Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: This is why you never buy a house on land you don't own
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in General RVing Issues

Open Roads Forum  >  General RVing Issues

 > This is why you never buy a house on land you don't own

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 2  
Next
bucky

Raleigh metro

Senior Member

Joined: 05/07/2003

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 11/13/20 03:18am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

read here

this is the latest article, the other one was a year old.

This would apply to RV sites as well and fairly common in Florida.

* This post was edited 11/13/20 03:49am by bucky *


2005 Cummins 3500 2WD LB quad cab dually pulling a 2014 Blue Ridge 3025RL


dodge guy

Bartlett IL

Senior Member

Joined: 03/23/2004

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 11/13/20 05:52am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Pireateland could buy 63 acres and Lakewood 81 acres. Isn't that about half of each campground? They left out a lot of necessary info in the article that would explain a lot!


Wife Kim
Son Brandon 17yrs
Daughter Marissa 16yrs
Dog Bailey

12 Forest River Georgetown 350TS Hellwig sway bars, BlueOx TrueCenter stabilizer

13 Ford Explorer Roadmaster Stowmaster 5000, VIP Tow>
A bad day camping is
better than a good day at work!


valhalla360

No paticular place.

Senior Member

Joined: 08/19/2009

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member


Posted: 11/13/20 06:08am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

I think the bigger thing is the dollars involved.

$33million for the land...figure with improvements a total value of $50mil for one of the parks. Most businesses will want annual returns on the order of 15-20%, so it needs to generate around $7.5-10mil per year in addition to ongoing operating costs (staff, maintenance, utilities, etc...). Even for a big park, that's a lot of money to generate.

Sounds like the biggest issue for the city was how to get out of the landlord business without driving the campgrounds out of business. Didn't sound like there was any intent to stop leasing the land to the campgrounds until they could sort out a sales deal and the campgrounds benefitted from decades where they didn't have to come up with the money to buy the land outright, so no real harm there.


Tammy & Mike
Ford F250 V10
2021 Gray Wolf
Gemini Catamaran 34'
Full Time spliting time between boat and RV


Gdetrailer

PA

Senior Member

Joined: 01/05/2007

View Profile



Posted: 11/13/20 08:10am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

valhalla360 wrote:

I think the bigger thing is the dollars involved.

$33million for the land...figure with improvements a total value of $50mil for one of the parks. Most businesses will want annual returns on the order of 15-20%, so it needs to generate around $7.5-10mil per year in addition to ongoing operating costs (staff, maintenance, utilities, etc...). Even for a big park, that's a lot of money to generate.

Sounds like the biggest issue for the city was how to get out of the landlord business without driving the campgrounds out of business. Didn't sound like there was any intent to stop leasing the land to the campgrounds until they could sort out a sales deal and the campgrounds benefitted from decades where they didn't have to come up with the money to buy the land outright, so no real harm there.


^^^This^^^

Campgrounds are currently leasing that land from the City of MB so they are paying for the land already but they do not own that land.. Keeping in mind that this is a very SMALL portion of these two campgrounds. Affects the southern part of Pirateland and the northern part of Lakewood.

In reality buying out city of MB of that land will increase the campgrounds value for land/property and would eventually get the campgrounds out of the land lease which is costing them for that lease.

I know there has been concern about the city of MB selling the property to outside developers which would most likely end up with bunches of additional condos which would most likely generate more income for the city of MB but at the demise of lower income from the campgrounds..

wapiticountry

Mountain West

Senior Member

Joined: 10/02/2011

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 11/13/20 08:39am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Gdetrailer wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:

I think the bigger thing is the dollars involved.

$33million for the land...figure with improvements a total value of $50mil for one of the parks. Most businesses will want annual returns on the order of 15-20%, so it needs to generate around $7.5-10mil per year in addition to ongoing operating costs (staff, maintenance, utilities, etc...). Even for a big park, that's a lot of money to generate.

Sounds like the biggest issue for the city was how to get out of the landlord business without driving the campgrounds out of business. Didn't sound like there was any intent to stop leasing the land to the campgrounds until they could sort out a sales deal and the campgrounds benefitted from decades where they didn't have to come up with the money to buy the land outright, so no real harm there.


^^^This^^^

Campgrounds are currently leasing that land from the City of MB so they are paying for the land already but they do not own that land.. Keeping in mind that this is a very SMALL portion of these two campgrounds. Affects the southern part of Pirateland and the northern part of Lakewood.

In reality buying out city of MB of that land will increase the campgrounds value for land/property and would eventually get the campgrounds out of the land lease which is costing them for that lease.

I know there has been concern about the city of MB selling the property to outside developers which would most likely end up with bunches of additional condos which would most likely generate more income for the city of MB but at the demise of lower income from the campgrounds..
I would be shocked if the City wasn't required by law to maximize the proceeds in any sale. Usually this is accomplished by requiring sealed bids in any sale of publicly owned property. It is possible that the parks have the right of first refusal in such a sale, but I really can't see any way they could just negotiate a sales price without competitive bidding. A negotiated sale without bidding would be ripe for all sorts of fraud and malfeasance. Selling the land for $30 Million when it is worth $50 million would be ripping off the taxpayers, but might be very attractive to the City staffer whose uncle owned one of the parks or if there was a million dollars of unmarked bills suddenly left on the seat of his car. Obviously we don't have all the information, so it will be very interesting to see how it plays out.

Lwiddis

Death Valley NP

Senior Member

Joined: 08/12/2016

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 11/13/20 09:47am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

A state, county or city selling recreational land to private enterprise bothers me. Not sure this is what the Federal government intended when they gave the land to the city. Whatever these parks are charging now will go way up to pay the city. Is MB in financial trouble?


Winnebago 2101DS TT & 2020 Chevy Silverado 1500 LTZ Z71, 300 watt solar-parallel & MPPT, Trojan T-125s. TALL flag pole. Prefer USFS, COE, BLM, NPS, TVA, state & county camps. Bicyclist! 14 year Army vet-11B40 then 11A - (MOS 1542 & 1560) IOBC & IOAC grad


valhalla360

No paticular place.

Senior Member

Joined: 08/19/2009

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member


Posted: 11/13/20 10:16am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

wapiticountry wrote:

I would be shocked if the City wasn't required by law to maximize the proceeds in any sale. Usually this is accomplished by requiring sealed bids in any sale of publicly owned property. It is possible that the parks have the right of first refusal in such a sale, but I really can't see any way they could just negotiate a sales price without competitive bidding. A negotiated sale without bidding would be ripe for all sorts of fraud and malfeasance. Selling the land for $30 Million when it is worth $50 million would be ripping off the taxpayers, but might be very attractive to the City staffer whose uncle owned one of the parks or if there was a million dollars of unmarked bills suddenly left on the seat of his car. Obviously we don't have all the information, so it will be very interesting to see how it plays out.


The article talks about this issue by indicating they had independent appraisals done...While it's possible it could be manipulated, it's not likely and it's a defendable option if they followed a reasonable process.

I think the bigger complication was the ancillary benefits to the local economy. The campgrounds represent a high density of short term guests who likely spend a lot on a per person basis at other businesses. So doing a high bid option may have killed the RV parks only to be replaced by lower density, lower per capita spending condos. The rest of the business community would not be happy about that kind of action. This creates a conflict of interest within the city and is a good reason why they aren't well suited to playing landlord.

Lwiddis

Death Valley NP

Senior Member

Joined: 08/12/2016

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 11/13/20 10:33am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Why not ask South Carolina State Parks to manage the campgrounds?

Gdetrailer

PA

Senior Member

Joined: 01/05/2007

View Profile



Posted: 11/13/20 11:21am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

wapiticountry wrote:

I would be shocked if the City wasn't required by law to maximize the proceeds in any sale. Usually this is accomplished by requiring sealed bids in any sale of publicly owned property. It is possible that the parks have the right of first refusal in such a sale, but I really can't see any way they could just negotiate a sales price without competitive bidding. A negotiated sale without bidding would be ripe for all sorts of fraud and malfeasance. Selling the land for $30 Million when it is worth $50 million would be ripping off the taxpayers, but might be very attractive to the City staffer whose uncle owned one of the parks or if there was a million dollars of unmarked bills suddenly left on the seat of his car. Obviously we don't have all the information, so it will be very interesting to see how it plays out.


You do need to keep in mind that those campgrounds AND leases goes way back to the times when that land was worth pennies and practically given away.

City of MB has most likely made more than their "fair share" back on the land in lease money along with all of the TAX revenue that has been generated by the operation of said campgrounds (which is considerable). Plus, only the City of MB and the campgrounds involved know exactly what the lease terms are.. Good chance that there would be some sort of end of lease purchase terms, most like some sort of right to first refusal because of the campgrounds providing infrastructure and maintenance.

Not to mention all of this time City of MB has not had to touch or manage this land so no costs to the City of MB all of the time during the lease.. They sell it to the highest bidder and it isn't the campgrounds it may look like a money grab to the good citizens of the City of MB..

Not to mention, it IS a pretty busy resort area and losing camping spaces would have a pretty big ripple effect on not only those two campgrounds but every campground within the Grand Strand area (60 miles of shore line).

I am sure the City of MB and the campgrounds would want to avoid making a mess of it for the sake of City of MB making the most of the land prices..

valhalla360

No paticular place.

Senior Member

Joined: 08/19/2009

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member


Posted: 11/13/20 11:31am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Lwiddis wrote:

Why not ask South Carolina State Parks to manage the campgrounds?


So you are suggesting, the City (not state) destroy two major businesses that have been in place for almost 3/4 of a century? Businesses that have poured large amounts of money into developing the property and supporting the local economy over decades?

There's good reason that that history be taken into account.

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 2  
Next

Open Roads Forum  >  General RVing Issues

 > This is why you never buy a house on land you don't own
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in General RVing Issues


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2021 CWI, Inc. © 2021 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.