Why no PUPs allowed in CGs?

[Tenttrailer]

But were talking about public "CA State Parks"

A lot of discrimination is not illegal when it comes to private property, which I think is right thing.  You should have the right to do what you want to do with your private property.   But not state property that tax payers dollars pay for.

[Adopt-a-grey]

Do the parks in question often get high winds?  Maybe that's why they say no tents and pop ups.  If they have facilities there, then I don't really understand the issue.

Try again!

They don't get higher winds than any other beach campground but they are all parking lot camping.

The public argument seems to say that the CA Coastal Commission has provided the limitations but I can point to other CA State Park campgrounds on the beach that allow RV's and tent campers.

It isn't worth the effort to call the parks because I'm guessing you wouldn't get the same answer 2x. 

[Spirit Deer]

Okay, I'm out of ideas as to why!

Gemini, I agree public lands shouldn't have discriminatory rules without good cause, such as concerns about wildlife.

I suppose the same argument could be made for public parks that don't allow forty foot buses or even large TTs due to space limitations.  Perhaps they should be forced to remodel so as not to discriminate.  *said the devil's advocate* 

[Flester1]

But were talking about public "CA State Parks"

A lot of discrimination is not illegal when it comes to private property, which I think is right thing.  You should have the right to do what you want to do with your private property.   But not state property that tax payers dollars pay for.

JUST AN FYI... a little insight into the discrimination talk...

I agree, to an extent, but there are a lot of examples of "public places" that have very strict rules and minimal accessibility, and I'm not just referring to government facilities.  Rules govern nearly everything we do on public lands, and violating those rules often carries much harsher penalties.  Private property is immune from Constitutional challenges only when there is zero government action involved.  State and Federal laws still apply even when there is no government action involved, so you are never really "free" from rules.

As far as discriminatory practices go, pop-up campers are not a special "class" or "suspect class" as the courts would see it (in the event that someone attempted to challenge the posted rules).  To fall under that classification, a person would have to be in a group that has a history of discrimination, is a discrete minority, has immutable characteristics, and is not seen as politically powerful.  Automatically that is out the window because of the immutable characteristics criteria.  Any/all of us could sell our pop-up and be out of the "group" of pop-up owners.  We are not permanent owners of pop-ups, and we can change our status quite easily if we wanted.  Our race, for example, cannot me changed, thus it is a "suspect class" that cannot be discriminated against.   

I don't know why they do not accommodate pop-up campers, and I think on Monday I will call and start the long, tedious process of climbing the chain-of-command until I get an answer.  After spending a lot of time in court and in Constitutional Law courses, I am confident that what they are doing is perfectly legit, public land or not.  I don't, however, think it is reasonable or "fair." 

I'm not trying to preach, just wanted to shed some light on the comments about the rules being discriminatory in nature.  You hear that word thrown around a lot when people don't like a rule or restriction, so I thought I would share some info on what it actually takes for a government entity to discriminate.   

[Flester1]

(I had to google "DNR". Around here it means "do not resuscitate".  )

Our "Department of Natural Resources" changed their officer's title and the department's name to "Natural Resources Police" because of the confusion over whether they were police officers, and what they actually did. 

It saved a lot of explaining on the officers part! 

(The other DNR is typically found on the fridge in someone's house!  Had to chuckle when I read that!)

[Between Trips]

A private CG years ago told us that the lack of noise insulation from people inside their tents or tented trailers was the reason they disallowed them.

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm only re-stating what I was told.

[Tenttrailer]

But were talking about public "CA State Parks"

A lot of discrimination is not illegal when it comes to private property, which I think is right thing.  You should have the right to do what you want to do with your private property.   But not state property that tax payers dollars pay for.

JUST AN FYI... a little insight into the discrimination talk...

I agree, to an extent, but there are a lot of examples of "public places" that have very strict rules and minimal accessibility, and I'm not just referring to government facilities.  Rules govern nearly everything we do on public lands, and violating those rules often carries much harsher penalties.  Private property is immune from Constitutional challenges only when there is zero government action involved.  State and Federal laws still apply even when there is no government action involved, so you are never really "free" from rules.

As far as discriminatory practices go, pop-up campers are not a special "class" or "suspect class" as the courts would see it (in the event that someone attempted to challenge the posted rules).  To fall under that classification, a person would have to be in a group that has a history of discrimination, is a discrete minority, has immutable characteristics, and is not seen as politically powerful.  Automatically that is out the window because of the immutable characteristics criteria.  Any/all of us could sell our pop-up and be out of the "group" of pop-up owners.  We are not permanent owners of pop-ups, and we can change our status quite easily if we wanted.  Our race, for example, cannot me changed, thus it is a "suspect class" that cannot be discriminated against.   

I don't know why they do not accommodate pop-up campers, and I think on Monday I will call and start the long, tedious process of climbing the chain-of-command until I get an answer.  After spending a lot of time in court and in Constitutional Law courses, I am confident that what they are doing is perfectly legit, public land or not.  I don't, however, think it is reasonable or "fair." 

I'm not trying to preach, just wanted to shed some light on the comments about the rules being discriminatory in nature.  You hear that word thrown around a lot when people don't like a rule or restriction, so I thought I would share some info on what it actually takes for a government entity to discriminate.   

your right, I'm sure CA has not crossed the line.  There most likely are no laws that protects a pup.  But it sure sounds like there some snobs that have had bad a experiences with pups and don't want them there.

I had an experience in OH with state campgrounds that were defined as horse man CG.  I wanted to camp at one during a time when I don't think anyone would have been there.  But without horses.  I ended finding out that some horse riding association funded building the CG, which then it made sense me.  At first I had assumed the state had paid for the development in the state forest.

[Flester1]

My calendar is full tomorrow, but I promise I am going to make a valid attempt to get some answers.  I doubt we will make it to California with our pup any time soon, but what the hey?  We might!

[radimus]

Funny how so many want to turn every "discrimination" into a civil rights issue.

[Tenttrailer]

Funny how so many want to turn every "discrimination" into a civil rights issue.

I don't think its about "discrimination", it about are citizens equal?  if you pay for somthing (taxes) why can you not use it when other people can use it that are dressed better (travel trailers and motor homes)? 

[Adopt-a-grey]

My calendar is full tomorrow, but I promise I am going to make a valid attempt to get some answers.  I doubt we will make it to California with our pup any time soon, but what the hey?  We might!

Trust me, w/ the possible exception of Seacliff, you can find better SP's on the beach to camp at!

Give us a shout in the Pacific section if you do find time to head out our way and we'll let you know which ones we like best and why.   

[HighLifeGuy]

A private CG years ago told us that the lack of noise insulation from people inside their tents or tented trailers was the reason they disallowed them.

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm only re-stating what I was told.

This is just funny. The logic is so flawed. As silly as this is, I fully support the owners right to discriminate or ban anyone they want based on whatever stupid reasoning they want to use.

[Flester1]

Funny how so many want to turn every "discrimination" into a civil rights issue.

Isn't every legitimate form of discrimination a civil rights issue?  If not, it isn't discrimination.  Right?  I'm not sure how to take your comment.  If you are eluding to my post, it was simply in response to those who referenced the park being "public" and how they should be open to everyone.  That simply isn't the case, as it has nothing to do with discrimination or civil rights violations.

By the way, I made three calls today.  I had an answering machine first, which provided about 10 different numbers to call.  Reservations are made through reserve America, and the only live person I spoke with stated that "only 100% self contained vehicles/trailers are permitted."  I inquired as to why, and they were not able to tell me the reasoning behind the rule.  More calls when time permits.