We attempted to stay at 2 "RV Parks" in New Orleans today and upon arrival, they were located in bad sections and had lots of FEMA trailers there. My wife declined to stay (she makes all major decisions) so we went on to campground in LaPlace, LA. Both were in Trailer Life and sounded OK when we talked via telephone. Should I write up or not as we didn't really stay there, but I would like to present my case to help others.
Well, I for one, would sure like to know your impressions. B) Why not note in your review why you had to pass on that particular park. Curious what our Moderator thinks. Forgive me. Have a large 'hot button' on excessive or just plain false marketing...past life in the medical world. Thinking more about this: I remember at least one other set of reviews where the reviewer was upfront about a park not meeting expectations and moving onto another in the area.
QUOTE(FosterImposters @ Feb 24 2008, 06:24 PM) [snapback]10386[/snapback] Thinking more about this: I remember at least one other set of reviews where the reviewer was upfront about a park not meeting expectations and moving onto another in the area. I think, in that case, the reviewer stayed at least ONE night, then moved on. I think there was a thread or maybe a part of a thread, where people wanted to know if they could review even if they DIDN'T stay..... I remember something about....it is preferred that you actually STAYED at the park for your review, but beats me! I would like the webmaster to weigh in on this, too! JJ
Number of very bad RV places in downtown N/O and one Class A only park that is great. N/O is a good place to get killed now, I think it is the number one spot in USA for murder. Look at other reviews and you will see numbers of people have not been happy over this place. We will not return if this goes on in future. On the other hand across the river at Westwege "Bayou Segnette SP" was a great place to camp before the storm took it out. Park is back in service now, less the trees. We all need information on campgrounds. If someone drives in and it is raining park is a 1 and you drive off. This is not right. You need to spend a night in park to rate it. On the other hand if place looks like hell I would also drive off. If I write it up I would note that I did not spend time in park. I see this all the time on reviews. FEMA trailers are all over this part of LA.
Some of you make "FEMA Trailers" sound like some kind of plague. There are FEMA trailers in all the Gulf States. They were put there by the government and I'm sure the people that live in them don't want to be there. You might try talking to some of them and learn from them. There but for the grace of God go you and I.
My $.02 is if a place looks so bad that someone does not stay there, I would like to know. The reviewer could state that he/she did not stay and explain why. While this kind of review would not give us all the usual information about the place, it would certainly tell us something worth knowing. If the reviewer's first impressions are not accurate there will probably be other reviews to set the record straight. I cannot think of a time that we have actually left a park after seeing it, but we have driven in our car through several parks that we would never stay at. I did not write reviews for any them, but if I had it might have saved someone else some time and trouble. I'm not going to stay at a dump even one night just so I can write a review; and if we aren't allowed to post a review unless we actually stay there how else are we going to get out the word about bad places?
The subject of reviewing, a less than desirable park/location, the question "why" would be foremost in the readers mind. The fact that they did not stay there should be noted, in the beginning of the review, and then the reason(s) as to why they chose not to stay. With these facts.........information the reader can make their own decision as to wether to use this business. At least they would be enlightened, and put on notice to investigate before coming to their conclusion as to stay or not.
QUOTE(Butch @ Feb 25 2008, 06:17 AM) [snapback]10401[/snapback] The subject of reviewing, a less than desirable park/location, the question "why" would be foremost in the readers mind. The fact that they did not stay there should be noted, in the beginning of the review, and then the reason(s) as to why they chose not to stay. With these facts.........information the reader can make their own decision as to wether to use this business. At least they would be enlightened, and put on notice to investigate before coming to their conclusion as to stay or not. Sometimes I chose not to stay at a park due to a "gut feeling." It didn't really LOOK like a dump, but I drove in, got this HORRIBLE feeling, and got the **** out of there. Found out later the park is full of drug dealers and "entreprenerial women." How could I post a review based on a "gut feeling?" People would laugh! JJ
Butch, I agree with you that any information about a park will help the reader make up his/her own mind. That is what this site is all about. We don't always agree on whether a place is a "good" park or not, but just the fact that someone saw and reported undesirable elements will give me information that I can use to make a decision about staying there. JJ, we have all had "feelings" about places. This is good and probably keeps us out of danger. In your case it sounds like your feeling was based on instinct not on things that were actually observed--unless the drug dealers and "ladies" were standing on the corner peddling their wares. Even so something sent up a red flag for you, and you made a good decision by leaving. If it were me I think this would be a tough call as to whether to write a review or not. On one hand your "feeling" indicates something about the atmosphere of the park, but it would be hard to justify if there was no tangible evidence. In Lindsey's case it sounds like they actually saw undesirable conditions that caused them to leave. This would make his review more credible. Bottom line for me is I would try to have actual observed evidence on which to base my review, although it would never be wrong to warn others about places that are truly dangerous.
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Feb 25 2008, 10:32 AM) [snapback]10413[/snapback] JJ, we have all had "feelings" about places. This is good and probably keeps us out of danger. In your case it sounds like your feeling was based on instinct not on things that were actually observed--unless the drug dealers and "ladies" were standing on the corner peddling their wares. Even so something sent up a red flag for you, and you made a good decision by leaving. If it were me I think this would be a tough call as to whether to write a review or not. On one hand your "feeling" indicates something about the atmosphere of the park, but it would be hard to justify if there was no tangible evidence. In Lindsey's case it sounds like they actually saw undesirable conditions that caused them to leave. This would make his review more credible. Bottom line for me is I would try to have actual observed evidence on which to base my review, although it would never be wrong to warn others about places that are truly dangerous. The park where I got the HORRIBLE feeling...... There are no reviews posted on it anywhere. None here, and none at the "other" two review sites. (This park was in Spokane, WA.) But just because there is no review posted, doesn't mean you shouldn't stay there. Just check it out, and trust your gut. JJ
JJ, I am again curious. How do you manage to find these "hooker" parks? This is the second time (the other was a southern CA park) that you have mentioned "finding out" that a park had this problem. Was the Spokane park really an RV park, a mobile home park with some RV sites, or an RV park with a lot of permanent residents? I checked Woodall's Spokane listings and found no parks with hookers or drug dealers under Recreation facilities. You could at least tell us what park it was. That way your second hand hearsay can either be a boon to their business or ruin their reputation. I guess you will never stay in Nevada. I am still waiting for the original poster to tell me why the area the park was in was a "bad section" and explain why FEMA trailers in the park are such a negative.
There has been a previous forum post of this topic. I spent a few minutes looking but wasn’t able to find it. If memory serves, the Webmaster did make a comment that it would be preferable if an individual made a rating bases on an actual stay at a campground. Couple of basic issues here: One is that like Lindsay we all submit reviews to help our fellow RVers make an educated choice for an acceptable campground. His was a valid question so why are you “killing the messenger” with subsequent remarks about FEMA trailers that supposes he has a prejudice? Two, I don’t think anyone using this, or any other like website, actually places their entire faith on the campground reviews listed here. A review is just one tool to help us pick a campground that might be acceptable if we have not been there before. Obviously, the validity and accuracy of a review is greater if one did actually stay at the C/G. But if a campground has not ever been rated on this website, then some measure of a review might actually be useful. By some measure, I absolutely do not mean a drive-by, first impression. If you can’t take the time to drive IN to the C/G and check out at least the basics, then don’t publish a review. If you make that extra effort, then I figure that you are actually trying to help me find a decent campground.
QUOTE(Jerry S. @ Feb 25 2008, 09:31 PM) [snapback]10420[/snapback] JJ, I am again curious. How do you manage to find these "hooker" parks? This is the second time (the other was a southern CA park) that you have mentioned "finding out" that a park had this problem. Was the Spokane park really an RV park, a mobile home park with some RV sites, or an RV park with a lot of permanent residents? I checked Woodall's Spokane listings and found no parks with hookers or drug dealers under Recreation facilities. You could at least tell us what park it was. That way your second hand hearsay can either be a boon to their business or ruin their reputation. I guess you will never stay in Nevada. The California h&dd park, I did not drive in that one. I found that one.... somewhere, I forgot where I found it, but my friend that lived in the town that park was in told me it was a "drug dealers and entreprenerial women" park. As for the park in Spokane, WA, it was MAPLE TREE RV Park, it was on East Sprague. I drove in that one, got a HORRIBLE gut feeling, and left. My brother in law was the one who later told me "hookers and drug dealers." The one I did end up staying at in Spokane (and I have the ONLY review posted for it) is Park Lane, which is a mile down the street (also on East Sprague) from Maple Tree. Yeah, right! I could just see GOOD SAM or WOODALL putting "hookers and drug dealers" under "recreation facilities....." Um, one time I was in Long Beach, WA (not CA, WA also has a LONG BEACH), and I saw a sign that said, "ADULT RV Park." I think..... the sign was trying to convey that one needed to be 55+ to stay there, but the way the sign read, well, I couldn't help but wonder...... I didn't drive in that park...... JJ QUOTE(RLM @ Feb 25 2008, 10:43 PM) [snapback]10421[/snapback] There has been a previous forum post of this topic. I spent a few minutes looking but wasn’t able to find it. If memory serves, the Webmaster did make a comment that it would be preferable if an individual made a rating bases on an actual stay at a campground. {snip} Obviously, the validity and accuracy of a review is greater if one did actually stay at the C/G. But if a campground has not ever been rated on this website, then some measure of a review might actually be useful. By some measure, I absolutely do not mean a drive-by, first impression. If you can’t take the time to drive IN to the C/G and check out at least the basics, then don’t publish a review. If you make that extra effort, then I figure that you are actually trying to help me find a decent campground. I agree with the intent of what you are trying to say (that one should at least spend 1 night there....), but what actually constitutes a "stay?" 1 minute? 5 minutes? Just checking....... Also, as for my famous "hooker and drug dealer" park in Spokane, well, at one of the "other" review sites (there are two others that I know of....), I actually did attempt to post my "gut feeling experience" for that park on that review site. The moderator never did post it, it's been over a year. So, I assumed it would be in bad taste to send that same post to this site....... JJ
JJ...what are the other websites you use to find/post RV park reviews? Lindsay R...saw your reviews. Well said! Thanks!
Awhile back (maybe before you joined, JJ) someone told a story about pulling into an adult park (somewhere in Florida, I think) which they assumed was a 55+ park. Turned out it was a clothing optional park. The person told the story much funnier, but I guess it just goes to show you better do your homework and not assume anything. (I think that story was on this site, but I couldn't find it. Maybe it was in one of the RV magazines.)
QUOTE What constitutes a "bad section" and why FEMA trailers are a negative? A bad section is one where we felt very unsafe and my wife refused to stay. A FEMA trailer, trashed out does not make a good neighbor. I can agree that many people needed to have a FEMA trailer to have a roof over their head and I myself was in that place in 1960 after Hurricane Donna. I do think that anybody who is still leaving in a FEMA trailer nearly 2 ½ years after the hurricane shows little sense to be the kind of person I want as a neighbor. We did spend about ½ day looking at the damage around the 9th ward and was shocked to see what we saw. That would be hundreds of able bodied men lounging around on porches drinking and doing nothing to better their situation and apparently waiting for the government to rebuild them a project to live in. I believe these are the same ones who waited for the buses to take them to safety. I am going to review the two parks making it clear that we didn’t stay, but making sure that we state the problems we saw. We ended up have problems turning around at both places (had the toad hooked up).
Linday Richards, Thank you for your clarification of what consitutes a "bad section" (men....drinking) and why Fema trailers (trashed out) are a negative. I would have accepted your rationale if you had not then editorialized about what kind of people these men and trailer occupants might be. Your assumptions about "....little sense..." and "...doing nothing..." and so on could possibly have some truth to them, but you don't know the stories behind any of these men or trailer residents. I have been in LA and MS three time (10/06, 5/07, and 10/07) for a total of over 2 months since Katrina and Rita. I have seen many stories by LA TV and newspapers about the people and their situations. In addition to the horrific loss of life, hundreds of thousands lost , homes, jobs, schools, vehicles - everything! While some left and were able to start anew elsewhere and others left with hopes of returning, not all who stayed have been have been able to return to a normal life with a job to go to and a home. In addition to all the homes that were destroyed, many small businesses (where many of these people worked) disappeared and have not come back. The broad brush with which you painted this scene, while colorful, seems inappropriate, at best.
Though not in New Orleans, I have posted a review on a 2 parks in which we did not stay. They are local parks. One operated by the City of Jacksonville and the other a Florida State Park. My rational for the postings was to alert folks that 1) the city park had no hook-ups of any kind, just boon docking sites and 2) the State Park had size restrictions, would have some serious drainage problems following a rain, that there was a heavy and low canopy of trees, and was probably best suited for rigs less than 30 feet. Both campground had not been reviewed and are off the beaten path. In other words anyone going there would probably be going out of their way to get there. Better for them to know about the short falls before actually driving there.
Having been in the eye of a hurricane myself and knowing what can happen I think that 2 ½ years is more than enough for people to get going again. I know of a church i Florida tht took in over 200 families after Katrina and to a person they got back on their feet and became a credit to the community. It is my understanding from a friend who lives there, that there is a shortage of willing people to work now as there was before. Sorry, you think I used a broad brush, but that’s what I saw and what I reported. I would not have allowed ourselves to be put into a dangerous situation at either of these parks. I suspect that a large number of RV’ers would agree with me. This is my last on the subject. People can make their own decisions.
