Harvest Host Locations Cited for Operating Illegal Campgrounds

[Souljourner]

What do you think?

For those of you who don't wish to read the entire article - here are some excerpts:

"In San Luis Obispo (SLO) County, California, numerous Harvest Hosts locations have received code violations for operating illegal commercial campgrounds. In the last three months alone, up to 20 different hosts received notices detailing their violations. The county currently has ordinances put in place regulating rural camping, and Harvest Hosts lies in a gray area."

"For many Harvest Hosts businesses, overnight stays are a significant percentage of their business. This is especially the case with wineries and farm stores. Most visiting RVers choose to purchase something during their stay.

According to Serena Friedman, co-owner of Four Sisters Ranch Vineyards and Winery, many of these small businesses would go under without the support of visiting Harvest Hosts RVers."

"Currently, the county has zero intention of retracting its issued violations. According to Code Enforcement Supervisor Cynthia Alm, “No extensions or permission to disregard County ordinances, State and or Federal Laws have been provided to property owners regarding active violations of County Code.” "

https://www.rvtravel.com/harvest-hos...ifornia-1083b/

I personally love the Harvest Host program, and just planned a 10 day snowbirding trip to my southern destination, with three of those nights at interesting Harvest Host locations. I enjoy frequenting small businesses that I might not find otherwise, and making a purchase of something I'd buy anyway in exchange for a safe overnight. However, I never considered my overnight to be camping....... Camping is what I'm doing the remaining 7 nights of my trip.

[Bill Gail]

This is ridiculous ..... technically the RV's are parked . The HH's do not provide any services or require payment . The Hosts are merely offering a free and temporary parking space .

The Host's should get together and challenge the citations .

I agree with the previous post that the governments time would be better spent cleaning up the homeless encampments .

[Rexlion]

One, the county is responding to complaints from neighbors about RV traffic, setback requirements (whatever those are), and possible campfire worries. Two (and this is the big one), it's a hunt for county revenues. The county is looking at possibly changing their ordinances to better address the HH activities in the future, and I would not be surprised if those include a fee someone must pay per RV or per person. Notably, the county won't back down on past citations for ordinance violations, probably because the HH locations cited are on the hook for fines. So the big issue is money; no surprise!

[shootist]

I would love to truthfully comment on this, but I guess the location explains the problem.

[followingsea]

Originally Posted by shootist

I would love to truthfully comment on this, but I guess the location explains the problem.

At least part of Califonia is not RV friendly.

It also depends on what county you live in how codes are enforced. My house plans got rejected because it had more window area than allowed by Title 24. If I wanted more windows I would have to build a 4000 sq ft house instead of 3000 sq ft.

I had my architect relabel south facing windows passive solar collectors and proved 37 pages of energy calculations. Plans were approved. Just needed something to put in the file.

The master bedroom overlooked the pool. The framers asked why I did not have a window to look at the pool. you can only have so many windows. How about we frame one in and cover it up. Then you can out the siding and put a window in after you are county final. Building inspectors did not comment.

[1320Fastback]

California just loves sticking it to the tax payers.

[Talloaks]

Originally Posted by 1320Fastback

California just loves sticking it to the tax payers.

I have no experience as a resident of California, but having lived and paid taxes in a half-dozen upper midwestern and Great Lakes area states, I can affirm that California is not alone in this regard.

[Talloaks]

Originally Posted by followingsea

At least part of Califonia is not RV friendly.

It also depends on what county you live in how codes are enforced. My house plans got rejected because it had more window area than allowed by Title 24. If I wanted more windows I would have to build a 4000 sq ft house instead of 3000 sq ft.

I had my architect relabel south facing windows passive solar collectors and proved 37 pages of energy calculations. Plans were approved. Just needed something to put in the file.

The master bedroom overlooked the pool. The framers asked why I did not have a window to look at the pool. you can only have so many windows. How about we frame one in and cover it up. Then you can out the siding and put a window in after you are county final. Building inspectors did not comment.

Interesting how just the routine affairs of everyday life can provide glimpses into our personal integrity and expose our core values.

[JohnBike]

A quick look at the number of commercial rv parks in SLO county tells another side of the story. Every HH overniter is a lost stay at a commercial park. I’d bet a tank of gas that many complaints are really coming from park owners.

[Souljourner]

My main reaction from reading this article was to wonder if the Harvest Host model would be questioned in other parts of the country?

Having used HH extensively and spoken with many of the small business owners with whom I’ve stayed, it’s been a wonderful win-win model for RVers and small business owners, giving RVers a safe and oftentimes unusual overnight experience, while bringing business to an establishment that would not have had the exposure otherwise, several with whom I continue to purchase from long after my stay.

It’s one of my most favorite business models and has given me many nights of wonderful experiences from gracious hosts who appreciated my business as much as I appreciated their hospitality. It would be a shame if that model was compromised.

[1stimerveer]

What are they saying about campers overnighting in Cracker Barrel, Bass Pro shops, Walmart etc. parking lots????

A number of resort towns on the NJ coast have ordinances against overnighting in their parking lots...

We asked to overnight at a Bass Pro shop lot out side of Baltimore, and they told us no, because it was near a rough neighborhood and wasn't safe!!!

[Bobby F]

I think you'll now start to see the Hosts' insurers stepping in to clarify that their CGL coverage is not going to extend to hosting activities. That'll be the death knell for the practice in those areas. If they need to pay out another $1500/year for campground liability protection, it's going to make a marginal sideline into a loss.


Laws come and go, but insurance rules everything.

[KenZ71]

If it is neighboring home owners complaining would they prefer the farms sell out to a condo developer? I would prefer a few RVs rolling by vs many school busses and residents.

If it is other campgrounds complaining they need to step up their game if they have the vacancies to complain about. Maybe provide better services, larger lots, etc. Look at the comments of prior visitors.

I personally prefer a Harvest Host only going to campgrounds for extended stays and / or to dump & refill my tanks while running on-board laundry.

[NXR]

This is not a Harvest Hosts problem; it's a problem where the people offering to host did not know or follow the ordinances where they are based. Our city says you cannot live in an RV. So do other cities but notably some in Florida temporarily suspended their ordinance for people who had hurricane damage.

The linked article seems like a reasonable approach to me on the part of the local government. If they failed to enforce a law that could be nonfeasance on their part. Notably, it seemed to be another program, Hipcamp, that was the real concern.

https://www.ksby.com/news/local-news...ampers-in-2023

Ray