Editorial on Membership Parks

Guest Editorial: The Shared RV Resorts Concept

By: Mel Chaney

From other RVers practical experience and our own observations, next year we might cancel our CTC affiliation and go with RPI instead. Although we've know about some advantages of RPI over CTC, we hesitated to change, primarily because we think some of the things RPI does is potentially not in the long term interest of the RV community. Now, we're not so sure. CTC and their camping card system is a pain in the neck, but provides some essential, built in protection for RVers. They monitor campgrounds adherence to the "shared" campgrounds concept. When RVers use their $6.00 a day CTC camping cards, they're turned over to CTC for payment of $5.00 to the campground and statistics are maintained about which allow for how many CTC RVers on any given day. Statistical monitoring of individual campgrounds and RV resorts is vital, to assure they continue providing reasonable adherence to the plan and maintain facilities for the RVers trying to use it. With RPI, one simply shows their affiliation membership card and pays the campground $5.00 a day, in cash. It's simpler to use, a dollar a day cheaper than CTC, but who's watching the store (campgrounds), since no automatic interchange is occurring between RPI and the customers, in this cash payment system? Nobody that's who. RPI has no enforceable method to keep track of how many campgrounds are allowing RVers use of their facilities during weekends, holidays or for that matter during the campground's busiest season(s). Thus, as far as we can determine, they have no reasonable method of protecting theirs or RPI members interests. At least CTC does have a handle on each campground and how it's performing for their members.

    Unlike municipal, national, state and commercial campgrounds, CTC/RPI resort parks are not listed in popular campground guides, they're for members only. Subsequently, there's no available review of their facilities, like that provided by Good Sam's Trailer Life or Woodall's campground guides and their rating staff. CTC does perform evaluations of the resort parks on a regular basis, but members aren't provided with the results or how they stacked up against others. Unlike campgrounds rated by the popular campground guides, camping club affiliated RV parks need to be rated by how well and how much they provide for "visiting guests". Just how is an auditor going to know how many RVers have been turned away or assigned substandard sites, before they arrived to perform an evaluation? Feedback is needed from camping club members, nothing else can substitute for this kind of input. With every CTC camping card there is a part which is not turned over to the RV resort. It encourages you to comment about the campground, or for that matter other resorts, where you might have had trouble obtaining a site, as well as to order more camping cards. If you've experienced problems of any kind, this is an easy way to notify CTC management and have your voice heard. We think the extra dollar a day and messing around with camping cards is justified, given the need for someone to keep tabs on these affiliated resorts and to weed out those gone bad or become substandard over time.

    In our opinion, and that's all it is, an opinion, RPI has tried hard to infiltrate CTC campgrounds with their affiliation. If that's true, it allows them to "Piggy-Back" the checks and balances CTC put in place, with no administrative cost to RPI. They have been largely successful, many if not most CTC parks are now also affiliated with RPI and visa versa. When CTC finds a park not honoring its commitment to their members, its affiliation is cancelled and the park's members lose their CTC membership right then and there. That's powerful incentive not to abuse CTC members and the right to use their campsites, all across the US. What remains to be seen is what RPI's action will be if CTC drops a campground affiliation they both share with that campground. Will they follow CTC's lead, assuming their members have been similarly treated or affected? Will the benefit of a dollar a day savings and not having to mess around with camping cards; plus, often easier reservations, cause the RV masses to switch to RPI and the demise of CTC? If the worst happened, who then would be watching the store; could the entire shared campground system collapse, because of campground owners' greed? Possibly. Heck, perhaps we'll keep our CTC membership, even if it's somewhat of a pain in the neck, maybe we'll just add RPI membership to our toolbox of finding affiliated, shared RV resorts.

    I think it's appropriate to understand how and why these commonly shared campgrounds came into being, decades ago. First they were all privately owned RV resorts, selling about 8 to 10 memberships per campsite, about the current norm. The object being that I paid for my membership and yearly dues, so a good, clean and enjoyable campground could be built and maintained. Other RVers did the same at their private RV resorts and we all shared in the use of each others investment, allowing all of us to roam with little more campground expense. Please face this probable fact: no campground or RV resort can exist or profit from $5.00 a day camping charges. It's the shared concept and maintenance fees of home park members that keep things running, pay: taxes, employees, electricity, water, sewer, telephones, FAX, computer reservations and billing systems as well as numerous other expenses, while providing a well maintained and enjoyable RV resort park. This concept was first introduced worldwide by Yacht Clubs and adopted by exclusive RV resorts later. Lately, what is possibly the biggest threat to maintaining this wonderful, shared campground system is the introduction of campgrounds having little intention of servicing their members with resort quality campsites, never mind having ample facilities for visiting RVers. They open their doors well intentioned, with perhaps 30 campsites and 250 to 300 members. Then some apply for and receive CTC and/or RPI affiliation.

    Shortly thereafter, "some" begin selling memberships by the hundreds, to RVers seeking a home park affiliated with these exclusive, membership only, camping clubs; often with very low initial cost and as little as $50.00 "fixed" annual maintenance fee. On first glance this appears to do little harm, these many new members seldom intend to actually use their home park and thus overrun it with attendance. However, these RVers are not contributing to the overall sharing concept and thus lessen the value of all honestly paid RV resort memberships and annual maintenance cost. Their home park cannot possibly support the relative quantity of affiliated visitors or maintain facilities and sustain expenses expected of this type RV resort. Worse yet, on paper and statistics, they may appear to be sharing and adding overall value to the system. They may very well have 10% of their sites occupied with visitors, all "3" of them, nearly all the time. However, their park could be turning away tens of CTC members daily and there can be hundreds of their members, using meticulously maintained resorts all across the US, whose members receive little or nothing in return from these visitors, their minimal annual dues, or oversold & overbooked sites at their "cheap" home park. If we all did that, there might be over a hundred RVs lined up outside each resort, competing for 3 (possibly inferior), CTC/RPI campsites.

    Perhaps we should be asking CTC, RPI and other camping clubs to establish a policy that they will not allow a park to maintain affiliation if that park has more camping club members than about 6 times the number of campsites it has "available" for guest members. That would seem reasonable to most of us, however; allowing 600 RVers to join and bring to the table 3 shared campsites from a 30 site campground is not reasonable to most members of RV resorts. Hopefully, CTC, RPI and other camping clubs can single out these campgrounds and their owners, disallow their affiliation(s) and keep the system intact. If not, the whole thing might come crashing down like a house of cards with no foundation or safety net. Let's hope that doesn't happen. It could ruin the finances of many an RVer, absolutely wrecking their mobile lifestyle and long term plans.

    Ask yourself this question: what immediate incentive does CTC have to cancel a "bad, oversold & under maintained" park's affiliation, if it has a thousand RVers from that park, paying them $70.00 a year for their camping club membership? By closing that single park's affiliation, they would be canceling CTC membership worth $70,000 a year in annual dues alone, never mind the dollar a day they receive from those RVers using their camping cards. It's a conflict of interest that needs to be addressed and dealt with, but just who's going to do that? You and I, the average RVer, notifying CTC, RPI and others about unfair campgrounds we come across, that's who. Nobody is likely to do it for us. As the old saying goes, "to do nothing condones the practice". Please, either fill out and send in the camping cards with comments or use CTC's web site at: www.coastresorts.com . There's a place to send comments and ask questions, but I didn't find a direct email address. Surely RPI and others have similar ability to receive comments, but we're unfamiliar with what that process is. Earlier it was asked, "what incentive CTC has to cancel a bad resort?". They post the resort in their annual campground listing book and members look through it, researching to find resorts to stay at. If CTC finds all too many members being turned away from a resort, it reflects poorly on CTC and they can take appropriate action. To stay in business, CTC has to affiliate themselves with good RV Resorts, available to all its members. Otherwise, RVers will drop their CTC membership and seek other camping clubs.

     We're going to post the above on our web site, ask other RV Web sites to do the same and forward this to anyone who is willing to get involved. No, Susan and I are not normally activists, the only thing we've ever actively "lobbied" for is modem friendly campgrounds; having some limited success, but we were far from alone in that effort. We don't expect to be alone in this effort either. Please help where and when you can, forward this to your RV friends where ever they may be, after all, we're all PC/Email armed for the challenge and postage stamps, to send campground comments, aren't all that expensive either.

Comments and resposes to Mel Chaney (Author) at: LMCHANEY@concentric.net

BACK