Tuesday, September 27, 2022


New RV park to join ranks of “trailer parks”

If you travel America with an RV and need hookups, there are few options in many places about where to stay except an RV park. Boondocking, with an appropriately equipped RV, is sometimes an option in the West with its wide open public lands. But near cities and in many tourist areas, the only option is often an RV park.

And yet, week after week comes news of another RV park that is designed for long-term living, not short overnight stays. And in countless hundreds of already existing parks, long-term residents take up most if not all the spaces.

It’s becoming harder and harder for RVers who move often to find a place to stay.

Here is an example of a new park that, by definition, is more like what we commonly think of as a “trailer park,” that is, made for long-term living. This is the first paragraph of a letter to the editor in the Carson City Appeal:

“In the 35 years that my family and I have lived on Mark Way in Carson City, we have been fighting the development of the 38-acre parcel (zoned tourist/commercial) between our neighborhood and the Carson City Airport. Currently, I have filed an appeal of a decision made Jan. 30 by the Planning Commission where they approved a 180-day stay at the proposed RV Park, the Sierra Skies RV Resort. According to the designer of the project, residents at the park can stay 180 days, leave one night and then take up residency for another 180-day stay. This will effectively turn the 277-space RV Park into high-density residential park with high fuel (gas and propane) storage, directly in the flight path of the Carson City Airport.”

Read the rest of the letter.


Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Philip H. Wood
3 years ago

I know that it’s a little late to respond to this but here goes. An RV park is a business and the ONLY reason that ANY company is in business is to make money for its OWNERS. If you run the numbers, in most areas ( I speak as a Texan and traveler), you will not be in business long if you cater just to the overnight/weekend crowd. That being said, there is absolutely no excuse for any park to look like a junkyard. This in itself reduces revenue and increases costs. I am a retired trade school director and have been a park host for several years and from a business standpoint it is less hassle and frankly less costly to maintain your park than to let it get shabby.

RV Staff(@rvstaff)
3 years ago
Reply to  Philip H. Wood

It’s never too late to respond/comment, Philip. These articles and newsletters are “out there” for anyone to find (and comment) at any time, just like you did. We appreciate your thoughtful remarks. 😀 —Diane at RVtravel.com

Steve flippo
3 years ago

In many instances rv parks have become the residence of choice for people of limited means to live. Their rv is their permanent home. Why is this situation increasing? I attribute it to the near impossibility in many communities to get permitted fora mobile home community. Mobile homes used to provide living space for people of limited means, but the meddling of blue hair busy bodies, elitist snobs, community activists, and other local tyrants has dried up this living option. Yet another example of the unintended consequences of social engineers who really arent as smart as they think they are.

Charles Ketchum
3 years ago

As Thomas (below) stated, owning an RV park is a business. They have the right to make their park what they want it to be. However, I wish there could be a common ground where those owners set aside space exclusively for overnights or short stays in the front of the park and use the “back” of the park for their residents perhaps even gating that area.

Our take is that once full time residency in a campground occurs it tends to get cluttered with stuff the full time residents are too lazy to put or throw away.

It’s a conundrum for sure.

Thomas Kemp
3 years ago

One can’t blame the RV Park owners wanting to keep their parks as full as possible year-round. Schools, as mentioned by Daniel, could be an issue for cities. Another consideration for cities should be financial. We used to stay in Bend OR for 2 months each year spending approximately $3000. However, we no longer go there because of lack of Parks. Our Park went to long-term and the only other nice Park in the area wants $1500 a month. Sure long-term renters spend money in the local economy. But I guarantee not near as much as tourists.

3 years ago

We’ve stayed in lots of RV parks where many of the spaces have been turned over to what amounts to full time residents. They are often not separated from the overnight guests, have messy sites and we’ve seen as many as 6 dogs on one site. The problem is that once a person feels it is a permanent space, he wants to make it home and feels the right to have anything he wants. They are often rude and unfriendly to temporary guests and it is an uncomfortable situation. I have to agree that there has to be a better solution then turning RV parks into full time parks. Probably city or county designations should reflect the type of park it is. Either or.

Bruce Maass
3 years ago
Reply to  LauraC

I have thought of the past several years that the long term residents are inevitable. But, I think the parks should enforce their rules uniformly. In order to maintain a neat environment and pleasant experience for the short term stays, long term should not be allowed to build structures, accumulate vehicles and equipment on their sites. Some long term campers may move on to more permissive parks and that is OK. Make rules and be consistent.

3 years ago

Any city allowing long term occupancy should consider the effect on their schools. Is the city ready to educate any longterm residents and respective cost involved?

Mike Sherman
3 years ago

I suspect the owner may provide a number of spaces for just overnight. I have stayed in many parks where full timers were in one section, those passing thru for a night or two in another area. Parks can be highly seasonal and it make financial sense for the owner to designate several sites for permanent residents, otherwise he sees his park mostly empty several months out of the year. I am thankful many owners keep a section open for travelers needing a night or two. It’s a win-win-win situation. The permanent resident wins, the traveler wins, and the owner wins by maintaining a profit to continue operations. The key is striking that balance between the dual needs of many RVers.

Thomas Becher
3 years ago

As an rv’r I’d probably not want to stay right under a flight path. Noise and all. Years ago I stayed at a place in yuma az right across from Marine Air Corp. And Yuma international airport. Could not wait to get out of there. We prepaid for 2 months . Do you know what a Harrier jet sounds like? Not to mention the F16’s. Pity the poor developers that want to sell this land. If there was a better use,I’m sure they would have come up with it.
Case of NIMBY.

Don Kostyal
3 years ago
Reply to  Thomas Becher

Some of us miss the sounds of “Thunder” and smells of “freedom” every day–why I choose bases almost always! I would rather have that than a bunch of “RVer’s” with their boogie lights and fake light up palm trees, outdoor TV’s, and yapping dogs in little fenced in pens between me and them!
There is always the National Parks for “quiet and the great open spaces.” State parks as well. To many folk, an RV is their “other home” as opposed to those who have the home at the lake, or cabin in the mountains, or condo in FL–so they become “snow birds” or every weekend residents. It is just the way of the times…

Jim c
3 years ago

So what is it you really want?

Tommy Molnar
3 years ago

I live in Carson City. The latest on this project is that at the end of the 180 stay you have to get out for 30 days (being non-registered) before you can stay another 180 days. In an article I just read this morning, the idea is to discourage folks from building sheds and porches and all the stuff that make RV’s into permanent residences. “A representative of the park spoke on the owner’s behalf, citing that the target audience was not permanent residents, but rather, high-end vacationers who may want the option to stay longer than 30 days, but they did not expect the majority of guests to use the full 180 day maximum limit. ” Sure . . . . And who exactly are “high end” vacationers?

Don Kostyal
3 years ago
Reply to  Tommy Molnar

Then just have rules (like condo’s) that say no sheds, no outside storage, no boogie lights or lawn ornaments etc.

Tina GAllagher
3 years ago
Reply to  Tommy Molnar

I used to live in that area of Carson City when I went to high school there. I rode my horse in what used to be wide open desert. I guess it’s changed a lot. Who knows? I might book a spot at the RV park and stay a month or two.

3 years ago

It sounds to me like she just doesn’t want to live next to an RV park and is using “safety concerns” as a way to fight it after exhausting her other options. In the event of a plane crash, what difference does it make if the sites are full of long term residents or overnighters? It’s this kind of NIMBY reaction that affects proposed new RV parks across the continent. We should be supporting developers plans to build more RV parks.

3 years ago
Reply to  Paul

I agree, and using the ‘180 day stay will have gas and propane stored there’ as an argument is ridiculous.
If a rig is there overnight, or 180 days there will still be gas and propane on site.

David Allen
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul

If it were an RV park, I would agree. But it is going to be a trailer park, just like so many other RV parks.

Sign up for the RVtravel Newsletter

Your information will *never* be shared or sold to a 3rd party.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Every Saturday and Sunday morning. Serving RVers for more than 20 years.