Boycotting Campgrounds that gouge users

I have sent the paragraph below to all the military campgrounds on this site whose daily rate is $30.00 or more via the ICE system at each campground. Those who do not list their ICE site, I use another way. If you go to ice.disa.mil website you can find some of the bases there broken down by military and CONUS/other. I highly encourage each and every one of you to voice your displeasure in your own words via ICE. I started with the California ones first. United we stand, divided we fall.

"To Whom It May Concern:

As a retired NAVY E-9, I am concerned about the escalating prices for military facilities campground RV sites. The threshold of $30.00 and more per day for retirees/active duty has been reached by more and more bases and has drawn a lot of attention by military based RV websites. I have asked my fellow retirees to join me in boycotting those bases who want to make up for MWR shortcomings by passing losses in other MWR activities on to the campground users. In addition, your command doesn’t even offer a monthly rate to cushion the blow of your excessive rate. What is even more disturbing is active duty having to pay these rates also. Be advised my motor coach will not be visiting your base and I hope others follow suit."

NAVYBLUE: Thanks for your contentious posting! I've always been fascinated when gasoline is cheaper at Costco than it is on-base and question why I should need an exchange credit card to get a few cents off on what is supposed to be an earned benefit.

None the less, the issue I see here is correctly identified by you when you say campground profits are re-directed to other activities.

I say "open the books" and let the MCG user's see the actual profits and loss. After all isn't that what the President called for in implementing DoD "Open Government!

Department of Defense Open Government
open.dodlive.mil/

MWR is under pressure to be self sustaining so lets see how much of the MCG profit is reinvested directly into the campground and how much is diverted to other programs. Just saying!

Military Campgroungs Standards: MWR & Congress

 
Wouldn't it be nice if this forum served as a resourced community of interest providing constructive criticism to the below listed MWR leaders on the viability of MCG's!

Without end user input MCG's could easily be cut as not directly supporting the "warrior" and the on-base family!

MWR Leaders look to protect best programs
www.defense.gov//news/newsarticle.aspx?id=62755

Robert L. Gordon while appearing before the House Armed Services Committee’s military personnel subcommittee pledged to sustain military families’ best programs while searching for ways to deal with inevitable budget cuts.

Gordon said “Our services have done a very good job assessing the programs for the degree to which they provide effective quality of life for service members and their families,”

Robert L. Gordon III www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=261

Rich Gorman www.army.mil/fmwrc/docs/bioGorman.pdf

Charles E. Milam www.afsv.af.mil/leadership/bio.asp?id=11222

Timothy R. Larsen slsp.manpower.usmc.mil/gosa/biographies/...&PERSON_TYPE=SES :S

Carrollg,

I agree. I feel that the majority of RVers are senior enlisted(E7-E9) and officers. As when I was on active duty, I am going to be in retirement. A pain in the ass to certain civilians who forget who they are serving. My primary goal is to make sure the active duty folks are not getting screwed. They will ALWAYS come first before retirees in my book. I am very knowledgeable about the inner workings of MWR having been a senior enlisted advisor to (3) major commands. I have no problem with SOME of the MCG profits helping some of the activities stay afloat that affect active duty and their families but not most/all the profits. How many times have you gone into the arts/crafts centers, gyms, bowling alleys, stables, etc and seen no customers or very few customers and 2-3 PAID non appropriated funds workers on duty. I know that everybody has their parochial interests and do not want their favorite activity closed or curtailed. But we as a group can affect change. My solution has always been to speak up and talk to the person who can affect changes. Many of the MWR directors are left alone as long as they are keeping the coffers full with money to support all the activities. All I ask is people to get involved to keep what we have.

NAVYBLUE

I agree with your position; however, I can look at this from another point of view. MWR is primarily for the benefit of active duty. Therefore I can see if we were to boycott fam camps I can see MWR closing them without any problem for low or non useage because I don't believe that many active duty personnel use them - maybe just a couple of sites would be set aside for people in transit or TDY. I don't know if boycotting is the way to go, I think maybe voicing our displeasure about how things are run rather than threats may be more beneficial.

Must agree that the vast majority of military campgrounds are retirees, but also agree that if boycotted it would have a serious impact on other MWR activities. For example at MacDill the golf courses receive much in the way of support from those hundreds of campers at Raccoon Creek. Let' see, even a small campground with 75 sites at a reduced rate of $15 per day will generate over half a million dollars in a year, and I don't believe they are putting even a half of that back into running and maintaining let alone improving the facilities. Maybe I'm wrong as I look at it from a business perspective and not government.