Good Morning, Tom:
>> Interesting perspective Bob and one I'm sure you get far more exposure to than I.
====
Yes, my business gets me into areas of park management that I otherwise would not have a clue about. As the SW developed, I have been asked, "Will the program handle this or that", in terms of how they manage their site reservations and stays. My puzzled response is sometimes prefaced with, "Why do you do that ?". ???
For example, at one time, my system did not give a discount (for Sam's, AARP, or whatever) on a weekly stay. Then the first of several park owners since then said that they needed that feature if they were to purchase the program. I asked why, explaining that a weekly is usually already discounted. Six times the daily rate is a common formula. Their response was either, "Oh, that's right -- I shouldn't be giving discounts on top of discounts", or, "I prefer to give the discount anyway . . .". So now under Preferences, they can tell the program to discount weeklies.
>> The "monthlies pay the bills" model makes sense, except that this park has a large sign in the office limiting the length of stay. I can't recall how long it is, but I do recall being taken aback by it when I was checking in. I don't know enough to understand their business model and shouldn't guess.
====
Eviction law may have something to do with that. If a park has monthlies, they are now getting into laws governing Mobile Home parks -- or other types of month to month rentals. Some parks prefer to stay away from that. For example, a park in Sacramento using my system had tenant that turned out to be doing prostitution and drugs to pay for a drug habit. It took over 7 months to have them evicted properly following applicable eviction law. During that time, the tenant never paid rent past the down payment, nor were they able to rent the site to anyone else of course. They also lost renters from sites close to the troubled site.? OTOH, if a stay is "less" than 30 days, they can have the Sheriff oust them within a week.
Another park in Sacto allows monthlies, but has them move to another site for a week every 6 mos (or whenever the cut off as far as the eviction laws are concerned -- I can't remember exactly). Then they can move back as their stay is then always short enough to have them evicted if necessary in a shorter period of time.
Another reason for no monthlies is that Dailies and weeklies yield a higher daily rate vs. a monthly -- if the park has enough of them. In the park you were in that didn't seem to be the case.
>> As for being OK with "two from the free parking lot sitting on either side of them" (us), I don't know why we wouldn't. They may even be RV Forumites who would appreciate some company &/or we might appreciate their company. I fail to understand the logic in that one, but again I don't know enough about the RV park business.
====
The lower the rate, the more undesirables. Plain and simple. It is a consideration and problem for the RV park owner setting competitive rates. I was amazed at how big a problem it can be. And extreme at times. Do you recall the Texas prisoners that escaped and bought an RV? There is a huge community of folk out there that live in RVs and are constantly looking for RV parks that they can afford -- and many of them that I have been parked next to I did "not" appreciate their company.?
>> I've stayed &/or attempted to stay at this park on a number of occasions. I don't make reservations and only once have I met with a "no room tonight" response. That was on a weekend when there was a huge local event that I'd forgotten about and all campgrounds in the area were full.
====
Well -- as mentioned, it's hard to say. After getting involved with a number of parks via my software, I come away thinking, "If this were my park, I would manage it in an entirely different way". Others, when I ask about stuff I find weird, they have very valid explanations.
