LETTER: Look at RV rules

Dear Editor,

I’ve been reading as much information as I can find regarding the difficulties surrounding the RV Park at Monte Square. I’m not an expert in city governance, but what I’ve read so far indicates the city is putting a higher priority on enforcing the letter of existing city ordinances than on keeping business and people who spend their money in Montesano.

In reading the documents I’ve seen, there doesn’t seem to be a consistent nomenclature for the business, as it is alternatively referred to as a campground and an RV Park depending on who’s talking. That would be the first thing to accomplish since the letter of the law has a specific nomenclature.

Also, the most consistent argument against allowing people to stay in the park for more than 30 days in a calendar year is that it’s against the law. There’s no mention of anyone or anything being harmed as a result of people living there longer, and there is clearly a benefit to having those people spend their money in Montesano.

There’s a fiscal benefit to having those people there. The only cost is that they’re breaking rules. It seems to me that the correct thing to do would be to get a compromise that adjusts the rules so people who are contributing to the local economy are accommodated and requires the business to ensure the new rules are adhered to. The situation needs to remain negotiable as needs change.

Montesano needs profitable business. Montesano needs people to spend money in our town. Chasing people away will not advance that goal. When you consider our local economy — the unemployment rate, and the lack of industry in Grays Harbor County — looking down our noses at people who live in trailers isn’t going to help much, either, especially if it’s by city government policy.

Our city government should be working to improve the local business culture. That’s not to say that rules shouldn’t be followed, but rules need to adapt to changing needs, too. If the only negative consequence of breaking a rule is that the rule was broken, maybe the rule needs to be re-evaluated.

Ray Meyers

Montesano