Let’s face it, at some RV parks – no, make that MANY RV PARKS – the campsites are so closely packed together you can hear your neighbor snore at night. It is not uncommon for neighboring RVers’ slideouts to almost touch each other.
Sites are often so close that a neighbor’s picnic table can be almost right under your own window. And if your neighbor lights up a cigarette … well, it’s good if you are a fan of tobacco smoke.
Being so tightly packed can be frustrating, and take away a lot of the enjoyment of an RV stay.
What if an RV park with mostly tightly packed sites offered premium sites where there was, say, an extra 10 to 15 feet between sites? Would you pay an extra $10 for the extra space?
Remember, it can take a few moments for the poll to show up. So stand by.
I never have stayed in a park like that shown in the picture and wouldn’t. An extra $10 for an additional 10-15 foot is like taxes for Lake front property except you enjoy the lake front for the year before the bill is due again
I think, from the picture shown, that it was actually taken at an rv dealer’s lot.
I thought that too, at first. Then I enlarged the photo. The camper on the left has an extension ladder under the slide and every conceivable hose, power cord and looks like cable and satellite wires connected. Could be a camp site near the bath house or social hall.
If I was the guy on the right I would demand a new site or I would refuse to pay for that site because they can’t even open their slide all the way.
You folks are lucky, I unfortunately have been in several camp grounds that were like that. Didn’t go back and they were for one night only, except for a 3 letter version in West Yellowstone.
Obviously they are hooked up if you look at the picture.
I have an RV with no slide outs. I think those with slides should pay the extra, There have been a very few times I have felt very hemmed in, surrounded by slides. It is not the norm, at all, just a few times, .
Agree that having site for units w slide a up charge same for units that are 30/ 50 A. Want more. Pay more.
We try avoid the “motel six” style campgrounds. If I wanted to stay that close to people I rent a motel room. At the price of many of these so called RV parks often times a motel is not that much difference in price. I believe that social distancing should be practiced for RV’s also.
No I would not
One of the reasons I try to avoid commercial campgrounds.
I may already do that, just by not staying in cheap campgrounds that crowd their sites too close together.
I said NEVER because i’m tired of removing service as an excuse to overcharge. It’s dishonest BS. If they must raise rates do that but stop cheating. I refuse to rent a site less than 50Dx75W or currently over $35 ($25 typical), and WILL go elsewhere for it. In the last 10 years I’ve broken the rule only once where I HAD to be close to a wedding.
I would, but only if I was staying for an extended period. If it was just pull in late in the day and back out the next morning, then no.
We have stayed in one like the picture. We were visiting our daughter in the SF/Oakland Bay Area. After much research it seemed the best we could do and still be within a “reasonable” drive if her place. Had checked prices, reviews, satellite photos, etc for several around Bay Area. Interestingly they had 2 dog policies – one for the long term residents in the back area, one for the short term folks up front along the freeway. Check in folks were amazed we actually read the reviews enough to tell the difference.
I would never stay in a campground like that anyway, unless it was one night, and the only option. We have seen some like this, but why anyone would stay there is beyond me. We prefer state parks, COE, national forest, etc.
We world not stay at these type of RV parks without doing a lot of researching first. State, provincial, federal parks or boondocking would be our first choices. If it’s only an over night while transiting, parking lots at big box stores or casinos.
The next thing will be paying an extra fee for a picnic table and fire ring.
I agree Kurt. It has a way of snowballing into that issue. I guess once they realize it can happen it usually does.
This one is hard to answer , because most RV sites are separated by a good distance. But those who are close to each other – and there are many. I would either avoid them or might think of the extra money option. It would all come down to the initial cost of any particular site in question.
Where are these hellish rv park’s never seen one like that in NE
I would have thought there would be some town/county/state guidelines to safety and if not health standard violations on that picture. Looks like a disaster ready to happen. I don’t think I should have to pay for some distance. Maybe an ordinance in RV sites that lot sizes need to be X size for those with slides and X size for those without slides and stagger the sites.
Have you ever been to a Rally? This looks like how we were parked at the FMCA rally in Perry GA. Thousands of RVs and not a real campground but I could have reached out my slide window and knocked on the window of the rig next to me.
You bring up an interesting point. It should fall under a fire ordinance. Too close is a fire hazard.
Even with my little Aliner popup, I would pay the extra ten dollars for a bigger site.I have had folks with stuffed monster RV’s try to store their stuff on my site.
If just for a night or two NO. If for longer maybe. Depends on how wide the average one is.
If we keep paying more, they will keep charging more. A camp site now is as high as a room.
It would depend on what the standard rate is, what the standard width is, how much for the extra width and how much more width you are getting. For me there’s no pat answer.
I’m assumming that this extra fee would cover the cost of reconfiguring the RV park that has these close quarters. It would make up for lost revenue that comes with making sites larger. We all complain about the costs and/or additional charges, but what happens if these parks go out of business in a time when it’s becoming harder to even get in. By reconfiguring and making sites wider, they would probably have to condense 3 sites down to 2. that means there would be about 1/3 less sites in that park. I avoid these parks now at much as I can. But sometimes for convenience sake, the park happens to be located where I need to be, and so left with a choice of inconvenience of proximity to my neighbor or proximity to a relative or attraction I’m trying to get to. I have to make a choice. Hell even Motel 6 is $79.95 a night.
We stayed in one park with VERY tight space complicated with landscaping. After getting set
For a site that close I’d go to Wally World for the nite if it was cool enough
What about the opposite? Standard wide lots with a $10 discount for smaller sites which may be fine for the overnight traveler. At least people won’t think they are paying a premium.
Just a thought…
If the current crowding is driving many of us to “get out” and the prediction is that in 2 years, the honeymoon will be over for the CORONA-newbies, then it seems the smart thing would be to sell my rig now while demand is high, wait two years, and get back in when the market will be glutted and prices will be down?
In the meantime, we love AirBnB…just bring a can of Lysol!