Long-term caravan park occupants are the state's forgotten homeless, one operator says.
Beauty Point Tourist Park managing director Josh Manticas says there needs to be recognition of the long-term living arrangements that exist at caravan parks.
He said there needed to be better protections for these invisible homeless and caravan park operators.
In a letter sent to state politicians last week, Mr Manticas is seeking state regulation around permanent occupancy requests from displaced and vulnerable community members.
He wants Tasmania to follow in the footsteps of other states such as Queensland where the Manufactured Homes Act has provided a framework for a regulated environment.
"It is a model that offers not only clarity for business owners but a lifeline for those seeking a stable abode," the letter said.
"The time has come for Tasmania to explore similar avenues."
Mr Manticas told The Examiner he takes between 10-20 calls per week asking about some form of long term accommodation.
Those calls came from a range of people including families and those living in their cars, he said.
He said Beauty Point Tourist Park had more than 60 long term occupants.
"If we don't see a solution on the horizon, I will contemplate closing the doors (on that side of the park)," he said.
Currently, local authorities can take enforcement action against caravan park operators and long-term occupants over breaking planning laws or building structure rules.
Mr Manticas wrote in his letter a memorandum of understanding to exempt parks from local compliance actions could be a positive step forward in the interim.
He said that would provide stability for occupants, time for collaboration, encourage voluntary compliance, develop comprehensive regulations and support business viability.
Overall, relaxing planning laws for caravan parks to help address the housing emergency could bring several benefits, Mr Manticas said.
Those benefits included increased affordable housing options, rapid response to housing needs, encouragement of private investment, community integration, job creation and economic stimulus, adaptation to changing needs and reduced bureaucratic barriers.
The state government was contacted for comment but did not respond by deadline.