TOPIC:

Agree with get a house or apartment.

At Oak grove in Pensacola Homestedding is on the rise. People living in the CG that work on base and Mil. Retired. I can see certain reason for extended stays like medical treatment or if your home was distroyed by fire or storms. but if you are collecting a retirement and working get a house. Those living in CG with kids, Man i would want to have a decent home for my kids to live in. Or maybe I was just raised wrong.

It is wrong to homestead. Like Illegal Immigration is wrong. If you want to Homestead fine, Change the Rules! I have always found it to be a joke that people say "well I have found a way to skirt the system, abusing the system you mean! Feeling so proud they have gotten over because no one has held them accountable and they are above the rules. I expect this from the younger generation of misguided mindless drones who only know, give me, give me, give me and find their meaning of life in a lifeless piece of technology because they cannot communicate with other human beings face to face; lacking the self confidence their parents were responsible for instilling, abdicating to the schools their responsibility. I expect better from active and retired military; the last bastion of what has always been good about America. The Euro-trash self-centered attitude of "Screw you" I am entitled, seems to be the way of many today. Well, I choose to do what is right, and will continue to wake up in the morning and look at myself in the mirror knowing I'm not screwing my fellow military and federal brethren. (That's how I was raised.) As for the camp hosts that allow their buddies front of the line privileges, you had better hope you never have me as your manager because you'll be looking for a new place to be a camp host, like maybe the parking lot of your local Walmart.
For campgrounds that sit vacant during extended periods, here is the exception to the rule. Of course they should keep campers that willing to fund the site, unless circumstances change, such as new RV'ers who are entitled to a spot. If they arriv to a park full of Homesteaders, then the homesteaders should be forced to move out based on who has been there the longest, returning only if they do not prevent other new members from staying.
Proper management and planning can always find a middle ground that is Efficient, Rational and FAIR!
As I said in my previous post, hold people accountable, even those military getting housing allowances for quarters. Someday I’d like to enjoy the benefit of visiting the MWR Campgrounds around the country, but not living in one. do not accept the unnacceptable. Demand better. If I have offended, then you should be offended. Those abusing the system are the problem, not the ones working within the system. Like the current political climate where Redicals believe rules do not apply to them, Homesteaders that share the same mentality demonstrate who's side they are truely on. Think about it.
the truth hurts!

Very Respectfully.

I can understand people wanting to have a homey atmosphere. I can also understand when someone uses his/her RV for extended TDY. It makes sense and saves money. But, I do not understand how transients can homestead. I think that it is time for some commanders to have a "come to be with" discussion with their personnel.

In response to Frank & Alice...The SMART caravan that takes a few spots at KAFB during the AIBF is an MWR function, part of their tour package, to the SMART caravan only for a few days of the Balloon Fiesta. All Active/Retired Military are eligible. Check it out www.smartrving.org and click on caravans.

trvl2smwhr wrote: In response to Frank & Alice...The SMART caravan that takes a few spots at KAFB during the AIBF is an MWR function, part of their tour package, to the SMART caravan only for a few days of the Balloon Fiesta. All Active/Retired Military are eligible. Check it out www.smartrving.org and click on caravans.

I'm with Frank and Alice. First SMART has members that are not active duty or retired. People pay their thousand or two thousand dollars to SMART to be in that caravan, not to MWR. The year I was there the base had the whole new area reserved for the SMART group not just for the period they would be there but for a week before their arrival to make sure it was available. Smart gets to use those spaces and AUTHORIZED users are turned away or get less desirable spots. It STINKS.

It seams that MWR needs to bring all the campgrounds into compliance with certain rules, then enforce the rules. We arrived at Gila Bend 12/21 and stayed only one night in the overflow. However, since that date there are now 6 in the overflow and the same 4-5 spaces open up every few days to allow one at a time to move into hook-ups. There are 38 spaces at this camp and 34 are taken by homesteaders....one in particular has been here 6 years without moving. One has the awning laying on the ground that was torn off in a tornado two years ago. These two residents aren't even here, one has their other vehicle camping in Corpus Christi in that park and the other shows up about every other week for a few days. Everyone should be able to stay the limit if they choose, but there seem to be too many that abuse the system. This park does not have a host. I think if you leave the space to visit home or wherever for more than a few days, it should be required that you vacate the spot and get back in line. and for the full campground rule(30 days here), they should require you to vacate within 24 hours..First in first out, if a new rv wishes to camp for the time allowed.

Someone needs to review AR 215-1 page 70-71 which deals with RV park rules. This Reg is dated 2010 so it is current. People are talking about the Air Force tang over the FamCamps, but there is no real Regulation or AFI for them a this time. The AF reg has been on someones desk for the past 2 years waiting for a signature.

I am not interested in Homesteading at all

Check out AR 215-1 pages 70 & 71. This issue is already addressed, but almost every Post commander has turned the management of MWR over to a Director who has either ignored the Reg, or has decided to write his or her own.

This topic has been beaten to death.

My thoughts on this subject are as follows:


With some exceptions I believe that homesteading should be made absolutely forbidden. Military campgrounds are recreational facilities and should be recognized as that.

That being said, appropriate exceptions should be considered:

1- Medical treatment at that installation or very nearby,
2- Legitimate emergencies with any extensions approved by the installation commander,
3- Families awaiting quarters with very strict rules that they accept quarters or lose RV site.
4- Students at military schools at the commander's discretion should be allowed to stay in military campgrounds provided that installation restrict to number of sites available do not exceed 50% of the total sites available.

I find it repugnant that people PCS to military campgrounds and spend their entire tour there. I find it intellectually dishonest and probably a violation of the UCMJ for service members to draw a full housing allowance and then pay very little of it for an RV site.

I am sure that others can flame me or add other exceptions. However, I have no illusion that anything will be done.

Curt

Hopefully this will answer some questions.
from AR215-1

(2) Homesteading is strictly prohibited. Installations may establish daily, weekly, or monthly reservation/contract periods, at the conclusion of which the next eligible patron on a waiting list must be accommodated. Commanders may authorize a length of stay up to 60 consecutive days during peak season and 90 days during nonpeak season. Commanders may authorize renewals of these reservations/contracts, on the day of expiration, as long as existing reservations/waiting lists will be accommodated by future departures. Personnel on extended stays must comply with local and State law relative to taxation, vehicle registry, and other residence issues.

Proponent and exception authority.
The proponent of this regulation is the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management. The proponent has the au- thority to approve exceptions or waivers to this regulation that are consistent with controlling law and regulations. The pro- ponent may delegate this approval author- ity, in writing, to a division chief within the proponent agency or its direct report- ing unit or field operating agency, in the grade of colonel or the civilian equivalent. Activities may request a waiver to this regulation by providing justification that includes a full analysis of the expected benefits and must include formal review by the activity’s senior legal officer. All waiver requests will be endorsed by the commander or senior leader of the requ- esting activity and forwarded through their higher headquarters to the policy proponent. Refer to AR 25-30 for specific guidance.

elisowski wrote: Hopefully this will answer some questions.
from AR215-1

Homesteading is a bigger problem than just Army installations and this regulation applies only to them. And they don't pay attention to it. Quoted from the reg:
This regulation applies to the Active Army, and where stated to the
A r m y N a t i o n a l G u a r d / A r m y N a t i o n a l
Guard of the United States and the U.S. Army Reserve.

Could not agree more with the fact that they, military posts, do not go by the reg, but the reg does apply to ALL components, active, reserve, guard, retired, and Dod on a Army installation. This has been further complicated by JOINT installations, like Fort Sam Houston, and the fact that the Air Force is in the process of taking over all MWR functions for the Army and Air Force, who by the way does NOT have a FamCamp Reg. or (as they call it) a AFI. It will probably be years before this matter is squared away. Until then we will just have to try our best to pass the word to the installation commanders and hopefully we will get one or two hat will listen.

OK, Hear is info from the Army MWR office. I know this does not address Homeseading exactly, but it does give some inside to what and why. You might want to do like I did and check out the regs.

Questions: Is the Air Force taking over all Army RV parks?
Are there military regulations which govern RV parks or are commanders just making their own rules?


1. No, the Air Force is not taking over Army campgrounds. However, we have
had several locations formerly Army garrisons now combined as joint bases
under Air Force management (e.g. Fort Dix > JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst; Fort
Eustis > JB Langley-Eustis; Fort Richardson > JB Elmendorf-Richardson; to
name a few). At these locations, guiding regulations revert from Army's
AR-125-1 to Air Force's AFI34-110. Both of these, and all other services'
regulations are built from overarching guidance from Department of Defense
Instruction (DoDI) 1015.10.

2. Commanders don't create their own regulations, but do control local
policies and procedures that must comply with regulations. It can be noted
that regulations associated with campground operations are pretty much
limited to general guidelines. Compared to the Army, it appears that the
Air Force has chosen to keep their campground related regulation guidance
"very" limited, and therefore subject to a greater degree of local command
discretion regarding operational policies and procedures for their
facilities.

It is unclear what disparity between parks you have in mind but disparity
can be expected due to influences of local and State laws, economies,
demographics, climate, nearby attractions, etc. that vary between locations.

I hope I have appropriately addressed your concerns.
V/R


JOHN O'SULLIVAN
Program Manager
- Outdoor Recreation
- Warrior Adventure Quest
Phone: (210) 466-1367
DSN: (312) 450-1367
BlackBerry: 210-870-5648

Thank you, elisowski, and John O'Sullivan, for this very important info...now when any of us have an issue with local policy on this subject, we now, ALL, have reference material to use as a guide....when bring our concerns to the proper authority.....and by all means use the many authorities available..i.e., local post/base, and DoD ICE....complaining here without also bring your issues to the attention of these folks, doesn't get you very far.....

elisowski wrote: Could not agree more with the fact that they, military posts, do not go by the reg, but the reg does apply to ALL components, active, reserve, guard, retired, and Dod on a Army installation. This has been further complicated by JOINT installations, like Fort Sam Houston, and the fact that the Air Force is in the process of taking over all MWR functions for the Army and Air Force, who by the way does NOT have a FamCamp Reg. or (as they call it) a AFI. It will probably be years before this matter is squared away. Until then we will just have to try our best to pass the word to the installation commanders and hopefully we will get one or two hat will listen.

You need to call the MWR or email, You have No Idea what you are talking about!!!

monkey44 wrote: Matt - I sent you a PM - please check PM logs.

I never got a PM from you...

I hate homesteaders. I am an avid recreational camper who works hard for the money to have a nice camper I can never use because the homesteaders in FL have all the sites locked almost year round. 28 days should be your max stay without having to pull up and head out for at least one night. Campgrounds allow it because it is guaranteed money without having to wait for reservations. Been camping for a while and have yet been able to get into a military campground close enough to Jacksonville for a weekend stay. It just flat pisses me off. Every time I call it is booked up. I don't even waste my time anymore. Been through the one in NAS Jax and about puked at all the blue stickers. MWR directors must be hooking up their old CO's with some good favors.

One famcamp I stayed at had lots of homesteaders and they even had some with special status and piitions so that when rotations were required from hookup sites to non hookup sites had to be done, the special homesteaders did not even need to rotate. That was Tyndall AFB. We thought this was not right but our complaints were ignored. They also permitted gray water dumping near the bay. I hope that situation got cleared up. Have not been back since 2007.

We find this as well. When people are turned away from a base rv park after driving all day it is a downer. We went to a Navy base RV park at Pt. Mugu, beautiful there, btw, and needed a place to park because we had pets with us. We were going to Mom's funeral. We had no spot and spent the night beside the road, no motels took pets. As retired folks I sure would like to see a bit of caring if we find ourselves in need of just a place to park safely.