RV dwellers may face life on road

By Mike Trask

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 | 7:15 a.m.

Ken Harper has been living in his recreational vehicle, parked on a hill on the north side of Boulder City, for nearly a decade.

The RV resort on Industrial Road where the 70-year-old Harper lives in Lot 92 defies any trailer park stigma with its pool, sauna, workout facilities and game room.

He votes regularly in municipal elections. He patronizes local businesses. Last week he got his tax bill in the mail.

In other words, Harper sounds like a good, civic-minded, law-abiding citizen living in a stable community. But if some in Boulder City get their way, Harper and other RV owners will be told to hit the road, literally and figuratively.

For years, RV owners who live in their vehicles have been able to comply with a Boulder City ordinance limiting them to 180 days of continuous residency simply by taking a brief trip every six months. Go away on Day 179, come back the next day and a new 180-day cycle begins.

Now, however, some are pressing for a stricter interpretation that would force RV dwellers to spend no more than six months of the year in Boulder City.

An existing code reads: "No recreational vehicle shall be used as a permanent dwelling, or business, for an indefinite period of time. Continuous occupancy shall not extend more than 180 days in any 360-day period."

Harper and the dozens of other members of the Boulder Oaks Community Association figured that meant they simply had to leave once every six months, an opinion shared by a former city attorney.

For 10 years nobody tried to make them leave.

Until now.

City officials claim the law's intent was to forbid permanent residences in the RV area. It was initially passed to ensure that the city kept within its own strict limited growth ordinances.

"The intent was for temporary RVs," Councilwoman Andrea Anderson said at a recent meeting. "There was absolutely no doubt about that."

Much of current debate centers on how to interpret the word "continuous" - and the fact that the city has not enforced the existing rules to date, something nobody seems able to explain.

The city is considering stepping up enforcement or rewriting the ordinance to force RVers off their land.

"Year in and year out someone is coming to my office complaining," City Attorney David Olsen said. "It's a constant issue. If we have ordinances in place we should enforce them."

One of the chief complainers has been Ben Andrews, who in 2002 purchased exclusive rights to act as rental agent for the properties. The 276 lots are individually owned and if the owners want to rent them out, at a set price of $637 per month, they must go through Andrews, who gets a 40 percent cut.

But because some owners stay at the resort, Andrews is not doing much business.

Andrews refused to comment for this story.

City officials fear if they do not find a way to enforce the city measure, Andrews will sue for loss of business. But if the city strictly enforces the code, the community association will sue. So one way or another, the city could end up in court.

Andrews already is in court with the community association regarding his exclusive rental rights.

It's not the first battle between the two. Several years ago they ended up embroiled in a suit over who owned the rights to the name Boulder Oaks RV Resort. After Andrews prevailed, the association renamed the park Red Mountain RV Resort, but retained the name of the association. Both names are used at the resort entrance.

Residents, most of whom bought their roughly 2,200-square-foot sites for about $25,000, see no reason they should be forced off the land. Making them leave their own property, they say, seems un-American.

"I own my lot and I pay taxes on my lot," said Lawrence Scharnell, who lives in an RV with his wife. "Why should I have to leave? We shop in Boulder City. We go out to eat here."

Gerald Chapman, who works at McCarran International Airport, spends his weekends at a house in Arizona. But during the workweek he stays in an RV at the resort.

"Rather than buying a house to keep up or getting stuck in an apartment downtown, I figured this would be an OK investment," he said. "I didn't want to have to cut my grass."

John Hefty, the community association president, said the current law has been working fine. Most residents go away during the summer heat or the holidays, keeping them within the letter of the law.

"Most people don't live there," he said. "I have no proof. I don't chalk the tires or anything. But I don't think it's a problem."

Last week more than half of the lots at the park were empty.

As he sat on an afghan-covered recliner in his 40-foot RV, enjoying the air conditioning, Harper said he's not sure what he'll do if he's forced to drive away for six months.

"It's a mess," he said in his Western twang. "I wish I didn't have to deal with all this."

He does know one thing he definitely won't be doing. That's renting his property and allowing Andrews to get his hands on 40 percent of the money.