Quote from warren on Jul 31^st, 2012, 3:10pm:

 
It may have for some dandy youtube videos though  

Just saw this on line Cape May Herald. Hopefully this is more than just a glimmer of hope.
 
"Petition Prompts City to Revisit RV Placement"
WILDWOOD — A petition with over 1,500 signatures was sent to the city’s governing body Aug. 14 by two local condominium associations who do not want to see recreational vehicles parked on the beach. And in response, the city will revisit the placement of the proposed park, Mayor Ernest Troiano told the Herald.  
 
Signers of the petition ranged from city residents to vacationers from as far away as Canada.  
 
“The condominium associations of Wildwood Ocean Towers and 300 E. Leaming Street stand united in their opposition to the city’s plan to allow RVs to park on our beaches,” wrote the boards of directors of both associations. The two associations asked the city to revisit the plan with its engineering firm and “challenge them to recommend beach friendly concessions to replace the RV campground.”  
 
The city has proposed placing parking spots for 80 recreational vehicles on the southern end of its beach. Initially placed on the beach near Cresse Avenue, the proposed parking lo-cation was moved and would be located south of the Wildwoods Convention Center and north of Ocean Towers.  
 
The petition called for the cancellation of all RV parking on the beach due to concerns about beach safety and access; environmental issues and potential traffic hazards.  
 
“There is significant concern for the ability for residents and vacationers to safely access the beach from Leaming to Cresse without having to come in contact with the RVs or to cross paths with them,” noted the petition. “This RV park will be within one block of hundreds of residential condominium owners/taxpayers, numerous commercial businesses and will be next to the Wildwood Boardwalk where tens of thousands of tourists walk by.”  
 
The petition noted a concern for environmental issues such as motor oil, transmission fluid or brake fluid being spilled onto the sand, as well as gray water, sewage discharge, pet waste and other waste generated by RVs. The petition called for the elimination of the pro-posed RV park for financial reasons. It noted, “There have been at least two contracts of sale at Wildwood Ocean Towers placed in jeopardy by the potential presence of RVs on the beach and other property owners have reported losses of renters for 2013 and beyond due to RV parking.”  
 
At the June 27 City Commissioners meeting, Michael McCardy, an Ocean Towers condominium owner told city officials he, along with other condominium owners were interested in finding “an amicable solution to not have RVs parked in front of us.” During that meeting McCardy said “there is enough support within our community to hire a study and file an injunction against the city for the allowed use. We don’t want them. We want them on the southern side of the convention center.”  
 
Placing recreational vehicles on the beach is part of the city’s plan to make the beach a money-making venture for the city. “Everyone complains about their taxes and everyone wants their taxes lowered,” said Troiano during the June 27 meeting. “We need to try and generate revenue. We have an expansive beach out there that is just a barren waste of money.”  
 
Signers of the petition do not necessarily agree with the mayor’s take on a financial fix for the city’s empty coffers.  
 
“Wildwood’s chief asset is its beaches and beaches should be protected at all costs,” wrote Jeanne LaSorda in a comment to the online petition. “This is the city’s first step, but it won’t stop with just 80 RVs. Once the beach is contaminated with motor oil, no one will want to sunbathe on it. When no one wants to vacation in Wildwood, the city won’t have to worry about a ‘revenue stream.’”  
 
“People are entitled to their opinions,” said the mayor. “There will be a review of the location of the RVs.”
 
 
 

It's all well and good, both sides really... and I find myself strictly in the middle. I see it as a great revenue stream for the town that can alleviate tax burdens for many people. I think I'm just with the petitioners that it needs to be somewhere else. Where by the convention center were they talking? Why wasn't that the option in the first place?
 
Actually... why wouldn't that spot on the beach where the bleachers are, that used to host the monster truck and other motorsports events work? No one seemed to be bothered by the noise, fumes, motor oil, etc of that when it was a yearly event... I'm all for preserving the beaches, and keeping a tight regulation on any RVs... but I feel like some place on that long stretch of beach could work... one that's not as intrusive to beach-goers. I would think the current location being petitioned is rather intrusive...

I read in an article just recently that the going price to have your RV on the Beach, no frills, was $150 per night. Many of the folks commenting on said article said that was a ridiculous price to pay when there were nice camp grounds nearby with all of the amenities for $75 a night.

Quote from SandArtist on Aug 18^th, 2012, 9:06pm:

 
Well, in a way, that's probably a good price then to keep it from overcrowding. It *is* a luxury to be that close to the beach (literally on, heh) compared to the campgrounds. So for those that scoff at the price, go to the campgrounds. I don't doubt they carefully chose that price.

So has the RV parking south of the convention center been scraped? Or are they going to be relocated  to a new area along the WW beach?

I wouldn't mind an RV park somewhere in the resort, but certainly not on the beach. Maybe near the inlet area. Someone could do a retro park with plastic palm trees, etc. I really don't see how it makes sense from an economic standpoint. It takes lodgers away from hotels and motels and reduces the likelihood that someone will rent a condo. That's bed tax that's not being collected, so why would the convention bureau even want to promote it? Someone created the dunes and restored native vegetation to protect the beach, but this seems to do just the opposite.