Senior Citizens Speak Up

[DallasSteve]

A lot of seniors, like me, are living in RVs. If the states and feds close the campgrounds we will be paying higher park rates to stay in crowded private campgrounds that will probably raise rates even more and surely won't be less safe from a health standpoint. I sent a respectful message to the Corps Of Engineers yesterday telling them my opinion. Seniors have clout at the ballot box.

[1duckie4u]

Walaby

More room for the rest of us who can appreciate all the beauty and diversity the state has to offer.

[drsteve]

In MI you can stay 15 days, then you have to leave for 5 days.

[pnichols]

Dutch_12078 wrote:

pnichols wrote:

As for using a Recreational Vehicle for full-time living in, I'm not sure I'm a fan of using national tax or state tax park dollars to support this. What I do support is use of tax dollars to set aside special areas where folks could full-time live at using RVs (areas kept and maintained much, much better than the Slabs) ... such that maybe true recreational part-time RV'ers could find a spot when they are able to break free and take their RV out for a few days here and there.

What makes your part-time RV use any more "recreational" than my full-time RV use? I worked over 50 years so I could retire and enjoy my remaining years traveling around the country in my RV seeing the sights I missed while working. Why should my 2 week stay at a state park be any different than your 2 week stay? The only difference is where we go home after our stays.

If your stays are 14 days maximum before you leave and free up that beautiful and pristine spot ... then be my tax dollars guest - here and there. But ... to do it over and over again permanently I think I have a problem with because: Some others of us who may also have worked decades and paid taxes so we could retire and enjoy our remaining years part-time traveling here and there around the country in our RVs - more and more find that the most beautiful and pristine spots are taken up by too many full-time experts already living in them in 14-day chunks - such that they're rarely available for "part-time recreating in" by the rest of us.

[pnichols]

DallasSteve wrote:

pnichols wrote:

As for using a Recreational Vehicle for full-time living in, I'm not sure I'm a fan of using national tax or state tax park dollars to support this.

Well, that can go both ways. I may not be a fan of using national tax or state tax park dollars to support your part-time use either. There's no moral law that says one is right and the other is wrong.

Well, to put it bluntly ... IMHO the parks were meant for recreating in here and there ... not for living in week after week on the cheap.

Read up on some of the historic reasons why they were established and I'd be very surprised if the intent was to provide places to live at long term by any one person (other than certain park employees).

[Dutch_12078]

pnichols wrote:

As for using a Recreational Vehicle for full-time living in, I'm not sure I'm a fan of using national tax or state tax park dollars to support this. What I do support is use of tax dollars to set aside special areas where folks could full-time live at using RVs (areas kept and maintained much, much better than the Slabs) ... such that maybe true recreational part-time RV'ers could find a spot when they are able to break free and take their RV out for a few days here and there.

What makes your part-time RV use any more "recreational" than my full-time RV use? I worked over 50 years so I could retire and enjoy my remaining years traveling around the country in my RV seeing the sights I missed while working. Why should my 2 week stay at a state park be any different than your 2 week stay? The only difference is where we go home after our stays.

[DallasSteve]

pnichols wrote:

As for using a Recreational Vehicle for full-time living in, I'm not sure I'm a fan of using national tax or state tax park dollars to support this.

Well, that can go both ways. I may not be a fan of using national tax or state tax park dollars to support your part-time use either. There's no moral law that says one is right and the other is wrong.

[timmac]

DallasSteve wrote:
A lot of seniors, like me, are living in RVs. If the states and feds close the campgrounds we will be paying higher park rates to stay in crowded private campgrounds that will probably raise rates even more and surely won't be less safe from a health standpoint. I sent a respectful message to the Corps Of Engineers yesterday telling them my opinion. Seniors have clout at the ballot box.

Well head to Quartzsite Arizona or Slab City California, I heard its really cheap there and you can hide out from Covid-19. {china virus}

:R

[pnichols]

Hmmm ... as usual a lot of CA-bashing going on here ... or is it sour grapes talking!

My DW is a CA native, and I left Michigan at age 19, moved to CA, and never looked back. Thanks to good old Prop 13, our CA property taxes are way lower than what they would be otherwise and way lower than what they would be in many other "better" states (based on tax comments that I read in these forums). In our situation we pay no (as in zero) state income taxes. We have no mosquitoes. Our average humidity never gets anywhere near 80% or higher, and our mild temperatures are legendary. And, FWIW, in our particular situation none of our stick house power or RV storage power comes from burning anything.

California Prop 13 type laws should be passed in every state, IMHO, so that folks could stay in their stick houses long term if they just happened to want to, and be able to, otherwise. Regarding SS - ours and everybody else's does indeed get adjusted upwards any year whenever a certain inflation index dictates - so it's not "fixed".

As for using a Recreational Vehicle for full-time living in, I'm not sure I'm a fan of using national tax or state tax park dollars to support this. What I do support is use of tax dollars to set aside special areas where folks could full-time live at using RVs (areas kept and maintained much, much better than the Slabs) ... such that maybe true recreational part-time RV'ers could find a spot when they are able to break free and take their RV out for a few days here and there.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

DallasSteve wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

Walaby wrote:
How about an ex wife who rips you off and then, when you finally had enough and leave, she criticizes you for leaving?

Mike

Seriously, don't flatter yourself. Do you really think California or any Californian cared that you left?

Reminds me of a famous country song. I've thought about getting a bumper sticker that says:

"All my exes live in Texas, that's why I live in an RV"

It's funny because it's true.

I can believe that!

My daughter just bought a home from a recently divorced couple.

The woman is moving to the Bay Area while the dude is going to Texas.

Wonder why is that if this is indeed the pattern, lol.

[DallasSteve]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

Walaby wrote:
How about an ex wife who rips you off and then, when you finally had enough and leave, she criticizes you for leaving?

Mike

Seriously, don't flatter yourself. Do you really think California or any Californian cared that you left?

Reminds me of a famous country song. I've thought about getting a bumper sticker that says:

"All my exes live in Texas, that's why I live in an RV"

It's funny because it's true.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

Walaby wrote:
Apparently "someone" does....

Who?

[Walaby]

Apparently "someone" does....

[Yosemite_Sam1]

travelnutz wrote:
Yosemite, who's fault is it that maybe you married the wrong woman??? Your choice made and thus shall live with the results thereof! Not someone else's problems, period!

Huh?:h:S:@:?:h:S

[Yosemite_Sam1]

Walaby wrote:
How about an ex wife who rips you off and then, when you finally had enough and leave, she criticizes you for leaving?

Mike

Seriously, don't flatter yourself. Do you really think California or any Californian cared that you left?

[travelnutz]

Yosemite, who's fault is it that maybe you married the wrong woman??? Your choice made and thus shall live with the results thereof! Not someone else's problems, period!