Proposed Terabone Parish RV-park rules face fierce public opposition; ordinance fails

A proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 17 of the Terabone Parish code—addressing mobile homes, recreational vehicles and RV parks—failed to pass after a lengthy public hearing on April 15, 2026 that drew multiple owners and residents who said the changes would impose prohibitive costs and limit where people can live.

Park owner Connie (name provided on the record) told the council she had invested substantial money in her park and said many provisions, including long setback requirements and limits on length-of-stay, would be “unnecessary, overkill, costly, and pick and choose” who can operate a park. She warned the rules risked putting small operators out of business and displacing residents who cannot afford housing elsewhere. “People shouldn't have to worry about if their utilities will remain on or off or to be fined,” she said.

Other speakers echoed that view. Jim Fungy, who identified himself as an RV-park owner, said RV visitors and seasonal renters bring significant local spending and that added regulation would make parks unaffordable to operate. Rick Culie, a full-time RVer, described spending months in the parish and argued heavy rules would change the character that draws visitors.

Opponents raised legal and constitutional concerns. Brent Neil argued broadly that a local law telling people where they can live could conflict with constitutional protections; a council member later pushed back, saying the ordinance is “just as constitutional as any other ordinance.”

Councilman John Amdy, who moved to adopt the ordinance, defended the proposal as a long-discussed regulatory framework intended to protect public health and property values and noted the parish has been considering RV regulations for more than 10 years. He said the draft contains exemptions for many existing operations and was intended as a starting point that could be amended. “We’re not looking to put anybody out,” Amdy said, explaining the council can revise the language later.

After extended public comment and council discussion, a motion to adopt the ordinance (moved by John Amdy and seconded) failed. The transcript records the motion and that the ordinance did not pass; the council did not adopt the Chapter 17 amendments at this meeting.

What’s next: Council members indicated the draft could be revised and returned for further consideration at a later meeting. The hearing record and the speakers’ comments will remain part of the public record for any revision or reintroduction of the ordinance.