Snobby RV park

[Old Car Nut]

Originally Posted by RobbieH

So you made me look. I just pulled the title on mine, and here's what it says:
Year model: 2014. Make of vehicle: Four. Body style: MH. Weight: 16400. There's nothing on here that says Class A, Class C, Super C, etc., so I'm not sure how a manufacturer can say "they are titled as class A".

Perhaps because not all info the state has about your vehicle is printed on the title. There is other federal paperwork tied to your VIN that you likely don't have copies of that spells out lots of things more specific about your RV. Like the appliances it was built with and how those comply with federal statutes at the time of manufacture. Your title does not say how long you are does it? But they do know if they look you up in the computer.

Titles also vary by state. I have one in front of me from WA and one from CT. Several more data points printed on the WA title, like fuel type that are not on the CT one.

I'd could go on but drifting off the main topic a bit and I have done plenty of that. Thank you mods for giving me some leeway there.

[wnytaxman]

Let's see if I can sum up the preceding six pages of this thread. What are one person's rights are snobbish to another person. Having restrictions is just rules to be followed to some and discriminatory to others. Does that about do it?

[USMCRET]

Originally Posted by wnytaxman

Let's see if I can sum up the preceding six pages of this thread. What are one person's rights are snobbish to another person. Having restrictions is just rules to be followed to some and discriminatory to others. Does that about do it?

This has been a very odd thread indeed.

[bullheaded]

Maybe.....

[bulldog2]

hey at least U know who,s camping there

[RickO]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

Interesting that no one seems willing to admit that there is no rational reason for the park to restrict their clientèle to Class A's. Its not as though the hook-ups won't fit a Class C or a 5ver, or the concrete pads will be too hard.

Its clear the park wants to restrict itself to new, expensive rigs with owners that have a lot of disposable income, either because they believe they'll get a higher "class" of people or because its their way of justifying overcharging for a 20x60 foot chunk of pavement.

Of course its snobbery, economic if not social. And of course the owners are perfectly entitled do whatever they wish with their property. I just find it interesting that no one is willing to admit the bias. Because they buy into the snobbery too?

I think all of these objective observations are correct... but drawing the conclusion that it is "snobbery" is subjective.

I'm surprised that nobody has focused on the point that this isn't just a run of the mill RV park/campground, but rather an association made up of individually owned and developed RV sites. Think condo association. These individual owners paid as much as several hundred thousand dollars to ensure that they had the kind of environment they wanted when staying there.

They made their site purchases under the belief that the environmental rules would be enforced and would probably raise holy heck if the person at the front desk began bending those rules.

The comment was made that people who like HOAs would probably love this place and I believe that is true. Personally, I like both. Naturally, everyone is free to think that these types of restrictions (as well as stick houses located in gated communities) constitutes snobbery but care should be taken so as to not aggressively defend the rights of one set of folks (campers) while ignoring the rights of others (site owners).

Rick

[Gordon Dewald]

Just like any development it is obvious the park or homeowners association has a "builders caveat" on the land within their control. Bring the correct house or find another lot to sit on.

It is simply a fact, not discrimination or snobbery.

[Old Car Nut]

Originally Posted by RickO

I think all of these objective observations are correct... but drawing the conclusion that it is "snobbery" is subjective.

I'm surprised that nobody has focused on the point that this isn't just a run of the mill RV park/campground, but rather an association made up of individually owned and developed RV sites. Think condo association. These individual owners paid as much as several hundred thousand dollars to ensure that they had the kind of environment they wanted when staying there.

They made their site purchases under the belief that the environmental rules would be enforced and would probably raise holy heck if the person at the front desk began bending those rules.

The comment was made that people who like HOAs would probably love this place and I believe that is true. Personally, I like both. Naturally, everyone is free to think that these types of restrictions (as well as stick houses located in gated communities) constitutes snobbery but care should be taken so as to not aggressively defend the rights of one set of folks (campers) while ignoring the rights of others (site owners).

Rick

Well I have, several times. Thanks for joining in.

[vincee]

Well if the park is like a condo or hmo park then all of their marketing and advertising should be slated towards that. Something to the fact of saying "A private class A motor home resort". But they like to take in the road weary monies too. I'm with the OP on this any anyone else that called it snobbery. They should have on their reservation form the amount one paid for their "class A" more so than the type of rig because that is what they are looking to attract, the monied folks. Of course this is their prerogative and I get the whole spiel about they can do with their land what they see fit. Just make it clear who you want, and who you don't in plain bold letters and again with the notation of how much you paid for your rig. That way every day folks such as myself know at a glance to avoid resorts (certainly not campground) like this.

[Menendez]

Originally Posted by Gordon Dewald

It is simply a fact, not discrimination or snobbery.

It's a fact that such policies are intended to discriminate. One thing that cracks me up about modern Americans is their wish to discriminate by social class while at the same time being unwilling to forthrightly admit that's what they're up to. And even being unwilling to admit that social classes exist--we're all middle class, right? ;-) When I describe myself as working class some people look at me like I'm Trotsky or something.

[Brockx]

Now if you get tossed out of here you may have a legitimate complaint.

[Old Car Nut]

Originally Posted by Menendez

It's a fact that such policies are intended to discriminate. One thing that cracks me up about modern Americans is their wish to discriminate by social class while at the same time being unwilling to forthrightly admit that's what they're up to. And even being unwilling to admit that social classes exist--we're all middle class, right? ;-) When I describe myself as working class some people look at me like I'm Trotsky or something.

Could be what else they hear you say. This post does.

[wa8yxm]

There are many parks that, it appears, have so much business they need to turn customers away... So, my recommendation is that you help these parks by posting their names, addresses and discrimination policy to as many RV forums as you can, Facebook, Twittr, instagram and so on,,, Let the world know why you were refused parking.

That way I and others like me can save them the trouble of deciding if we are fit to park there,,, And perhaps.. if enough of use do that... They will not be so... Discriminating... in the future. (or even in business) .

[vincee]

Well said Menendez!