"Homesteading"

Yes Mustang, but do you also think it's fair that the "traveling" families must continue to "rotate" in and out of a limited number of sites, while some families simply stay on one site as long as six months, or more. That to me is an unfair distribution of the sites ... remember, this is recreation not residential --

One campground at Tydell Airbase has the policy that ALL campers can register for two months, then every camper must move off a site after two months, go through the overflow sites, and then get another site -- just like travelers.

Of course, if no one is waiting, then by all means, stay longer. But what seems unfair to me is that some get to stay, and some must rotate ...

We stopped recently at Camp Shelby, MS and could not get in, it was filled with what are probably defined as homesteaders. BUT. This is an old WWII temporary base that was, until recently, a Mississippi National Guard post. During the build up to the Iraq War this became a staging facility for National Guardsmen being prepared to go to Iraq. The "homesteaders" are National Guard families whose bread-winner in on Active Duty. The Fam-Camp is serving a mission essential purpose, otherwise they would have to build more family housing or put more people out on an already overburdened economy.
These "homesteaders" can have my campsite any day, with my blessings.
But this is a unique set of circumstances, otherwise homesteaders are the bain of the traveling community.
Glenn

And I absoluely agree that on-rotation military should get first shot at all the sites -- with my blessing as well. And even if I had a site and one of those families came along, I'd gladly move off and find another base, or another site, or get into overflow ... and salute when I did it.

However, I do believe that is not the majority of homesteaders ... I believe the majority *without actually asking directly any one of them* that most are onsite snowbirds, and not active-duty families using the site for a temporary home while the active-duty member is serving our country. And that makes the CG full when it should not be full.

Just so everyone knows where I stand on this issue, I voted for no more than a one-month stay without having to rotate out. (Exception? Nobody is waiting for a spot.)

I'm adamantly opposed to augmenting base housing with the FamCamps - that is not their purpose. BUT will quickly yield my spot to the families of deployed servicemen/women. "Exceptions to every rule" applies here.

However, we all know that until someone at the highest level takes notice and addresses the issue (yeah - that'll happen), local policy will continue to prevail. My point on Yuma was that at least they have a number of sites that you can get into, unlike places where you can never get into a site unless you're willing to get there in August to beat the "regulars" to their favorite spot. (And if you are parked in their special spot when they get there a week later, stand by for heavy rolls! )

Note that I said they (Yuma) could have a few more weekly sites. But their system seems to work and is pretty close to a good balance as most people wait no more than a couple of days in dry camping before getting a weekly site, and some wait not at all. Now, if you're getting there during the Golden Knights "season", all bets are off.

Fair? Maybe not. Or reasonable compromise? I have expressed my opinion, but everyone will decide based on their point of view.

Good discussion!

Like Mustang, I also believe this is a great discussion topic. However, his statement that "until someone at the highest level takes notice and addresses the issue (yeah - that'll happen), local policy will continue to prevail." is a bit misleading. On most, if not all installations, FamCamps are operated by the NAF, and its operation is at the discretion of that facility's commander. I can think of several facilities whose commanders seem not to be interested in the operation of the FamCamp, and it shows! I can also point to a couple of FamCamps that have seemingly changed for the better/worse due the interest, or lack thereof as the commanders changed. Because some FamCamps (maybe all) are seen as cash cows by the military facility/NAF I do not expect much to change from what we are currently seeing - homesteading, ever-increasing prices, sites occupied by trailers for TDY personnel, PCS personnel as permanent residents, etc. Do I express my views on the operation of the various FamCamps as we travel about - YES! Hopefully, all of us do the same, because that, in my humble opinion is the only possible means available to change the way these recreational facilities are operated.

John

One other thought on this subject too -- regarding the "cash cows" comment ... which is probably more true than we'd like. But once again, an activity that once was simply for temporary and occasional enjoyment has been affected by the "cash- income" variable.

As more retired and active duty began enjoying this activity, it suddenly became another "budget item" to either be exploited or controlled to a greater degree. It is heading the way of other things in our world that have suddenly become about the money instead of the enjoyment. And don't get me wrong here ... I'm trying not to complain, but just to state some facts that are evident as the campground issues begin to kick up in the face of more extended use -- I'd like to know how many of the campgrounds were full ten or fifteen years ago ... before the advent of the livable RV units and the "full-timing lifestyle". It seems in some cases the FamCamps are moving towards something to exploit instead of something to share and enjoy ... and that truely saddens me ...