For what, exactly? The delusions of the "somebody else should pay for my lifestyle choices" that they spend up big in businesses when they are too mean to even pay their own way?
Why should ratepayers pay for YOUR expenses? Pay it yourself. There's no such thing as a "free camp". It's a camp funded by people other than the ones using it.
"[The income from free camps] was calculated using a 2008 Darling Downs Study which estimated knock-on economic benefits from free campers at $88/night."
Really? That much? I would argue that a budget of $88 per day would be far in excess of what the average camper spends.
__________________
"No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full."
I do not keep a check on the total amount of what I spend, (as I have to eat, wherever I am) but I do keep a total of what I spend on fuel
On my last trip of 47 days I spent an average of just over $50 a day for diesel, admittedly if I had taken twice as long on this trip, it would still have been the same amount of diesel I used
For what, exactly? The delusions of the "somebody else should pay for my lifestyle choices" that they spend up big in businesses when they are too mean to even pay their own way?
Why should ratepayers pay for YOUR expenses? Pay it yourself. There's no such thing as a "free camp". It's a camp funded by people other than the ones using it.
First up I recognise the comment about compensating shopkeepers as tongue in cheek. It is no more silly however than caravan parks claiming the right to a travellers dollars.
That said, in response to the quote above ......... I don't share the 'user pays' philosophy as far as short term public camps provided by shire councils go. I consider such provision should be a responsibility of councils, just as public toilets, streetlights, pavements etc are. Once upon a time village greens were a public space for use by travellers as well as for local festivities, & that is how I believe the so called 'free camps' should be.
My shire provides several free camps in it's jurisdiction, the one closest to home provides a pleasant shady, grassy space, with water, toilets, hot showers & picnic tables, just an easy short walk from the few facilities in town. I am more than happy to have this funded from the rates that we pay, but I do expect that all other shires should reciprocate & provide similar. Few seem to agree with me however, usually arguing that population densities across different shires varies a great deal, & so some shires have a greater income than others. My response is twofold. 1. Many of the free camps I have enjoyed the most have been provided by small communities, with the understanding that by doing so it brings people & income to their place & 2. Many folk who travel come from far greater population density areas - large towns & cities, where free camps are few, if any. Perhaps they could instead of reciprocating by provision of short term public camps they could assist by contributing to the upkeep of free camps in the jurisdictions of less well off shires that their residents can use whilst travelling. With political will, I'm sure a workable scheme would be possible.
Of course what would be needed would be a nationwide acceptance of places like this being something councils provide for the well being of all. Not just RV travellers, but for the many disadvantaged folk who live in all of our communities. Make it viable for everyone to travel if they choose to, on foot, on bicycles, on motorcycles, in cars as well as the various forms of RV's, instead of rotting away in front of a tv & 4 walls, or even those who have nowhere to call home. To often on RV forums folk make the mistake of believing that free camps are places for RV travellers, like they have colonised these public spaces, but they should be places where anyone is welcome for a short maximum period. If those places are used sufficiently to require facilities other than space & water, they should be included. If those wealthy enough to own an RV don't like sharing with those on struggle street, they have the option of paid accommodation not available to many.
Yeah I know........... pie in the sky because we have been so indoctrinated by the 'user pays' philosophy it's hard to imagine any other way, but it's not a new idea.
We are set up to free camp indefinitely but personally I tend to mainly not to stay at 'Free Camps', instead I prefer 'Bush Camps'. No doubt there is an overlap between the terms , but I differentiate between them, thinking of the commonly used term 'Free camp' as being on the regularly used travel routes, the grey nomad circuit for want of a better term if you like. Whilst Bush camps are 'off the beaten track, & rarely have any facilities provided. One is commonly full of 'Happy Hour folk' enjoying the socialising, whilst the other more commonly shared with nothing but nature.
Generally if necessary (in places where Bush camps don't exist) I will choose a Free camp over a Paid camp, unless there is something specifically appealing about a paid camp - this could be anything from a washing machine to an especially nice environment. Busy crowded 'sardine-like Free Camps are not much different to busy crowded sardine like Caravan parks from my perspective. If I can hear my neighbour snoring & farting (or they me) I'd sooner be somewhere where all I hear is the sound of a creek & the dawn chorus.
As far as being 'too mean' to pay our own way, there is no doubt that affordability comes into the equation, & for full time travel we need to travel on a budget which suits our means like many. By staying at places which cost us nothing doesn't mean that we spend less overall though. If we had to pay for accommodation every night we probably couldn't afford to be out on the road enjoying what we do & spreading around what we can whilst doing it & I don't think anyone should accept advice from others which says 'if you can't afford to travel as we think you should, stay home'. Rather I advise 'If travel is what makes you happy, do it in whatever way you can'.
As communities, I believe providing ways in which community members can enjoy life, & look after their own mental health is more an investment than a cost. The provision of public spaces, parks & gardens recognises this. Somewhere similarly cost free to put your head down for the night, I would argue, is no different.
-- Edited by Cuppa on Saturday 25th of February 2023 09:15:56 PM
It annoys me the level of self intitlement many bludgers exhibit when it come to free camps in towns.
A number of years back we spent 2 weeks in a CP in Central Western Qld town, this towns town common has toilets, showers, dump point and water all be it bore water, during the travelling season this free camp would have 60+ there for the night. So you would expect to see travellers in and around the town, but alas not, sure they got fuel, and a few things from the supermarket, but the nights we had dinner at the pub there was bugger all travellers frequenting the place.
So why is this town slowly in decline with no banks, lots of vacant shops, Post Office is an agency, spend a 100 bucks on fuel virtually none of that stays in the town.
Remember the big carry on when Kershaw Gardens was closed, well its open again and it is supposed to a self contained facility, "Kershaw Gardens is a free 48-hour camping ground nestled in the lush green parklands. This site is perfect for travellers who are fully self-contained, with vehicles containing and storing all grey water, all black water and all rubbish (strictly no tents permitted)."
I was in Rocky a month ago well Kershaw Gardens Free Camp looked like a swaggies campout, sure the were plenty doing the right thing, but there were plenty more who did not fit the self contained requirement. where were the council rangers to enforce the rules.
