Perhaps it's been discussed previously - after all I've just joined recently - but one factoid that matters to us a lot is some times (if we're lucky) a review mentions an incidental observation something along the line of "mostly long term" or "lots of full time residents" or similar. Yes, we fully realize this may not matter to some, again this is what matters to us. It would be nice to have an optional entry of some format whereby reviewers could enter a rough (estimated) percentage of apparent long-term vs short term sites at each resort or campground. Sure it'll be inaccurate, but it's just part of the overall experience that's evaluated already, such as "cleanliness" and "service" and "value" etc. I'd suggest considering five check blocks 0-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60+ with default of "No Evaluated" or such. Thanks for the consideration of what would, to us, add value to this fine web site.
I think in general, trying to rank parks in this manner opens a can of worms with many variables. "Warm winter" parks for instance, might be a "60+" in snowbird season, and a "0-20" the rest of the year. I've also stayed at parks where the rules for seasonal/year round renters is that their RV must be kept in "move out" condition at all times, with no permanent structures allowed. Determining which guests are long term can be pretty difficult under those conditions. Personally, if a park is clean and well maintained, I don't really care how many long term guests they have, as long as the park enforces the rules equally for all.
This topic has been discussed in previous threads both on this forum and several other RV forums. It has become a contentious issue since, these days, many (most?) private RV parks all over the country have substantial percentages of non-vacationing long term residents. Personally, I agree with NYDutch that there is nothing objectionable about such folks as long as the park maintains standards that keep it looking nice. I suspect that the OP would be more comfortable with long term park neighbors if they were there for a month's vacation rather than for a month's work assignment at a local business. OTOH I don't see any difference between the desirability of the two types and I don't ask why someone is in a park unless they volunteer the information.
Boy, this one just doesn't go away, does it? Time for me to pitch not including permanent residents in the total lot count for a park's profile. "Term" residents, regardless of the length of the "term", means that it will end sometime and the space will again be available. We are currently in our Winter Texas home; a town police officer lives here in a TT rented to him by the park. He is a very nice young man and it is good to see a squad car parked around the corner. He is permanent. We are term, we'll be leaving April 30th. It would be impossible to track term residents, and the snooping could become intrusive. The difficulty defining: term, would be elusive and subjective. But permanent...I can tell permanent. We all can. Start with lack of current licensing, wooden structures added, and large appliances like freezers outside. They should be noted, because they easily can be.
At our Winter Texas park the rule is that no one can occupy a site for more than 8 months out of any 12 month period. However, the park does let some people rent their sites on an annual basis even though their RV must be unoccupied for at least 4 months of the year. I'll let you decide if such people are "term" or "permanent." Some things are just not that easy to determine. Although I don't believe our park permits outdoor freezers, it does allow people to create custom wooden steps which can be stored during the off-season for a nominal fee if you haven't rented your site on an annual basis. Similarly, fencing can be erected as long as it can be removed when the person's "term" is over. If you were to walk around our park during the winter season and didn't know that true "permanent" occupancy is not permitted, you would be hard pressed to guess how many sites were term and how many were permanent. Some of the "term" sites look incredibly permanent! IMHO trying to estimate the number of "permanent" residents at a park is fraught with problems. I can't see what the big deal is if a park is kept nicely. I want to stay in an attractive park; I've seen trashy parks occupied almost entirely by short term residents and very attractive ones that were almost entirely long term.
Jack, are you suggesting that we should take the time to go around and count the sites with differing usages at every park we review? The listed count typically gets set by the initial reviewer of a park, likely based on the park literature or advertising, and doesn't get changed unless someone notices a discrepancy later on, usually due to expansion or other layout changes. Yes, in many parks it is easy to tell which sites are in use by year round or seasonal guests, although not always. But honestly, I have other things I'd rather do with my time than validating and adjusting a 200 site park's published site count for my review of a short term stay.
I really don't understand why people are so bothered by long term residents. Does it really matter if they are permanent, long term or just visiting if the sites are well kept? We had a man move in here and if anyone had come in after he had been here 3 hrs they would have thought he had been here for years. He had to be reminded of our rules stating that you can't have junk, or boxes, piled outside your RV. We have some that live here long term (some for several years) but we work hard to make certain that it doesn't show.
Unfortunately, I think that "you work but live in an RV" is considered, by some, to be a lower class situation than "we work but live in a house (or apartment) and use our RV for recreation". With that perception it's only natural to want to stay at a park where people can associate with "their kind" of folks. I had someone tell me that he didn't want his daughters to have to be exposed to so many long term working residents. Who knows, they might even learn a decent work ethic from them. You never know.
Dutch...No it is not our job to count and differentiate between term, (of any length), and permanent. I think the campground management, as they become more interactive with RVPR's, should adjust the lot count that is part of their header/profile so that it does not include permanently occupied sites that will never be a part of the available pool.
Once again I ask, why does this matter? Do you really care if the park has 300 sites of which 150 are permanently occupied? I know that all I care about is does the park have room for me when I want to stay there. I've been at parks where the number of sites available for overnight use was less than 10, but I didn't care as long as they had one for me.
Ok, that would take the job away from the reviewers at least. I do agree with Joel though, what difference does the site count really make as long as the park has space for you? With the majority of private parks encouraging long term guests for the stable income, I think the condition of the park is more important than the site occupancy. If you're staying in too many parks where the long term sites are not up to your standards, then that should be reflected in your reviews. The simple fact that there are some number of long term sites is pretty irrelevant in my opinion. The overnighter in the site next to me that fires up his diesel at 6 am is more of a concern to me than the retired couple in the back row with the flower garden that needs a serious weeding.
"Yes, we fully realize this may not matter to some, again this is what matters to us." Am curious Narwika, are you seeking the destination, longer term or the short term camping public when you choose a park? When traveling, we would ask for the overnighter section of a park. Those sites are (usually) pull-through and relatively close to the entrance. When we've reached a destination, we flip/flop and request a space as far away from the overnight, and weekenders as possible. That back section is (usually) the more peaceful, quieter clientele who also plan to sit for a spell.
