Skip to Content

‘Would you want it in your neighborhood?’ Culver RV park plans spur opposition from some

(Updated: adding video, comments from Culver resident)

Plans for 80-space RV park in Culver have drawn criticism

CULVER, Ore. (KTVZ) -- Increased traffic, crime and costs are the main concerns for some people in Culver about a proposed 80-space RV park. It would be located on a currently empty lot on First Street, south of Culver City Hall.

As a recent public hearing, community members had the opportunity to voice their opinion, and there was no citizen testimony in favor of the project.

Resident Jerry Shaw says says he's not against an RV park being built, but opposed to the proposed location. He told NewsChannel 21 on Tuesday that the site is close to a park and a school, in an area kids frequently walk through.

"It's just the location for me. I'm not opposed to it going in, I'm really not. If the city wants to do that, great. Go for it. Just don't put it in an established neighborhood," Shaw said. "Would you want it in your neighborhood? Would you want it across the street from your house with your kids? Would you want it built next to one of the elementary schools?"

The developer, Robert Shannon, says there will be a park manager who will require credit and background checks for residents -- and they wouldn't allow older RVs. Shannon also says the park would be a part of a beautification program for the city.

"I have no interest in putting something in that people aren't going to like. Obviously, you want people to like the park, so they're going to stay in the park," Shannon told NewsChannel 21. "You've got to make it nice, and you want it to be safe as well, and so I want to put in a nice place -- I have no interest in putting something in that people aren't going to like."

Shannon says the lot is on commercial property, so something will eventually be built, increasing traffic.

Community members have until July 22 to voice their concerns, then the City Planning Commission will make a decision.

Author Profile Photo

Carly Keenan

Carly Keenan is a multimedia journalist and producer for NewsChannel 21. Learn more about Carly here.



  1. I’m confused? Background checks? Is he building a RV park for long term stays? Or a overnighter KOA type for the RV travelers type of campground?

    1. That’s what I dont get. I mean, I dont understand what all the fuss is about over an RV camp area. Do they really mean like a trailer park / mobile home park? They are saying “residents” and “background checks”. This sounds more like a trailer park.

      I dont think the definition of “RV park” being used here is the same as the one I’m used to.

    2. Yea I’m confused too. Who cares if a bunch of tourists pull in their 5th wheel for the weekend on some commercial lot? That’s what happens in an “RV Park”.

  2. Everyone is a NIMBY. Who owns the land? Are they trying to do something the land was zoned for? They are ? Then shut up. No one ever told you your life would remain in stasis. Quit whining when your days dont play out exactly the same over and over and over.

  3. The question isn’t “would you want it?” What you want is completely immaterial.
    The question is why should a citizen who has worked hard and saved their money be denied the opportunity to make money by developing their land if what they want to do is allowed under current rules/laws?

    1. Because the world is bigger than that person, despite any amount of money they might have saved. It might be his land but its their neighborhood, and there should be some sort of accountability to what the land is used for.

      How would you feel if it were you? Would you be willing to live near a place that made you feel your family was unsafe? Should your only choice be to move and be forced out of your home?

      Our actions impact more than ourselves in life.

      1. Hey, right now Phalish homes is building one of Bends biggest developments on three sides of me. Have I complained? No. You know why? because i ACTUALLY believe that you should be free to do with your stuff as you see fit as long as it is legal.
        So yeah, I know the situation. I also know that if every time someone wanted to build something and they were denied by nimby’s who want the world to remain as it was when they were at their happiest in life we’d all be living in mud huts and eating bugs.
        Is this “freedom” thing just a prop for you; its not for me.

        1. I agree with you. As much as I hated to see logs from private land shipped to Japan for milling, they were private property and they had the right to do it. If I acquire some of value, I don’t want someone else telling me what to do with it.

  4. I don’t have a dog in this fight but I respectfully disagree. I think that the city should be thoughtful with where they are and aren’t allowing RV parks. Not listening to your community is almost always bad for everyone involved considering the project got no positive feedback from anyone other than the developer.

    1. Then what was the point of spending all the time, energy and tax dollars coming up with a zoning plan if at the first moment it gives you discomfort you just chuck it and go off making up new different rules piecemeal?
      Thats exactly the stuff that leasds people to call government wasteful.

      1. Does the land owner actually live the community where the land is located? If he does then he is a part of it. If he doesnt he isnt. Its called being an absentee landlord.

        1. Little Ronnie Wyden does not live in Oregon – he owns a couple of rental properties in Potland, yet he still gets to claim he “represents” Oregon, any difference?

        2. Owning land in the community makes him a de facto part of the community. You can’t own part of the community and not be part of the community.

          1. Little Ronnie taking the community money without living there makes him a slumlord at best. As for the RV park, let them build it or buy him out, whichever you choose to do.

          2. Owning property in a community does not equate to being a part of the community any more than owning property in a state or country makes you a citizen of that state or country. If he doesn’t live there, then he isn’t a part of the community.

            1. “Being part of the community” or not is not a legal barrier to a free American doing as he wants with his private property as long as its is legal.
              Your feelings are duly noted.

        3. So if you don’t live on a piece of property you own, yet wish to develop it according to the zone it’s in, you can’t do just that if the neighbors object?

          If you DO live there, then it’s ok even if the neighbors object?

          In the first case, if and when this development is denied, shouldn’t the city fathers, if they deny this “use” then compensate him/her for his loss of value/investment?

          Imagine if every real estate developer had to live on their property before developing it. Trump comes to mind.

  5. Watch out for those “beautification projects.” That’s what caused a lot of the housing issues in Bend and Redmond. Now Prineville is seeing some of the issues and Culver is next!

  6. I used to live in Culver and it is not exactly the most scenic of towns. Now that I have angered the locals…if any area needs inexpensive housing it is the Culver/Madras area. This appears to be a ‘trailer park’, not a transient RV park. That means it will be very inexpensive to live, $30K for a decent newer trailer plus $700 or $800 a month for fees. Nowhere else in the area can you find a two-bedroom ‘house’ for that kind of money. I hope this is not another example of where the NIMBYs pursuit of perfection, prevents the ‘good’.

  7. It will go in regardless. In all the times I have had jerks on city council take my property through eminent domain they don’t care one bit what the citizens say. They are in charge, you’re not. My advice. Buy a food truck and petition the city for a permit.

Leave a Reply

Skip to content