Clickbait titles apparently still work.
It started with the RVDailyReport and their opinion piece entitled OPINION: HUD action could eliminate full-time RVing.
Then this YouTube video showed up:
One or the other of those links have been posted to every RV or TinyHouse group we’re part of.
Invariably people throw off a spark after reading the titles, pour out their flammable distrust of the government, and erupt in flames before truly understanding the issue.
Maybe I have an over-developed sense of skeptiscm for stuff I read online but when I read through the proposal I couldn’t understand what the issue was.
I also assumed that the RV Industry wouldn’t be happy with any such rule. No more fulltime RVing would lop off a goodly share of their ongoing sales each year. I didn’t see them complaining.
If you have seen either the article or video linked to above I’d suggest you also read the following responses which more clearly explain the intent of the HUD language change:
The RV Dreams Journal (run by a former lawyer) posted a response which includes:
This is a small concession from the RV industry to keep HUD out of the RV construction business, and more specifically, the park model construction business. It’s just not that big a deal. In fact, the notice may not even be required in anything other than park models where confusion is most likely.RV-Dreams-Journal.com
Fore understands that some people are fearful the HUD definition will allow that agency to step in and regulate how the RV can be used. However, he quickly notes that the agency lacks legal authority to regulate use. And, the proposed definition is designed to draw a clear distinction between what is a home and what is a vehicle.RVDailyReport.com
The RVBusiness.com website posted a joint statement from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), the Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association (RVDA) and the National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds (ARC).
The statement explains why these groups agree that the proposed HUD language change over the definition of an RV is necessary. The statement includes this quote:
Under this proposed rule, the modern RV lifestyle cannot be regulated out of existence.RVBusiness.com
Snopes.com even checked in on the issue with an article declaring the outcome “false” - albeit more from a tiny house perspective:
The proposed rule rumored to be a “tiny house ban” was in fact simply a clarification of classifications for RVs and similar dwellings and in no way banned or criminalized tiny home ownership or building.Snopes.com
If you read through the comments of the YouTube video I linked to above even the author responds to someone worried about being able to full-time RV:
I’m sure the future of RV living will remain perfectly legal and you will be able to freely roam this great nation of ours all through your golden years.Luthorville
The Cost of Clickbait
The disappointing aspect of these clickbait articles and videos is that they’ve actually muddied the waters and caused more damage than good.
I feel bad for the folks actually involved in the process of making the changes - the comments they are getting are full of hysterics from people responding to the clickbait and not actually understanding the proposal.
Look - there are thousands of people living in RVs fulltime. The actual number isn’t known - but from our 5+ years of experience on the road we’d say easily in the tens of thousands.
Retirees, itinerant workers, homeschooling families - all on the move in RVs. And a lot of people who choose to live in RVs that don’t move.
Then think about the RV dealers. The mobile RV repair services. The campgrounds and RV parks.
There’s a signifcant segment of the US population whose world revolves around RV living.
It’s going to take more than a couple of sentences to change that.