Banning freedom campers is short-sighted, writes Geraldine Tait.
Should Dunedin welcome freedom campers or ban the lot?
This is the question the Dunedin City Council is asking in its consultation on the amendment to the camping control bylaw.
Freedom campers stay the night in a public place rather than in paid accommodation. That could be in an urban street, council reserve, beach or river side, or at a rest stop or pull-over in a rural area.
Their modes of travel range from top-of-the-line camper vans to bicycles. They are likely on a tight budget and largely self-reliant.
They vary in age, socioeconomic status and ethnicity, but what they have in common is some very bad press. Stories of human waste and rubbish cluttering our public spaces abound.
This problem could easily be solved with adequate toilets, rubbish bins and signage, but the cost to councils can be steep, the government's contribution is too low, and the volumes of visitors in some locations is getting higher.
Some people resent campers getting something for free. Accommodation providers may not like missing out on business but these travellers' accommodation was paid when they bought or hired their vehicle. Camping grounds may need to consider whether lowering their charges might bring in more customers.
A high level of complaints prompted the DCC to review the freedom camping bylaw in 2015. Non-self-contained campers were banned from all areas except a small part of Warrington Reserve and a car park at Ocean Beach Reserve.
Warrington is a traditional summer camp site. During the council review the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board supported keeping it as a legal camping area. This had an unexpected outcome; tourist numbers boomed, young mainly European travellers have apps telling them where to camp for free, and the peninsula ban pushed campers to Warrington.
Almost overnight, Warrington went from summer numbers in the tens to an extended camping season with 50 or more vehicles per night.
With encouragement from the community board the council responded with Portaloos, an outdoor kitchen sink, more rubbish bins, daily cleaning and rubbish removal, renovation of the toilet block and improvements to the grounds.
Local reaction has been mixed. A petition from locals supported freedom camping but, backed by the community board, asked the council to open other camping areas to lower numbers of visitors at Warrington.
In response the council proposed to consider three new camping areas but backed down after some strong public opposition (based on bad news stories rather than fact). The latest approach is the amendment to the camping control bylaw (open for consultation until August 9), which recommends a total ban on non-self-contained campers anywhere in Dunedin.
People will only be able to freedom camp at Warrington Beach with a permit applied for four weeks in advance. Self-contained camper vans with fully installed flushing toilets and three days' effluent storage will be able to camp overnight by the roadside for two consecutive nights in most parts of Dunedin.
I think we should we make freedom campers welcome and provide several well-serviced free camping areas.
Word of mouth is the most effective form of advertising. Anyone who has a positive experience of Dunedin is going to tell friends and family and they may come back.
People's enjoyment of their travel experience relates to what they see and do but also to their interaction with local people. All visitors spend some money. What they don't spend on accommodation they may spend in a pub, supermarket or visiting a local attraction.
If we ban freedom campers we also ban locals, young people and those on a low income from enjoying our beautiful back yard. Some New Zealanders have made summer at Warrington Beach part of their family memories for generations. Do we want to penalise them?
Surely we can find a few parks, reserves or unused council property for campers to enjoy basic services and a couple nights' sleep?
The alternative is a huge bill for security guards and more problems with illegal camping.
Banning freedom campers is short-sighted and shows a meanness and lack of initiative.
Do we want to continue to be known as one of the world's great small cities, by welcoming visitors and maintaining our southern hospitality? Or do we want to shut the door and ban the lot?
-Geraldine Tait is a Warrington resident and Waikouaiti Coast Community Board member. (This is her personal viewpoint.)
Related Stories
Comments
Freedom camping seems to be upsetting a lot of Warrington residents, myself included. There just seems to no cap on the amount of vehicles parked up. Over Waitangi weekend there were over 130 vehicles parked in the Warrington domain (an area locals can no longer use in summer as its full of campers...another issue) all of those vehicles had a two to three people in them. Thats almost the population of Warrington living out the back of a car.... The so called upgrades to the toilet block consisted of a little paint and a roof was put on the toilet hardly an upgrade and still not adequate for 300 people.
Its not fair that rate payers have to pay the bill to subsidise these peoples gap year holidays. The numbers need to be limited and self contained is the way forward and encouraging non self contained to use campsites. That may limit the amount of human waste and litter I see every morning on my dog walk in the warmer months...
I can understand why all the other proposed additional sites were upset and didn't want freedom camping its an expensive mess...
Geraldine Tait is out on her own. She is supposed to represent her ratepayer and resident constituents. If she can't see a problem with freedom camping and doesn't see the tragedy at Warrington where locals can no longer access or enjoy their community domain (green reserve), then she no longer deserves her community board stipend.
Best you resign, Ms Tait.