 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / August 2005Nova Scotia RV Parking Ban Survey Up-Date #2
August 15, 2005 Hello Alt-RV: A month ago I posted a message to this group up-dating you with regard to my on-line survey on the effect on RV tourism of the overnight parking ban in Nova Scotia. In about a week I will have to close down the survey so I can start compiling the data. In mid-July there were about 75 responses to the survey and now there are about 230. Again, a heart-felt 'Thank You' to those who completed the survey! If you have not yet taken the survey will you please do so. Your response to the survey is important whether you approve, disapprove, or don't care about the practice of parking overnight at Wal-Mart and other mall parking lots, truck stops, etc., and whether or not you may ever travel to Nova Scotia. The more responses there are the better I will be able to describe the viewpoints of RVers about this issue. Information from the survey will be a significant part of a volunteer (I am not being paid) study I am doing for submission to the Nova Scotia Government about the economic effects of the province-wide ban on RVers staying overnight everywhere except in licensed private and public campgrounds. The results of the study should be of interest to other communities considering (or already having) legislation restricting where RVers may stay overnight, and to RVers generally. My intention is to make the results of the study generally available. The survey takes only a few minutes to complete and is anonymous. Linked to the survey is information about Nova Scotia's RV overnight parking ban, the purpose of the study, and RV parking lot etiquette. You can access the survey through my website: www.geocities.com/cornwaab Thank you for your help. --- Andy > August 15, 2005 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with regard to my on-line survey on the effect on RV tourism of > the overnight parking ban in Nova Scotia. If there is an overnight parking ban in Nova Scotia, why were there 3 motor homes parked in the lot at the Wal-Mart in Halifax last night?  Signature"Everyday I beat my own previous record for number of consecutive days I have stayed alive." http://www.bobhatch.com | > August 15, 2005 | > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | If there is an overnight parking ban in Nova Scotia, why were there 3 motor | homes parked in the lot at the Wal-Mart in Halifax last night? According to what I've read in another group (for what that's worth) the government folk in charge of enforcing the ban are in 'discussions' with the stake holders which apparently (again nothing hard to support that assumption) does not include the RV traveling community. > According to what I've read in another group (for what that's worth) > the government folk in charge of enforcing the ban are in > 'discussions' with the stake holders which apparently (again nothing > hard to support that assumption) does not include the RV traveling > community. So, the so called "parking ban", in NS is not real. Is that what you're saying? BTW, I went by the same Wal-Mart store about 30 minutes ago. All of the motor homes that were there on Sunday are now gone. In their place there were 2 large Class A, DP's, both with jacks down, 2 large fivers, one with the jacks down and the PU gone, and a class B. Across the street in the building supply lot there was a Class C, with the jacks down. 4 of the 5 at Wal-Mart were from the US. In this place that "bans" spending the night in a parking lot, I find it a bit strange that there were several signs in the Wal-Mart lot stating "Dumping of holding tanks in the storm drain is prohibited by law". Is this the way they enforce a "ban", by not allowing the folks to dump holding tanks in storm drains? Signature"Everyday I beat my own previous record for number of consecutive days I have stayed alive." http://www.bobhatch.com "Bob Hatch" | > According to what I've read in another group (for what that's worth) | > the government folk in charge of enforcing the ban are in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] | the way they enforce a "ban", by not allowing the folks to dump holding | tanks in storm drains? I think the controversy is about the pending enforcement of an existing licensing law on RV parks to the effect that anyone not an RV park cannot allow parking which is what I got from scanning the regulations, reading some of the commentary and one article by a business reporter for the local paper. There is currently no enforcement but could be at any time the question is when ... under current law one can park and presumably sleep in a truck or a car but not in an RV. Seems to be only a slight twist on the RV parking bans that have been considered in several states in the lower 48 to the presumed benefit of the RV parks who seem to be the impetus for enforcement. > I think the controversy is about the pending enforcement of an > existing licensing law on RV parks to the effect that anyone not an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > considered in several states in the lower 48 to the presumed benefit > of the RV parks who seem to be the impetus for enforcement. Just so I'm sure I understand this. The is a law or regulation in NS that has been on the books for some time, and has not been enforced. That law states that folks cannot sleep in their RV while the rig is located in a parking lot. Some citizens of NS, some own RV parks, some own other small businesses, have requested that the law be enforced. The law is still not being enforced, therefore there is not an "RV parking ban" in NS. As a result if this non ban several folks have called for boycotting NS because they cannot park in places like a Wal-Mart lot, even though they can. Even worse, some folks who have no plans of going to NS have canceled their plans to go there. Now, the whole argument is that folks just want a place to get a few hours sleep after a long days drive, but the rigs in the Wal-Mart lot in NS were all there in the middle of the day, about 1:00 PM. When I stopped and talked to the folks in one of the DP's, they told me they had been there for 2 nights, they must have been "really" tired. But, let's stick with the "long days drive" and "needing a few hours sleep" excuse. From the border of NB/NS to Halifax is a long, hard days drive of, horror of horrors, 129.5 miles, so I'll assume that these folks must be driving 10 mph, and are exhausted, you can use your own math, but a more logical explanation is they are too damn cheap to pay an RV park for a nights visit. OK, lets say they started their drive that day at the border crossing at Calais, ME. It's now a 330 mile drive, but there is still no reason to not call ahead and stay in an RV park, unless of course they are just too damn cheap to do so. Lets make things really hard. Lets assume that they took the ferry from Portland, ME to Yarmouth, and they drove all the way to Baddeck, 404 miles. A long time on the ferry and a long drive, but they just spent several hundred dollars on the ferry and now, because of poor planning, have no money left for RV parks. Because of the non-ban they can still park at some Wal-Marts, and the local RV park owner gets to, in effect, pay for their poor financial planning. Have I missed something here? Signature"Everyday I beat my own previous record for number of consecutive days I have stayed alive." http://www.bobhatch.com I see where "Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> contributed: >Lets make things really hard. Lets assume that they took the ferry from >Portland, ME to Yarmouth, and they drove all the way to Baddeck, 404 miles. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Have I missed something here? Yes, Bob, you have, though I think your campaign to poke fun at the controversy is pretty funny. The local RV park owner pays NOTHING - though he stands to lose business when travelers elect to avoid his region entirely. What you have missed is very simply that a merchant who chooses to invite travelers to park overnight should be allowed to do so as long as the practice does not cause harm to the community, It is Just That Simple. What makes it APPEAR to be a controversial and complex subject is that a few bozos, nitwits and morons absolutely insist on making it a Big Deal. Motives vary, all the way from the occasional CG owner who imagines he/she is _entitled_ to the business, to power-hungry bureaucrats who cannot refrain from trying to regulate every aspect of human behavior, to the all-too-obvious snobs who look down their noses at anyone who accepts the offer of a free spot. Not to mention the minuscule minority of true slobs who reportedluy abuse the freedom by dumping in the lot. You've implied that some are "demanding free camping", but that's not a fair brush to use in painting all who overnight at Wal-Mart (or K-Mart or Lowes or. . . . ) as freeloaders too "cheap" to pay a CG fee. Let's get personal: we don't "camp", and have not done so for years. But we still travel via RV, and often for long distances. We aren't "cheap" but neither do we throw away money. Given a choice between a lighted (ugh!) noisy parking lot offered for free and a CG either noisy (close to highway) or miles away and expensive, we OFTEN choose the former. Its a free choice we and the merchant make. When gummit bureaucrats and busybodies decide to curtail our freedoms, we squawk. And we especially squawk when regulations are ignored such as you claim is happening in NS. Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill > The local RV park owner pays NOTHING I'm sure he will be thrilled to know he doesn't have to pay property tax this year. I know I would be. SignatureChris Bryant http://bryantrv.com >I'm sure he will be thrilled to know he doesn't have to pay property tax >this year. I know I would be. Chris, the property tax is the same whether Will stays there or not. Based on logical continuation, if there are two RV CGg's, I owe the one I DON'T stay at, the profit he lost due to my staying at the other. And the one don the street, too? unk I see where Chris Bryant <bounces@bryantrv.com> is quoted as having remarked: >>I'm sure he will be thrilled to know he doesn't have to pay property tax >>this year. I know I would be. Since I don't see his posts directly, I choose to assume the potshot was directed at anyone who lacks sympathy for a CG owner who feels he's entitled to our business. CB styles himsef an "rv technician". For all I know he's good at it, though I would not trust him to touch my brake fluid. Does he believe he's entitled to use the power of the law to prevent me from helping someone service their rv - for nothing? If not, why not? When I go the the county fair, should I be compelled to patronize the Imported Cheapass Chinese Repackaged Dimwitted Message Bearing Tee Shirt vendor, rather than accept the free tee shirts given away by the ice cream vendor? Duh. Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill > I see where Chris Bryant <bounces@bryantrv.com> is quoted as having > remarked: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Will Sill > The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill Anyone care to translate that post in to an understandable form, or is there really no point? SignatureChris Bryant http://bryantrv.com > > I see where Chris Bryant <bounces@bryantrv.com> is quoted as having > > remarked: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Anyone care to translate that post in to an understandable form, or is > there really no point? Think about who posted it and then answer your question <g> ... should I be compelled to patronize the Tee Shirt vendor rather than accept the free tee shirts given away by the ice cream vendor? _______________________________ Yes - it's the law in Nova Scotia. Wendy & John. > Think about who posted it and then answer your question <g> Ni kidding- I finally parsed it out, and concluded that he first makes an incorrect assumption, then uses that to try to push a hot button and insult me, giving zero actual arguments. Well, it is the full moon, after all. SignatureChris Bryant http://bryantrv.com > > Think about who posted it and then answer your question <g> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Well, it is the full moon, after all. Hes a crazy old fool that skips his prozac a couple times a week. Thats the only explanation that makes sense to me. I just wish his home nurse could keep him off the internet. >>I'm sure he will be thrilled to know he doesn't have to pay property tax >>this year. I know I would be. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stay at, the profit he lost due to my staying at the other. And the one > don the street, too? But.. the property tax is paying expenses that would not be incurred if there were no visitors. An example- the county I live in has a population of around 375,000. At any one time, we will have 500,000 visitors here. The infrastructure to handle these visitors ( police, fire, medical, roads, drainage, water, sewer, etc.) has to be paid for somehow. There are sales taxes and fuel taxes which help (the visitors will buy fuel and other stuff), and we have a "tourist tax" on hotels rooms and campground lots. But.. these taxes fall short of what is needed, so we make up for it with property tax- which is the point I was making- that it is, in fact, costing the CG owner money. SignatureChris Bryant http://bryantrv.com >But.. the property tax is paying expenses that would not be incurred if >there were no visitors. That makes no sense at all. You mean that the taxing authority stops taxing when a business goes out of business? If there are no visitors, then the park goes belly up so the locals stop the taxes/?? Boy, not in Arizona. >An example- the county I live in has a population of around 375,000. At >any one time, we will have 500,000 visitors here. The infrastructure to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >which is the point I was making- that it is, in fact, costing the CG owner >money. Oh, I see. You are referring to a "macro" sense. But we are talking one park losing because one individual parks at a W-M. BTW, I should point out, we have never stopped at a W-M or equivalent 'free' location. In 600+ days of RV travel, we have paid a like number of parks. Not that I will not sometime avail myself of such, for what ever reason, but so far...no. unk >>But.. the property tax is paying expenses that would not be incurred if >>there were no visitors. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > then the park goes belly up so the locals stop the taxes/?? Boy, not in > Arizona. Well, if the business goes belly up a few things can happen. Either someone else buys the property and figures out a use that will generate enough money to pay the taxes, the county siezes the property (actually, sells a tax certificate), and the new owner does the same as above, or the property falls in to disrepair, the value drops and the taxes drop. >>An example- the county I live in has a population of around 375,000. At >>any one time, we will have 500,000 visitors here. The infrastructure to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Oh, I see. You are referring to a "macro" sense. But we are talking one > park losing because one individual parks at a W-M. But, the only way to look at it is in the macro sense- everything has consequences- even if the consequences seem small, they add up when multiplied by thousands. > BTW, I should point out, we have never stopped at a W-M or equivalent > 'free' location. In 600+ days of RV travel, we have paid a like number > of parks. Not that I will not sometime avail myself of such, for what > ever reason, but so far...no. Heck- I have. I'm not bashing WalMart parkers, I'm just pointing out that it does cost the campground owner (and everyone in the community) to have people visit- even if they make no money from the visitor. In a perfect world, we would all pay for exactly what we use, but we live in a far from perfect world. Heck- in a perfect world, the park owners would know exactly what their customers want and need, and would be able to provide that for a fair price, and still make a profit <g>. SignatureChris Bryant http://bryantrv.com > I see where "Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> contributed: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yes, Bob, you have, though I think your campaign to poke fun at the > controversy is pretty funny. It's been fun. > The local RV park owner pays NOTHING - though he stands to lose > business when travelers elect to avoid his region entirely. That's why I said "in effect". If they come there, and don't stay in his park, he loses the business. If they don't come there because of the non-ban boycott, he and every other small business in the area lose business. > What you have missed is very simply that a merchant who chooses to > invite travelers to park overnight should be allowed to do so as long > as the practice does not cause harm to the community, It is Just > That Simple. I agree, but it's happening. So there is no ban on parking lot parking in NS. Boycotting an area won't help the non problem. > What makes it APPEAR to be a controversial and complex subject is that > a few bozos, nitwits and morons absolutely insist on making it a Big [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > minuscule minority of true slobs who reportedluy abuse the freedom by > dumping in the lot. It is not just dumping in the lot. It is staying there for day after day, then going to a nearby RV park and expecting to dump for free in their dump site, or to dump a 10 day supply of waste tanks for a 1/6 the cost of a one day stay. The park I'm staying in has a septic tank, and it has to be maintained. > You've implied that some are "demanding free camping", but that's not > a fair brush to use in painting all who overnight at Wal-Mart (or > K-Mart or Lowes or. . . . ) as freeloaders too "cheap" to pay a CG > fee. Well, in fact, some are demanding free camping. One night every few days I can understand. > Let's get personal: we don't "camp", and have not done so for years. > But we still travel via RV, and often for long distances. Again, I agree, but to travel for long distances in NS you'd have to run the length of the Province twice or the width several times. Several of the folk state that their reason was as you say, a long days travel, but that can't be fact in NS. So what they are really asking for is "free parking". They could also buy a Passport America membership and only pay a few dollars per night. We aren't > "cheap" but neither do we throw away money. Given a choice between a > lighted (ugh!) noisy parking lot offered for free and a CG either > noisy (close to highway) or miles away and expensive, we OFTEN choose > the former. Its a free choice we and the merchant make. On a long drive, I can agree, and I've done it, but like I say, you can't do "long days drives in NS. The area just isn't big enough. > When gummit bureaucrats and busybodies decide to curtail our freedoms, > we squawk. And we especially squawk when regulations are ignored such > as you claim is happening in NS. Every business has lobbied at some time or another for some regulation that will benefit them. It's the way business works, and the way the economy works, but, IMO, boycotting NS because of this is just plain dumb, because until the regulation isn't being enforced. Now, what will most likely happen is that the Govt here in NS will relent and change the law. They will do so because tourism is down here, but not because of the boycott. With gas at over $4.00 per gal up here it's just to darn expensive for a lot of folk to stomach. But the boycott folk will pat themselves on their backs for a job well done. Oh well. :-) Signature"Everyday I beat my own previous record for number of consecutive days I have stayed alive." http://www.bobhatch.com I see where "Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> contributed a civil and useful commentary on why he thinks the NS ban on RV overnight parking is a non-issue, but includes a couple of remarks I have trouble with: >. . . . . there is no ban on parking lot parking in >NS. Boycotting an area won't help the non problem. Ummm, if I understand the facts correctly, there already is such a ban - and it is apparently not being enforced. Maybe worse yet, selectively enforced. That puts the visitor in the uncomfortable position of not knowing if/when he/she is going to be rousted for breaking a law that is usually not enforced! Shades of "Atlas Shrugged". >It is not just dumping in the lot. It is staying there for day after day, >then going to a nearby RV park and expecting to dump for free in their dump >site, or to dump a 10 day supply of waste tanks for a 1/6 the cost of a one >day stay. I've heard this kind of accusation several times, but to date have NEVER seen credible evidence first hand - and we've traveled a lot. I can't say it never happens, but I have three comments: - 1) Instances of that kind of abuse are extremely rare, accounting for less than 1/10 of 1% of rv travelers. How do I know? Of course I don't know - and neither do the whiners who claim it's a daily occurrence. - 2) Any store manager who allows such abuse is a jackass - 3) Any CG manager is free to decide whether he/she will allow free dumping, but is NOT free to speculate on where the visitor has stayed previously. BTW, on a related matter, I am boycotting Massachusetts on accounta Chappaquiddick. Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill > <snip> > Have I missed something here? I would think so, Bob. You just don't understand "entitlement!"<g> Ken H "Bob Hatch" | > I think the controversy is about the pending enforcement of an | > existing licensing law on RV parks to the effect that anyone not an [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | worse, some folks who have no plans of going to NS have canceled their plans | to go there. The controversy is that there was (is?) a strong move to enforce the law based on input from the RV campground owners much in manner that several states initiated legislation to band the practice in the lower 48. The impression many have (with good or bad reason) is that the process would be an effective stop to the practice of RV parking. Perhaps it is a knee-jerk reaction but one that should not be unexpected. Right or wrong it is within the individual owner's judgment to act or not act on the information. Recall that in many economic decisions perception is everything. Me and mine have a lot of places in this country we'll never have time to visit in my lifetime. If I perceive I'll not be welcome, for whatever reason by whatever measure, why should I trouble myself going there in the first place? Especially when there are other equally interesting places to go that I do feel I'm welcome. | Now, the whole argument is that folks just want a place to get a few hours | sleep after a long days drive, but the rigs in the Wal-Mart lot in NS were [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | drive, but there is still no reason to not call ahead and stay in an RV | park, unless of course they are just too damn cheap to do so. | Lets make things really hard. Lets assume that they took the ferry from | Portland, ME to Yarmouth, and they drove all the way to Baddeck, 404 miles. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | Wal-Marts, and the local RV park owner gets to, in effect, pay for their | poor financial planning. A presumption with limited basis if for no other reason that running the gen set often cost more than most RV camps charge. Frankly anyone coming to town under the circumstances (broke) would be more likely to visit travelers aid than an RV camp ground. The RV camp ground owner makes a business decision on what legislation to support. How that legislation is applied is up to the local government based on input from the locals (the CG owners get to vote). Likewise by whatever justification/measure the keys are in the RV owner's pocket. Where the RV goes is strictly up to that owner. There is no right or wrong just a basic fact of economic life. Just as it is hard to legislate morality it is much more difficult to make folk go where they don't want to go. To some (many?) such bans = unwelcome. Difference of opinions are what make horse races. The question in this race is which horse will the CG owners and other local business bet on? Recall a little bit of a lot is often much better (and more profitable) than a lot of a little bit. As for myself and others in similar circumstance, it make very little difference what NS does in the end as *I* go where *I* want to go and *I* don't go where *I* don't want to go. Carmel (spl?) California not too many years ago banned the wearing of certain shoes/clothing in the down town area. That lasted only so long as it took for the local merchants to realize that the enforcement was costing them big bucks. Notice that it was not an issue of fairness or civil rights or free speech that was the determining element in the enforcement. Money talks and Bull Sh|t walks. Likely to be so in NS, even if it takes them time to come to that realization. I see rv'ers regularly taking advantage of the Walmart hospitality in New Minas. I split my time between Nova Scotia and Alberta right now but this group is the only news I've heard about the ban. Tourism is NS has really suffered this year for a few reasons. Hopefully this won't be adding to it. My wife is an artist with a pottery studio/gallery not far from New Minas and she really misses the more frequent visits from our travelling friends :) - Scott >>August 15, 2005 >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If there is an overnight parking ban in Nova Scotia, why were there 3 motor > homes parked in the lot at the Wal-Mart in Halifax last night? >I see rv'ers regularly taking advantage of the Walmart hospitality in >New Minas. I split my time between Nova Scotia and Alberta right now >but this group is the only news I've heard about the ban. You will find more detail at: http://irv2.infopop.cc/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/9726094452/m/7261059651 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.