Are Residential Parks Loosing Favour?

Last Friday evening,17/2/2017 channel nine run a piece on the heavenly existence of living in residential parks. This was obviously a paid add by park operators. One can only wonder at this sudden burst of marketing. We can only speculate as to why this sudden burst has become necessary.

Perhaps too many of these parks are being developed and prospective punters have heeded the much bad advertising relative to long term residents being turfed out of their homes. This practice is used when the big money men buy up old mixed parks with intent to redevelop new residential parks. Existing residents are given their marching orders with little or no compensation enabling them to buy elsewhere. Their only choice is public housing. This is good government strategy for balancing the budget!

However, just perhaps the State Government has heeded our ARPQ  complaints pending the current legislation being reviewed. The true Story is that continuous State Labour Governments have been openly protecting park operators through its legislation. For instance, Residential park operators are not bound by the open market economy based on competition. The legislators have encouraged park operators seeking to increase site fees to just compare with any other parks of their choosing to increase site fees. In other words, anti competition, a cartel. This is remuneration by government for park operators developing residential parks thus removing any responsibility from government. A sort of quid quo pro.

It therefore becomes obvious that any business given such legislative cartel conditions would be fools not to grab the opportunity to prosper, we are all human, “purely speculation on my part”. Now of course this sudden marketing drive by park operators is a little suspicious. Could this State Labour Government actually be considering lifting the awarded cartel conditions come the legislative review and actually exposing park operators to real competition?
Hence, the sudden marketing initiative of last Friday. It all sounds a bit suspicious. I mean, why change a good system that serves both government and park operator and to hell with pensioner home owners. Perhaps the old adage “when your on a good thing, stick to it” is becoming a bit contentious, time will tell.

Comments

Are Residential Parks Loosing Favour? — 2 Comments

  1. Good morning

    Having lived and owned a village home for 10years .in Parkridge..I have learnt so much and being on the HOC for 2 years has revealed to me ..in my opinion a village hoc [although permitted ] has little power… in fact having READ THROUGH MANY PAST YEAR minutes and management replies to the negative for the home owner…. well meaning HOC members are wasting their time..intimidation against many residents is common.If A RESIDENT’S FIANCE puts his name on her lease[the home owner ] does that give him the entitlement of ”home owner ‘… this man has been nominated for the 2017/2018 HOC.. He also lives elsewhere.
    I have more to express but that would take a week or more.
    thankyou and I do hope to receive a reply from you in due time
    yours faithfully
    Ms.Shirley Hockey

    • Hi Shirley, what needs to be understood is that this vulgar PIECE OF LEGISLATION remains the handiwork of the Peter Beattie Labor Government and has been sponsored by Anna Bligh and now Anastasia Palszczuk. The piece is designed to encourage land owners to open their land as residential parks. Protection of unwary home owners was never a consideration, this has been proven time and time again but who cares. The Labor Government doesn’t. So based on what is written here and your own experience of living in a residential park, you know how to vote in the next State election. Punish those who produce this legislation. Also I have answered your other question about ring in visitors claiming home ownership.