SecondWind

Validated Members
  • Content count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SecondWind

  • Rank
    Full Member

Optional Fields

  • SKP#
    134981
  • Lifetime Member
    No

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Georgetown, TX

Recent Profile Visitors

234 profile views
  1. It doesn't matter to me at all, Kirk. I could really care less about... and never said I had a problem with... the HQ being located in Livingston. My original comment about Livingston was merely that it was a small town and there wasn't much to see when we drove around specifically to sight-see. In my next post I even said "call me naïve" that Livingston wasn't what I expected. Then you started randomly talking about the cost of developing property in Austin, to which I agreed could have cost up to 10 times as much. Then it was you, and not me, who brought up moving the HQ at some time in the future. Then in your last post, you brought up again how difficult it would be to move the HQ to a large city. Other posters continue to pile on, apparently without reading the full thread. I never said the HQ should be moved, never said I wanted it to be moved, never said it was built in the wrong place to begin with, and never questioned why the Petersons chose Livingston. I also certainly see some knee-jerk defensiveness about small towns in general. I have stated my experience with towns and cities in multiple population catagories, which some agree with and some disagree with. I've talked a little about what the last 8 years around the Austin metro have been like, as well as the 8 years before that spent in a small town of about 7700 people where, by the way, I owned a house and ran my own handyman business. For those of you still reading who are saying how much you enjoy being in small towns... great!! I've enjoyed living in some of them too, and I've also not enjoyed living in some of them. People will live in the size town that they prefer, for the present circumstances in their lives... but I'll say it again... having an RV and being in a small town have nothing to do with each other. Without looking back, can anyone name the restaurant I recommended in Livingston? Which part of the lake I said was beautiful? Where I said it looks like a pretty area to retire to? Where I said I'd like to check out more of our next trip over there? Any positive thing I said? I bet not. Cause it's apparently more important to focus on negatives and be easily offended over half-read conversations that have been unnecessarily blown out of proportion. Cheers, Ken
  2. I agree. I would pay for something extra extra special, like "on the beach" or Austin City Limits. Would be worth it to not have to commute. But I sure wouldn't make a habit of it. Cheers, Ken
  3. Makes a lot more sense when the math is explained. Personally, I would equate "slow down" with "not moving"... but I see your point, Linda... as I would also contradict myself by counting taking a month to get from Chicago to Santa Monica as "slow". That would disturb me greatly. Overly-friendly strangers in a very rural area are always up to no good... like belonging to a witch's coven and looking to sacrifice one of you "outsiders" under the 200-year old Great Oak tree on the edge of town in order to ensure a bountiful crop harvest next year. Don't you watch horror movies, Kirk???? Best answer to the poll yet!! Cheers, Ken
  4. How do radial tires delaminate the camper? Cheers, Ken
  5. Hmm. Okay, so for the most part, you're traveling and not in one spot long enough to really get to know the people... so other than less congestion/traffic, what's the attraction for you? The dead quiet at night? The feeling of more elbow room? "Fresher" air? Cheers, Ken
  6. I forget where I read it, as I'm all over the net, but I also read the claim that at a lot of the older national parks the spaces were made before the mega-trailers of today became common and so any trailer over 28ft probably won't fit. I cannot, however, vouch for the accuracy of that claim. Cheers, Ken
  7. Me too. Greatly surprised. That's more the pace I was thinking of. The 'moving 7 to 14 times' answer. Yes. Now I'm honestly confused. How does moving 36+ times a year equal "slow down and enjoy"? Cheers, Ken
  8. I found this helpful... http://wheelingit.us/2011/09/22/10-things-i-wished-id-known-before-fulltime-rving/ Cheers, Ken
  9. OMG!! How could somebody possibly spend that much consistently? That's just over $3400 per month. Cheers, Ken
  10. I'm sorry, but I don't see how "buying an RV" and "being in a small town" are in any way connected... The RV lifestyle is a more laid-back and peaceful one that's based on mobility... the freedom to come and go as you please, anytime, anywhere. I look greatly forward to the near future where the biggest decision I have to make today is which color dart to throw at the map. Cheers, Ken
  11. Lol... hadn't really thought about it. Also hadn't thought about limiting ourselves to only driving 200 miles or so per day. As Pat&Pete said, we figured to have a "Point B" destination in mind to go to once we leave "Point A". What if we can't get there it one day? Boondock, I guess. No idea really. That's why it's a "loose plan" we have. But you're right in that we never know what we'll find. We might find it more enjoyable to just stay a few nights here and a few nights there, constantly moving. At least we have plenty of time to think on it before we're actually on the road endangering the rest of y'all. Cheers, Ken
  12. 1. On the outskirts, I reckon. Wherever you could find the proper-sized piece of land you need. Cost? Way more than in a small town, that's for sure. In my experience, land around a big city can cost you 10 times what it costs in an out-of-the-way rural area. 2. Generally speaking, yes. Austin and the surrounding metro area cities seemed friendly enough when we got here 8 years ago, but things are getting worse as more and more out-of-staters are moving here. Georgetown alone has been gaining approximately 2k new people per year since the year 2000, causing demographics to change rapidly and constantly. I've lived in 23 towns/cities in 5 states. In my experience... Towns with a population less than 10k usually seem to be close-minded and old-fashioned. They actually fight against progress and growth. Friendly if you're passing through, but if you move there it's made quickly clear that you are an unaccepted outsider. Hard to make real friends or find a job. Gossip runs rampant, as everybody knows everybody's business. Many of the folk were born and raised here, and have never in their lives been more than 200 miles away from home. Poverty is often extremely high, as there's just no decent jobs around. Towns with a population between 10k to 25k seem to have an attitude problem. They think they are bigger and better than what they actually are, looking down their noses at the 5k population town while being extremely jealous of the 30k population city. Cities with a population of 25k to 200k are alright. Things seem to get better as the population increases... bringing more jobs, shopping, and entertainment... and thus a better standard of living. I find populations of 125k to 150k to be the perfect balance. Plenty of room for everybody to find a comfortable place to hang out with others who share your viewpoints. Cities with a population over 200k start to develop real problems... higher crime, higher cost of living, aging infrastructure, race and class segregation, worsening school systems, traffic jams, etc. And beyond that, the rudeness factor seems to start going up, and in direct proportion to the population number. Cheers, Ken
  13. IMHO, the above two statements are both correct. As with any other industry, the powers-that-be are going to keep cranking out the same high-profit, no-risk product they have been cranking out for years. To be imaginative would be to take a big risk, and a dive in profits, as it would take awhile for the "new thing" to catch on with the buying public... if it caught on at all. The biggest problem in the way of this happening is called a "stockholder". Look at Wall Street today... no-vision, short-term profit at all costs. Stockholders don't like looking more than 2 quarters ahead, and they certainly aren't going to wait for their payoff. Cheers, Ken
  14. Amen, sister!! Lol... so I was actually thinking it was a rigid rule that had to be adhered to, and thus the wanting to know why. Nice philosophy. We've talked over what we'd like to do once we're actually on the road, and come up with a loose plan... Definitely follow the seasons, north in summer and south in winter. Figure we could pick a spot in one state, stay about a month while doing the tourist thing within a 100-mile radius, then move on to the next state for next month. At that rate, it would take us 4 years to see the continental U.S. before starting the cycle over again in different spots. But the cool thing is, since we are already "at home" upon leaving the driver's seat, then we don't actually have to move on until we're ready to do so. We can't wait for that kind of freedom. Cheers, Ken
  15. I've seen this 2-2-2 thing mentioned a couple of times now. What's the reasoning behind it? Cheers, Ken