Thanks for your service Swampy and welcome mate.

montie wrote:

---

Cuppa wrote:

---

Monty, I dont see all caravan park owners as merely profit driven, I'm sure there are good & bad in all walks of life. I do however see a strain of entitlement in the actions of those who act like they believe that they have a right to take the money of anyone camping within 'their jurisdiction. It is my view that if they provide a service which is attractive & what people want they will have a good & succesful business. If rather than attempting to funnel people into parks by restricting anything they perceive as 'competition, & instead support something along the lines that I suggested then the respect shown & the goodwill generated would surely attract more folk, including those who wanted to stay longer than the basic free camp offered.

Personally my wife & I are not generally attracted to towns as places to stay, we prefer 'bush' & 'remote', for us towns are places of re-supply, not destinations.

It seems reasonable however given my views on the need for our community to re-visit caring, compassion, fairness & egalitarianism to suggest a means to end the blame game which always arises in free camping vs CP discussion, & to model a hopefully positive & respectful style of sharing views which may differ from others.

---

 Cuppa,

All private investment is profit driven, its called return on investment or ROI. One of the considerations when one invests is competition, which delivers good value to the consumer. Nothing to do with good and bad.

No investor in their sane mind would spend dollars in any authority where they must compete with the same entity to whom they pay their rates and taxes. Just not a good investment.

Cuppa, if there is a reasonable competitive alternative to Caravan or Holiday parks that will deliver a more affordable and legal alternative to travellers then I'm sure we will all want to hear about it. As an investor (no interest in Parks) I would certainly be interested.

In the meantime we have the current reality...if it's not legally compliant in Urban areas, it will close down.

---

 Im afraid we simply have different views of whats I have referred to as basic short term camp spots Monty. I do not accept that the sort of camp spot I have referred to is in any way in competition with caravan parks. Most folk who can afford to own an RV are not those I envisage as being in need of the camp spots as I refer to them. Some may use them, but primarily its the sectors of our community who cannot afford to stay in CPs who need them. Need being the operative word here. Different market sector for want of a better  way of putting it, just as motels & hotels are different market sectors within the accomodation industry. The argument you seem to be making should see hotel owners seeking to have motels, bed & breakfast & caravan parks closed, but they generally seem to share the accomodation market ok.

I wonder where the homeless, the unemployed, the low paid families etc who show some 'gumption' by choosing to travel, to seek work, to have an adventure rather than sitting at home in front of the box, should stay when they cannot afford caravan park fees. Should poverty prevent such folk from travelling, from being able to seek work or from just to be safer than sleeping under under city bridges.  Is it right that we should expect them to be sedentary or to stay out of built up areas at night time? Rhetorical questions to which I guess my answers are obvious. 

The legal compliance issue is a relatively recent exploitative strategy to prevent this virtually non existent competition. In that sense I see it as a means to engineer extra though reluctant custom, as opposed to protect against unwelcome competition Or loss of custom. In many cases free camp spots which had been  offered for generations, long before caravan parks were opened have been closed down under this pressure from caravan parks. Reminiscent of city folk moving to the country & complaining about the smell of cows or the sound of roosters crowing. We all know this competitive neutrality exploitation is a concerted strategy by the caravan park lobby. They are rather good at it & commonly hold sway within local business communities

Anyway, I dont feel that we will reach any sort of agreement. Ive said my piece & others can read it & make of it what they will. The issue between us is that you view things primarily from a business perspective, whereas I view the issue from a social justice perspective. Different world views between which I had hoped we might at least consider the possibility of a middle way, but it is clear that your unnecessarily (IMHO) protective business perspective will not allow for that. 

My final word after 4 pages.

The simple fact is that the majority of posters are missing the point altogether. It has nothing to do with camping preferences, business investment or what you believe you are entitled to. Neither does it have anything to do with offering cheaper camping options.

Regardless of any of the above if a camping area, especially in an urban area, is non compliant then it will be forced to comply or close down. Now we can talk and argue for another 4 pages but that fact will not change. As a dealer I would love to see free or low cost camping facilities everywhere but reality dictates that is not going to happen. There is no point in blaming Parks, Councils, Social responsibilities or  wealthy or non wealthy travellers.

There are posters who believe Councils should provide free stopovers because they don't want or can't afford to stay at CPs and I agree with that. However, the landscape has changed, and these free stopovers must now comply with all required regulations. So it doesn't really matter whether I or anybody else agrees with it or not, a precedent has been set by the Courts and unless RCC successfully appeals the ruling, which I think is unlikely, then that's the end of the matter, unfortunate that it may be.

Everybody have a happy and safe Christmas.

-- Edited by montie on Monday 24th of December 2018 07:28:33 AM

-- Edited by montie on Monday 24th of December 2018 07:32:53 AM

montie wrote:

---

My final word after 4 pages.

The simple fact is that the majority of posters are missing the point altogether. It has nothing to do with camping preferences, business investment or what you believe you are entitled to. Neither does it have anything to do with offering cheaper camping options.

Regardless of any of the above if a camping area, especially in an urban area, is non compliant then it will be forced to comply or close down. Now we can talk and argue for another 4 pages but that fact will not change. As a dealer I would love to see free or low cost camping facilities everywhere but reality dictates that is not going to happen. There is no point in blaming Parks, Councils, Social responsibilities or  wealthy or non wealthy travellers.

There are posters who believe Councils should provide free stopovers because they don't want or can't afford to stay at CPs and I agree with that. However, the landscape has changed, and these free stopovers must now comply with all required regulations. So it doesn't really matter whether I or anybody else agrees with it or not, a precedent has been set by the Courts and unless RCC successfully appeals the ruling, which I think is unlikely, then that's the end of the matter, unfortunate that it may be.

Everybody have a happy and safe Christmas.

---

Gday...

FINALLY, the reality of this thread is posted. You have completely summed it up Montie.

It is the same point I was trying to make a few pages ago but few, if any, have seemed to grasp.

It matters not whether someone is homeless, destitute, or as rich as Uncle Scrooge, so called "free" camps (carparks/rest areas) within urban areas will increasingly come under scrutiny for their compliance with what the rest of the 'urban' community is required to adhere to.

No matter how much 'lobbying' by the 'travelling public' extolling the virtues and economic value they will bring to a town, urban 'sleeping areas' will need to comply.

The 'travelling public see it is their 'right' for a free place to sleep within a urban environment.

It will always be the 'right' of businesses to lobby against what they see as a disadvantage to their investment.

Forget the emotive and personal gnashing of teeth because the urban environments deep with a city is not available to free parking/sleeping.

Camping spots outside of cities are not in danger - only urban car parks for sleeping in.

One needs to see the reality and cut one's cloth accordingly. No matter what one's personal financial circumstances may be one can travel this wide, brown and exciting land within their budget. However, it is agreed that if one is not able to afford the cost of a van park and one needs to transact business within a town, then one needs to organise their visit to the town as a 'drive through' but sleep outside the town. Unfortunately, that is the choice many must make.

Cheers - stay well, travel safely, sleep tight and enjoy the bush - John

rockylizard wrote:

---

montie wrote:

---

..........if a camping area, especially in an urban area, is non compliant then it will be forced to comply or close down.

---

 

Camping spots outside of cities are not in danger - only urban car parks for sleeping in.

.......stay well, travel safely, sleep tight and enjoy the bush - John

---

 Well said guys.After four pages of discussion (diplomacy at its best!) you have summed it up with just  two short sentences. Wishing all an enjoyable Xmas break.Cheers

Sometimes hard to sit back and say nothing.
Personally I don't post often, but on this occassion became fed up with comments from "some" of these,...... "hold it in boy"....nice peoplle!

I guess, which is my point The Heaths, if the moderator had stepped in early it would have prevented all these toxic remarks, myself included. And as I have said earlier, my opinion, its the same people who make these remarks ALL the bl.....dt time.
Having a different opinion is fine, its how you express it is the problem here. On most other forums these people would probably be banned by now.

regards
Ian

eKebbin wrote:

---

Give it a rest Wanda!

---

      X2

This has to be some kind of record, well done everyone, let's go for gold.