Resort towns filling up during Coronavirus with Second HomeOwners?

[TippyThomas]

I'm sorry. This never would have entered my mind with respect to full time RVers. FWIW, your situation is not what I was talking about. I hope you were able to get well stocked with whatever your cold medicines of choice are. This way if you do get sick you can hopefully self treat and be OK. Take care and I hope you wont be so remote that you cant check in every so often.

I'm well stocked and actually haven't had direct contact with another human in just about 3 weeks. The owner of the campground rolled his truck window down from the road and we talked about his closing from about 40 feet or so away. I am good with food supplies for another 3 to 4 weeks at this point. I just don't know what I'll find out in BLM land and how far I'll be away from civilization. I was going to try Army Corp of Engineers campgrounds that were open just a few days ago, but they are apparently now closed until at least sometime in May. I'll figure something out because I really don't have a choice. I appreciate your kind words.

 

[CarolAnn856]

Seems like there are two very valid sides to this bigger picture.

The problem is that one side is just "wah, I wanna" and the other side will place less of a burden on infrastructure and likely save lives. And even if the likelihood of contracting the virus is less in a resort town, the likelihood of getting proper treatment is also lessened, which not only places the part-timer in jeopardy but places an unfair disadvantage on those who live there year-round.

 

[Hikergirl]

The problem is that one side is just "wah, I wanna" and the other side will place less of a burden on infrastructure and likely save lives. And even if the likelihood of contracting the virus is less in a resort town, the likelihood of getting proper treatment is also lessened, which not only places the part-timer in jeopardy but places an unfair disadvantage on those who live there year-round.

The Wah I wanna people just "wanna" go to their own property. They have just as much right to that infrastructure as the year round residents. If they didn't then their tax burden would be less. Like it or not it does come down to that, their money is used the same way as year round residents money. Why should they not be allowed to take advantage of any of the infrastructure or services they pay for just because they are there for less time?

 

[skyblue17]

Even if they have as much right, they should still be considering that not everyone has the option of leaving and going somewhere else. If you knew that by going to your summer home, you might be taking a hospital bed from someone who's only option is that hospital, would you still do it? There should be at least a little social obligation to act ethically.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Even if they have as much right, they should still be considering that not everyone has the option of leaving and going somewhere else. If you knew that by going to your summer home, you might be taking a hospital bed from someone who's only option is that hospital, would you still do it? There should be at least a little social obligation to act ethically.

I agree about social obligation part.

Flip the script: "If you knew that by going to your primary home, you might be taking a hospital bed from someone who's only option is that hospital, would you still do it?"

I don't think the answer IF you're going to be including hospital beds, police department staff, etc into the equation is to separate it out by primary, secondary or vacation home. If you did that then any one of those could be the appropriate choice..one people aren't aware of when they are annoyed at the 'seasonal' folks coming in and telling them to stay at their primary home.

 

[skyblue17]

I agree about social obligation part.

Flip the script: "If you knew that by going to your primary home, you might be taking a hospital bed from someone who's only option is that hospital, would you still do it?"

I don't think the answer IF you're going to be including hospital beds, police department staff, etc into the equation is to separate it out by primary, secondary or vacation home. If you did that then any one of those could be the appropriate choice..one people aren't aware of when they are annoyed at the 'seasonal' folks coming in and telling them to stay at their primary home.

Well, the thing is, if it's your primary home, that means you are using those resources the majority of the time as well. There are reasons why that is your primary home. Just like there are reasons a second home is a second home. I think there is a difference between using the resources where you opt to live the majority of the time vs. the place where you go when you want to get away from the place you live all of the time, especially when that getting away puts people who don't have that option at risk.

 

[Searc]

Our particular county is telling people to stay away, for good reason. I choose to be a good citizen and listen to them. I am safe in our permanent residence with all the resources I need. There is no reason I should be taking a resource from someone that doesn't have another option, whether it be food, healthcare, etc.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

The problem is that one side is just "wah, I wanna" and the other side will place less of a burden on infrastructure and likely save lives. And even if the likelihood of contracting the virus is less in a resort town, the likelihood of getting proper treatment is also lessened, which not only places the part-timer in jeopardy but places an unfair disadvantage on those who live there year-round.

That's not how it works. These are not time shares - these are homes. These people are entitled to their use 24/7/365.

You have no more right to stay in your home than they do to stay in theirs.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Well, the thing is, if it's your primary home, that means you are using those resources the majority of the time as well. There are reasons why that is your primary home. Just like there are reasons a second home is a second home. I think there is a difference between using the resources where you opt to live the majority of the time vs. the place where you go when you want to get away from the place you live all of the time, especially when that getting away puts people who don't have that option at risk.

I was basing off your comment about "you might be taking a hospital bed from someone who's only option is that hospital"

People like to think that a lot of people's primary homes are in places with tons of normal means but that's not really the case all the time. When I worked at the insurance company I saw many many times people living in more rural or isolated communities who had secondary or vacation homes located in much better equipped and have better resources than where they live primarily. Sometimes people lived quite frugally and spent their money in really nice places to call as their secondary home or their vacation home. So say you may live in a rural community but have a lake house elsewhere or a mountain lodge elsewhere.

I bring this up because if you (general you) are going to focus on resources you can't frame it as primary, secondary or vacation home because you're assuming where the primary is has more resources than the other and that's not the case 100% of the time. If you flip that around you actually may be giving people where your primary home is better opportunities as you're one less person that your place may not normally be able to take care of. My earlier comment about too much movement IMO is the bigger issue. More movement tends to equal more risk to outside your social circle.

I do think some people may have specific resort towns in mind where it supports their viewpoint more (for which I can agree). I think there are a wide variety of vacation destinations out there that might not fit into that mould.

 

[skyblue17]

I was basing off your comment about "you might be taking a hospital bed from someone who's only option is that hospital"

People like to think that a lot of people's primary homes are in places with tons of normal means but that's not really the case all the time. When I worked at the insurance company I saw many many times people living in more rural or isolated communities who had secondary or vacation homes located in much better equipped and have better resources than where they live primarily. Sometimes people lived quite frugally and spent their money in really nice places to call as their secondary home or their vacation home. So say you may live in a rural community but have a lake house elsewhere or a mountain lodge elsewhere.

I bring this up because if you (general you) are going to focus on resources you can't frame it as primary, secondary or vacation home because you're assuming where the primary is has more resources than the other and that's not the case 100% of the time. If you flip that around you actually may be giving people where your primary home is better opportunities as you're one less person that your place may not normally be able to take care of. My earlier comment about too much movement IMO is the bigger issue. More movement tends to equal more risk to outside your social circle.

I do think some people may have specific resort towns in mind where it supports their viewpoint more (for which I can agree). I think there are a wide variety of vacation destinations out there that might not fit into that mould.

True, I am definitely thinking more of people flooding summer/winter vacation areas and not as much lake homes closer to areas with more resources. Having been to some of those Jersey shore towns that you can only access by causeway, I can understand the concern of permanent residents. And again, it's not that the people who own property in those towns don't have a right to be there, I just would hope that the thought doesn't completely evade people when choosing where to permanently hunker down.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

I do think some people may have specific resort towns in mind where it supports their viewpoint more (for which I can agree). I think there are a wide variety of vacation destinations out there that might not fit into that mould.

This is a good point. I am specifically thinking of places like Cocoa Beach. A ton of people have winter homes there (not summer homes).

 

[Deb & Bill]

Gov DeSantis has just extended the stay home and don't come to Florida to include Louisiana since NOLA has become such a hot spot. He has also instructed any rentals for the next 14 days to be cancelled.

 

[Love Tink]

The Wah I wanna people just "wanna" go to their own property. They have just as much right to that infrastructure as the year round residents. If they didn't then their tax burden would be less. Like it or not it does come down to that, their money is used the same way as year round residents money. Why should they not be allowed to take advantage of any of the infrastructure or services they pay for just because they are there for less time?

Because there is a world-wide pandemic and peoples' lives are legitimately and immediately at risk.

It's obvious from all of your many, many...many, many posts that this either hasn't occurred to you or doesn't concern you. (I'm guessing the latter.)

 

[AurumPunzel]

That's already happened in the UK before the lockdown came in. Many people have travelled to resort towns, remote beauty hotspots and even the Scottish Highlands, despite people being discouraged due to remote hospitals not having the capacity and logistics to deal with coronavirus cases.

 

[KayaWildfire]

We live in a resort town. While I have less issue with second homeowner crowd here, the spring breaker stay in a hotel crowd is starting to get to me. In the off season, our city has a population of less than 10k. The stores and such are stocked for the offseason. For days our store shelves have been stripped bare(good luck finding milk, bread, etc) and if you can find it, there are limits like 1 per customer. We are currently trying to feed 6 kids. 1 loaf of bread isn't cutting it. In our entire rural county where our city is, there is one hospital with one ICU with less than 10 beds. No way do they have more than 20 ventilators. I just really don't understand the enthusiasm to travel to another place where everything is closed. I understand why people are doing it, Illinois has far more cases and that's where most of our tourists are from. It's safer here presumably in a county with 5 cases. But it's not helpful for the local crowd at all. Just stay home.

 

[tinkerhon]

mefordis-
Just had to share my new tee from Hot Topic -

 

[smokeyblue]

I live in Michigan. There is a love/hate relationship between those who live in the upper half of the lower peninsula against the lower half under the best of circumstances. Under current circumstances, the tensions are higher. Permanent residents of the north do not want those from the south to come to their vacation homes because they don't want to be competing for resources, hospital beds and having the virus spread. Those who own these vacation homes and are coming north say feel they are entitled to do so because they pay taxes.

From my perspective, it is best practice just to stay put where you are. Additionally, I do know that hospital services in Michigan are governed under our certificate of need laws. Basically the number of hospital beds, the specific types of hospital beds, the equipment used, and services provided are dictated by the state and their guidelines come from population statistics which do not include tourist numbers.

At any rate, I live in the Upper Peninsula and as long as all the trolls stay under the bridge I'm good!

 

[monkeydawn]

From my perspective, it is best practice just to stay put where you are.

Exactly, its shelter in place. Not move and then shelter (and then maybe move back).

Im also not a fan of the huge warnings before a shelter in place is issued. We were given a directive yesterday (Friday) that we'd be sheltering in place come Monday 5pm. Grocery and essentials will still be open after Monday 5pm so why on earth do we nedd 3 days to prep? If you havent already noticed that somethings going on by this late date, will those three extra days really matter? Really not a fan of the corrupt Roy Cooper.

 

[Darcy03231]

We live on a lake in a tourist area. While most of the residents on our street are full-time, out neighbor is not. They arrived here late last week. They called to let us know that they were there and were not being rude, but were self-quarantining for 14 days to be sure that they were virus free. They had just come from Hawaii and with the planes and airports they went through they want to make absolutely sure they aren't passing anything along. I have no problem with people who do that. They live in a major metro area and the chances of them getting the virus are higher there.

 

[halfpintpeggy]

I live in a small rural area of California that gets a lot of tourists. So far it seems that all of the vacation homes are full. These second home folks are buying out our grocery stores to the point where some stores are requiring an ID with a local address on it in order to shop. We only have 31 hospital beds in this county so if they start getting sick...

I mean, yeah it's technically their home and they're entitled to use it but at what cost?

Are these the same stores the second home people patronize during the good times?