Entries Tagged 'RV’s' ↓

Last I checked we live in a free country, unless you do that living in a RV

untitled2

Okay, I know I have said this 900 times, but the Gargoyle Leader editorial board really doesn’t know WTF they are talking about. Especially when it comes to a proposed RV ordinance. I watched the planning commission and council discussions, an ordinance has yet to be hammered out. How do you create an opinion on something that doesn’t exist yet? And how many of you actually watched the discussions? After reading your worthless rant in your worthless rag today, it is obvious none of you know a damn thing about the proposal. Let’s review;

Campgrounds are designed for temporary, recreational activity. Hanging out with the family. Parking a camper for a while at some new destination to see the sights there. They are not, however, designed to be someone’s permanent home.

This is partially correct. If you are talking about state or federally owned campgrounds, you are correct. But privately owned campgrounds are no different then a mobile home park or an apartment building. If someone is paying rent to the campground owner and that owner is paying property taxes why is it any of the city’s f’ing business how long they stay there?

Even the swankiest RV isn’t suitable to meet city codes for a permanent dwelling.

How would you know? Have you researched modern RV’s lately? You obviously have not been in some of the them. Most of them can resist below zero temps, in fact I have seen trailer homes in worse condition then most RV’s in this town. Maybe the city should do something about that problem.

So the City Council has an obligation to address an issue that’s cropped up in Sioux Falls regarding campground sites. Some campers are staying there nearly year-round – through winter’s frigid temperatures as well as the summer’s sun.

It is not an issue, or has it ever been one. Even one of the code enforcement officers admitted in your newspaper one of the main reasons they want the ordinance is because one does not exist. Typical of SF code enforcement, make more unneeded rules. When this was brought up in the planning meeting a campground owner suggested that they should go ahead and put one on the books if they feel they need one. When asked how long he thinks campers should be able to stay he said, “Well in Wisconsin they have a similiar rule, you can stay in a spot for 365 days in a year.” Sounds like a simple solution to me.

Though, the visitors are certainly welcome, the practice of staying yearlong in campgrounds violates the city’s health and safety codes.

This is also partially true. The biggest thing the city was concerned about was propane tanks. I couldn’t agree with them more, they can explode if they are dysfunctional. So make an ordinance about faulty propane tanks. What difference does it make if a camper stays 180 or 181 days if it has nothing to do with the stay, but more to do with their propane tank? As for these ‘supposed’ violations tell us which ones they are violating. Code enforcement already has the power to enforce health violations on a private campground. How does a 180 day rule prevent people from breaking health violations?

To make that point even clearer, the council wants to create a definition of temporary so that campers know precisely how long they can stay at a campsite. Yes, any time limit – such as the 180-day span that’s being proposed – is going to be arbitrary. But it’s clear that a precise definition is needed, and certainly six months is long enough to enjoy an extended stay. The council possibly will delay its vote on the proposal until September, and if it takes that long to hear residents comments, that’s fine. Still, the council must set a time limit. It’s actually in everyone’s best interest.

Arbitrary? Then what’s the point? So now the Argus gets to decide how long a visitor is welcome? How is a 180 day time limit in my best interest? How does that affect me? Seriously? And who cares if they are just visiting, they are still contributing to our tax base by buying groceries and other products and services in our community and by paying rent to the campground owner who pays property taxes from that rent. Sounds like we should be doing all we can to keep them here as long as possible.

This ordinance is about code enforcement bullying, nothing else. Besides, even if a camper must move after 180 days, there is nothing stopping them from driving a half-mile down the road and pitching tent at another campsite for another 180 days. That alone proves how stupid, ridiculous and downright assinine this proposal is.

I hope the next mayor fires the entire code enforcement office on day one and starts from scratch, too bad they can’t fire the editorial board.