Then when you get there the next day you find you don't have a site and may be many miles from home. Would you still be ok with them giving your site away?

A simple phone call could alleviate that problem.
Renting a site and purposefully leaving it unoccupied. Is rude. If you can't make it just call and cancel. Why deny someone else the chance to use the site?

[georgelesley]

The other side of this discussion is if you leave a site you have paid for to go somewhere for a bit. With a class B, we often do this. We now carry a sign showing site taken, the dates we have paid for, our license number and a pic of the RV. We occasionally have to go somewhere for a bit and do not use a toad.

[Homer1]

Just be reasonable. If you are not going to show up and you have reserved a site, does it make you feel any better to know that some one did not get to camp because you owned the site via a advanced rental?. Call and cancel out, yes you will forfeit your deposit, maybe even a nights rent. But some one else will feel very good about getting a place to stay.

[powderman426]

MURPHY55347 wrote:
Minnesota parks also require the site to be occupied on the first night of the reservation. There are only 5,000 sites in all the parks here and it only seems fair to give someone else a chance at the site. Many people are now reserving a site for every weekend during the summer and using it as their weekend getaway.

I'm just wondering if you had a spot reserved and had a breakdown. Then when you get there the next day you find you don't have a site and may be many miles from home. Would you still be ok with them giving your site away?

[Javi1]

BluStem wrote:

rv2go wrote:

BluStem wrote:
I maintain if a site is payed for then it should be yours regardless if you have a unit on it or not. Why wouldn't it?

Using this principle, you are saying someone with the financial means could reserve the whole CG for weeks and weeks without occupying a site.

You bet. If it's payed for, it's taken. Very simple.

X2 If not then don't call it renting, when I rent a car for the week it don't matter to the rental company if the car sits in the parking lot or I drive it every day.

[bmupton]

rockhillmanor wrote:

As a seasonal guy this year, I wish there were rules that stated you have to actively USE the site. There were about six seasonal sites this year that I saw the trailer owner maybe one weekend all summer. $1500 for a spot for summer and you don't use it at all? Why not give it back so someone on the waiting list (ours are done via a lottery draw) can have a spot?

:s
If someone has paid for a camp site why would anyone else ever care if they used it or not.:? They PAID for it, they can do whatever they want with it.

Same thing with a CG site. I sometimes will pay for a site in advance because I am not sure when I will arrive. That's my insurance. I have PAID for it and I know I will have a spot when I arrive. And again it's not anyone else's business how I use or don't use my paid CG site. :R

Mostly just because I see the frustration from the people that would like to be there but can't because the other guy took the spot but then didn't use it at all. Plus, I'd rather have neighbors next door than empty trailers all summer.

But really, you're right: It's none of my business what you do with your paid for site.

[BluStem]

rv2go wrote:

BluStem wrote:
I maintain if a site is payed for then it should be yours regardless if you have a unit on it or not. Why wouldn't it?

Using this principle, you are saying someone with the financial means could reserve the whole CG for weeks and weeks without occupying a site.

You bet. If it's payed for, it's taken. Very simple.

[pegdiver]

I was a no-show in Ohio State Park last month. Made a mistake in the reservation dates that I didn't notice until we got within a few hours of the park. The dates were long past. Luckily we were able to get a site that day. So, I 'ate' the full fee. Don't know what the campground did with the campsite but hope it was rented to someone else. Sometimes things happen.

[sdianel_-acct_c]

From Florida State Parks (Reserve America) reservation rules:
"If you are unable to arrive on the first day of the reservation, the park will hold the reservation until check-out time the next day (1:00 p.m. local time for campsites and 11:00 a.m. for cabins). After that time, if you have not called the park, directly, the park may no-show the reservation, cancel it, and refund the balance, less the first night's use fees."
In my opinion, this is a fair rule. If you don't show, you should forfeit the site and allow someone else to have it. Better yet, if you know you aren't going to make it, call and cancel so someone else can enjoy it.