Unfair, unreasonable and ridiculous

I do not know what each service regulation says, but I do know that the current Army Regulation AR 215-1, which governs Army MWR, specifically prohibits "homesteading".

"(b) Homesteading or use of Army travel camps or other outdoor recreation facilities for temporary or permanent quarters is not authorized. Length of stay policy for Army recreation areas and campgrounds is established by the garrison commander. Army facilities located on Corps of Engineer property constitute the only exception to the stay limit policy. Stay limits on Corps property are 30 days within a 60 consecutive day period during peak season, and 60 days within a 90 consecutive day period during the off season"

Granted, the regulation does leave it to the discretion of the Garrison Commander, however in the case of Ft. Gordon, all it took was one IG complaint that the Garrison Commander was violating AR 215-1 and the homesteaders were gone within 30 days. This situation really needed correcting because it had gotten so bad that civilian contractors who worked at Ft. Gordon were giving up their apartments in town and buying campers and moving to the Rec Area because it was much cheaper than renting an apartment. It also helped that the Points West Rec Area is located on Corps of Engineers property and the regulation did not allow the comander any discretion.

The downside to this was that within a few months, MWR placed approximately 20 FEMA campers in the Rec Area in an attempt to make up for the income lost when the homesteaders were kicked out. This is in addition to the 12 rental campers they already had on prime spaces. I do not think this is really working out so well for them since most of the rental units are only rented out on 3 day weekends but they are there now and I assume they will stay. Camping Area 4 is completely filled with these rental units and is pretty much empty most of the time except for long weekends. Sixteen prime spaces with empty rental units just sitting there. MWR told me that some of the FEMA trailers are going into the "secret" camping area just built at Leitner Lake on Ft. Gordon proper near the Rod and Gun club.

So it is true that nothing much was gained by evicting the homesteaders due to the FEMA trailers being brought in, there is a certain amount of satisfaction knowing that all of the prime spaces are NOT being occupied by contractors, most of whom had never been in the military. In the grand scheme of available camping spaces, it was pretty much a wash.

There are some guidelines, at least in the Army regulation and possibly other service regulations. The problem is having enough people take the necessary action to get them enforced. There is also an issue with how do these guidelines apply when the campground is turned over to a contractor to operate on what is basically a "for profit" basis.

I will agree with one of the other previous posters. When you go into an Army MWR campground and see campers with decks and/or covered porches, large refrigerators and freezers sitting on the ground, and other indications that they have been there too long, then that is "homesteading" and is a violoation of AR 215-1 dated 15 Aug 2005.

now I know why my wife makes sure I take my meds.

This debate is going on in several places around the forums and I see that the general feeling is that the people that are using the campgrounds as nothing more than a place to live out the rest of their days are not well liked.

My feeling is that if your rig can no longer be moved without deconstruction, you have stayed too long. Someone brought up a case where a CB base had a trailer on it in a campsite that was being used as a getaway place by a former CB that was living in a retire home nearby. I don't think that there are too many people that would want to see someone like that get tossed out either. People that are leveraging themselves onto the "prime" sites and moving in for years need to be removed. As for people like the CB in the example above, maybe something could be worked out for people like that, perhaps his trailer could be moved to a storage lot, parking area or dry site when he is not using it then put back on a site when he is using it. Who here would not offer to help move or set up a trailer for someone like that?

As far as MWR saying that they rely on the income that these people generate that is a crock. I clean well managed campground will generate more income than a trailer park as soon as the word gets out that the "good" sites are available, and that the rif raf that were ruining the view and taking the best sites are gone.

You want action, call these campgrounds and ask to reserve a site that is occupied by a "homesteader" when they say that the site is not available just say fine, I will just stay someplace else. If you go to a campground that has a large number of homesteaders in it cut your stay short and leave, when they ask why tell them it is because of the homesteaders. When they see that these people are hurting them more than helping them the message will become clear.

Some of you seem to have forgotten that MWR is similar to a non-profit organization. The only way for them to offer amenities to the active servicemen is through some sort of self-generated income. For most bases, the most lucrative is their RV park. Very little overhead with big profits that go to pay salaries for other MWR employees and towards those programs for the active personnel. While it is irritating to not be able to get a site due to homesteaders, those homesteaders are a continuous and reliable source of income for the program. That is why it seems no one will do anything about it. Its a don't bite the hand that feeds you kind of thing. Otherwise they can't offer benefits to their active duty personnel and the lack of that will get a whole lot more attention from Commanders and Congressmen.

It almost sounds to me that many of you are ticked that someone has found a cheap place to stay and beat you to it. I use a FamCamp if it is convienent to where I am going. Just about every FamCamp has a commercial campground not too far from the area it is located it. Oh, you don't want to spend the extra dollars! Too bad. Sounds like you want to get back to running the world you retired from. Ain't gonna happen. I see no reason to be needing to be inside a military fence anymore. The only place I homestead is on my own site I own on the Gulf beach in TX. I don't believe in camping at Wal-Mart either. If the lifestyle is so important to you the broaden your horizons and quit trying to run the post or base. I have been full timing for 7 yrs and we do travel quite a bit 5 - 10,000 miles a year.
Chris the Bigfoot
40' 2001 American Dream
2000 Merc Mountaineer
DataStorm User # 1226

Sounds like you want to get back to running the world you retired from. Ain't gonna happen. I see no reason to be needing to be inside a military fence anymore.
Chris the Bigfoot
40' 2001 American Dream
2000 Merc Mountaineer
DataStorm User # 1226

Just to weigh in here. I don't know anyone who wants to run the world that we retired from. That was a big reason for retiring.

The military campgrounds are operated by the MWR on the base. They need to make a profit so the active duty guys have an MWR fund to pay for stuff they need. Without the retirees these camps will go away. Chris, the next time you are in a military campground look around. Every one we've been in will have 90% of the occupants being retirees. Why do we stay there? Not necessarily because it is cheaper, although that helps. It is because we enjoy being amoung our comrads. Personally, I spent a major portion of my life around military people. I did spend several years in another career but I prefer military folks. They are just better people to be around, in my opinion.

If a camp is filled up with homesteaders, especially if these people are not military connected, then I will complain. Again, if they run off the retirees these campgrounds will cease to exist because they will no longer be self-supporting.