View Full Version : More Rental Concerns
03-06-2001, 09:00 AM
I really think DVC has to get a grip on the rental of points. Yes, members should be free to share with friends and relatives. Maybe it's even okay to provide a way for someone in an emergency to recoup some money on points that would be lost because banking deadlines are past. But, there is a post on the resort board from someone who is renting BWV points for next February. That means a non-DVC member will be getting a reservation (made by a DVC member) at the same time as BWV members and well before any other DVC person has a chance. Of course they also want to be sure they get a Boardwalk view and the best room. Maybe this fits through the loophole of rentals but I personally think it sounds like a rental business in progress and it stinks. JMHO.
03-06-2001, 09:22 AM
I agree its not smelling to good to me either!
03-06-2001, 09:32 AM
hi Pam: i agree as well. when we purchased into dvc, it was not with the intention of EVER renting our points. i can see some instances like the one you described that would make it necessary to rent points. possibly dvc could see which members are regularly making ressies with their points in other peoples' names. if there are a few members who haven't used their points in their names, but for other people, possibly they could be spoken to. this sounds like a bit of a boggling task though. i'm not sure if we or dvc have any real legal recourse though. maybe one of our legal members would know. dee
03-06-2001, 09:50 AM
Pam I also agree, who is this Gary K.D. and how does he have points available at OKW, BWV, and VB all at the same time. It sounds to me like a rental scam also. maybe we should bombard him with requests so it takes him months to get to everyone but no body rents. Then he'll miss all his windows..
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
03-06-2001, 09:57 AM
Gary is a long time point renter, and many people have completed successful transactions with him.
I think people should be allowed to rent their points if they want to.
03-06-2001, 10:04 AM
Yes, he should be allowed to rent his points, but it's not fair if he rents out - say for a holiday week and I, as a DVC member, can't get anything - but a non-member gets to go during that busy time. Do you know what I mean?
OKW 01 can't wait!
03-06-2001, 10:07 AM
Gary is probalby a very respectful person. and most likely has completed every transaction he has entered without any compliants. But if he purchased DVC only to make money by renting then I feel that is wrong and should not be allowed. But that's only my opinion. Especially at three different resourts.....
03-06-2001, 10:09 AM
I'm not referring to Gary or to any one particular renter. (I didn't even see the Gary posts). I just think the "system is broke" and DVC ought to fix it before it becomes a real problem.
03-06-2001, 10:16 AM
OK so the guy rents his points out to non-members. Doesn't bother me - just pretend that the "member" is making the reservation. Would you be as angry if I let my sister use my points (no charge of course but a gift is in order!)? What the difference if someone is paying for points as opposed to giving points away?
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the THINKS you can think up, if only you try." Dr. Seuss
03-06-2001, 10:22 AM
Getting back to the original concern expressed. I hope everyone does realize that lots of people that are non-members have the ability to rent at a DVC resort at the same time DVC members can start reserving.
Anytime someone picks up the phone and calls CRO for a cash reservation they are doing exactly the same thing as some non-member does when they rent points from a DVC member. The difference is that the points are probably being rented from DVD (the developer who retains 4% or more of the resort) rather than an individual. DVD certainly hopes to make some money off of these points, so how are the actions of the developer any different then the actions of an individual member?
03-06-2001, 10:36 AM
(and not all of the members appear to agree that it is), how could it be "fixed" without spending a lot of money? I can't think of any "easy" solutions. Can anyone provide data that would show that this is a significant problem? So far, we seem to have only anecdotal evidence - from ebay or the Rent/Trade Board. Are these examples a big or small proportion of the total reservations? I wouldn't want my dues to increase just to find a small number of members who MAY be abusing the system. I say MAY because the rules do not clearly define "commercial" and every member is subject to the same reservation rules. If I don't call at the 11 month window and I don't get what I wanted, how do I know that I would have been the one to get it if only that "person who is renting" would play nice? Although there may be someone who didn't get his/her first choice when he/she called exactly at the 11 month window, I don't remember anyone posting here about that problem.
Just for the record, I have not rented out any points, nor do I intend to use them for anyone other than family. My main point is that I don't know how the situation could be "fixed" without spending a lot of money and without some kind of concensus of all the members. Considering that, I don't see what incentive DVC has to change anything.
03-06-2001, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Anytime someone picks up the phone and calls CRO for a cash reservation they are doing exactly the same thing as some non-member does when they rent points from a DVC member. The difference is that the points are probably being rented from DVD (the developer who retains 4% or more of the resort) rather than an individual. DVD certainly hopes to make some money off of these points, so how are the actions of the developer any different then the actions of an individual member?
Simple. When DVD sells, the profit benefits all members. When someone on eBay or wherever sells their points at, say, $18 per point only the seller benefits.
03-06-2001, 11:05 AM
The "difference" is when it becomes a business. Someone using their membership for personal use will do a variety of things over a span of time. Vacation at different resorts, different times, maybe take a cruise, etc. Someone in the retnal business will call 11 months out for a prime vacation time (gets the most money for the rental) every single year, effectively taking one villa out of the mix every year. There is also little to no chance that that room will come back into availability as it might if it were a personal reservation and not a business. If it's one person doing this, maybe that works out okay. If it becomes 100-200 members doing this consistently it could be a problem. This type of rental business was just about non-existent until recently and now seems to be growing. It's something DVC couldn't really forsee at the outset but I think they should at least give the impact it has consideration. Maybe they already are.
Disney rents from the 4%. Members could never use that anyway. The other rentals come from members who are doing something else and have traded their points or for periods that have not had members sign-up at all. Disney doesn't grab from the initial 11 month pot. If this continues then we might as well go to the 1 month home resort advantage because everything will be booked at 11 months anyway.
03-06-2001, 11:18 AM
Just a clarification for Jimbo; any rental money that DVD gets from its 4% ownership does not benefit the membership - it benefits only DVD. You are possibly confusing the DVD 4% ownership with the member breakage income - the breakage income happens when DVC decides that members probably won't be renting the accomodations and so they make them available for cash; this cash then is used to offset some of our dues.
So far I haven't seen any proof presented that individual members renting points (as a business or otherwise) have harmed the membership in any way.
03-06-2001, 11:51 AM
JIMBO,WHEN DVD SELLS,DISNEY PROFITS,NOT THE MEMBERS.AS FOR SOMEONE RENTING PTS,LET HIM,THEY ARE HIS TO DO AS HE PLEASES.THIS WAS EVEN AN ADDED PERK MY DVD SALESMAN MENTIONED TO ME WHEN WE SIGNED.THE POINTS HAVE TO BE USED BY SOMEBODY ANYWAY.
03-06-2001, 12:00 PM
when I first brought that was also discussed - it is legal and DVC did not have a problem with it then - when we (mother and I) used to get on the bus we were sometimes approached by people also from Ala who were renting points from someone else and wanted to know if I was interested. But I brought DVC (then only OKW) for my family and did not have enough points for them, so I answered sorry but no. I give my friends and family vacations at WDW - what better present. But some people did buy at DVC to sell not for their personal use, and that is all they want to do.
03-06-2001, 02:07 PM
I do think that, if we have members who join for the sole (or mostly sole) purpose of renting out their points, they should be made to sell their points backs to DVC at the going DVC purchase rate.
To me making a reservation at the 11 month mark only to rent it out smacks of commercial usage and should be judged as such. I particularly have a problem with it when these reservations are scarfed up for peak times and hard to get units.
I don't believe it would be very difficult to check to see if a DVC owner is using their points primarily for rentals. All DVC would have to do is see how many times the members names have been switched on the reservation. If the owner has not been the person who checked in at least a reasonable percentage of the time then they should be booted.
I hold nothing against the owner who rents out their reservation because they cannot go this year, or even rents out points but may not have the reservation made yet. But a systematic pattern of rentals utilizing peak times and hard to get units for profit should be, at the very least discouraged and at the most cause for revocation of DVC membership.
Kimberly-Lucas and Ripley's Mom
03-06-2001, 02:10 PM
Every DVC member has equal opportunity to make whatever reservation they desire at their home resort. Just pick up the phone and make that call and then you will not need to be complaining anymore. If you do not like the rules of your DVC membership, maybe you should sell it. Seems to be a real backlog of purchasers out there. I have checked and the DVC does not care if you rent all your points and never stay yourself. The person who is in that reserved room does not matter to them.
I'm not going to go over the entire info I've posted before but just a couple of points. First, DVC specifically states that renting points is OK. Second, how can anyone worry about what someone else is legally doing with their ownership. I would have to agree that renting something that wasn't available to the average MEMBERSHIP AT THAT RESORT would be questionable but anything obtained at the 11 month window would be reasonable. I also realize that the driving force is many times worry that one will miss out on their reservation while a renter is fat and happy at DVC, but don't see how that changes the facts.
03-06-2001, 02:21 PM
I give my points to my friends and family - so I make the reservations in there names - how would you tell what is a gift vs a rental. You could not given the current system. Now when we have the tickets DVC wanted to know if the person staying had rented the points so they would not get the tickets. But whenever I made a reservations in someone else name, I was never once asked if this is a rental. Now when my guests were there, they might have been asked I don't know.
03-06-2001, 02:25 PM
Dean, DVC also states that renting points for commercial purposes is NOT okay.
Renting all of your points every year, to me, could and should be construed as a commercial purpose. I know I would certainly feel as though I was in violation of the agreement.
Personally the thing that bugs me the most is the "every man for himself" mentality.
Kimberly-Lucas and Ripley's Mom
03-06-2001, 02:50 PM
Ok, I own 600 points across 3 resorts. It used to be that we could easily use those points, but because of a change in job and family situation, the last few years we've not been able to use but maybe 200 each year. Since it seems foolish to just let these points go to waste, and they are costing me a lot in maintenance each year (and not ingoring my original investment costs), I rent them out. In a few years I'm hoping we'll be able to use all 600 points each year, but it might be 5 years away, and given the cost increases in purchasing DVC points, I'm not willing to sell off my investment - it makes a lot more sense financially for me to "hang on" to it.
So, people see me renting 400 points each year, maybe more because of banking and borrowing, and suddenly I'm a bad person???
Gosh, I hope I get lynched with new rope. I hate it when people use old rope.
DVC includes in at least 3 places specifically stating it's ok to rent points and it's listed in a very specific and understandable way. In one place they make a generic, vague statement about not using DVC as a commercial venture with no explanation, definition or clarification. That seems a little one sided to me and the ones that look at those sections and see the commercial usage item and assume that you can only rent for your maints fees or give it away, have rose colored glasses or wishful thinking.
As for what what one owners owes another, I'd say follow the rules in place and be courteous to all. In my opionion that would not preclude members that rent their time from being in good standing or even nice people. And as I've stated many times, DVC could not truly legally prevent renting what another owns. I guess we must agree to disagree, but that's ok. If we can't disagree on this one and still be friends, then stand opposed. LOL.
[This message was edited by Dean on 03-06-01 at 07:25 PM.]
03-06-2001, 04:28 PM
What we often confuse is two different issues: (a) Is renting legally allowed and to what degree?, and (b) Should owners not engage in it because of perceived harm to others?
The first is the legal issue, the second the moral one. Renting is expressly allowed. The "commercial purpose" restriction talks about persons who repeatedly rent to the extent they are engaging in a commercial enterprise. My view of that is mainly that you can rent unless all you are doing is buying points for the purpose of renting (persons who do that likely have something to be concerned about). Persons who use many of their points, rent out others to cover dues and make a some extra bucks are not in the regular business of renting points. In any event, there is not much of a restriction and it does not say you are barred from renting "Christmas" or other prime times, or 11 months in advance. In other words if you object to renting like that and believe the solution is for DVD to "enforce" existing rules, then the proposed solution won't work or happen because the existing rules allow it. As I have stated before, I disagree with Dean's conclusion that DVD could not legally have restricted renting because legally they probably could have imposed a number of restrictions. But they chose not to.
Moreover, it is not something Disney could easily change. Persons who bought based on rules stated at the time have a right to rely on them. DVD can make changes to rules but it cannot legally do so if it is material to the interests granted to members; changing the renting rules most likely would not be allowed.
Views on the moral issue can be enforced but not by legal measures. For example, renting seems to be mostly an internet phenomenon; those who want to do a lot of it could not easily do so without an internet market. The rent/trade board on this site perhaps provides the best avenue for point rental along with e-bay (which probably has more risks). The rent/trade board is like a national marketing center for those who want to rent. Shut it down and you would probably put a big crunch into the rental enterprises that exist. Of course, it could probably start up on another site that does not have as many viewers but you could advocate shutting those down to.
In other words, if you want to reduce renting, you should advocate the end of the available marketplace. Thus Pete (poor Pete if anyone follows what I am saying) should be the object of your protests to get him to close down the rent/trade board. He should be the focus of any venom.
Personally, I am not advocating harrassing Pete. Also, from what I have seen neither side, the pro-renters nor the anti-renters, can really muster a majority for their position (this is beginning to sound like some other moral issues). Moreover, you likely could not even muster a majority of the anti-renters because many of them believe renting and the rent/trade board is OK as long as it is just people renting extra points and not trying to take prime times; but to prevent the type of renting you do not like you must eliminate the market for the kind you do.
Possibly what we need is a poll--see who would vote for no renting, partial renting, shutting down the rent/trade board, or other possible categories (such as should Dean be tarred and feathered -- just had to throw that in). It would be interesting to see the percentages on either side.
03-06-2001, 04:40 PM
In defense of Ripley's mom's and PamOKW, I believe when DVD figures how many memberships to sell the bean counters figure in a certain amt of members will bank, exchange, trade, etc. So if all these points are rented instead of used otherwise, that throws this delicate balance off. Also previous discussions on this issue have suggested that members renting should advertise only that they have points to rent, and then request dates based on the individual renters request instead of blatantly taking prime weeks away from members. Some members can't book at 11 mos for a variety of reasons. And sorry i have to ask micky firefighter- why did you buy 600 points? Did you perhaps buy more than you needed to cover the cost of your membership through renting? Certainly this makes good financial sense for you but does appear a tad commercial. Please don't take offense, it may not be true in your case, but I'm bringing up the point because for some members it probably is true. I have no clue if this really is a problem or not. But I have to say in principle I have a problem with points consistently being rented solely at peak times by members. (notice I qualified that statement)I did try to rent from someone before we bought our resale, and they were willing to check the dates, they had not already reserved the time. Again I think this is a much fairer way of doing business
03-06-2001, 06:26 PM
Disney could have sold their timeshare as a traditional timeshare. Meaning you buy a fixed week during the year in a fixed unit. Another traditional timeshare aspect is that you own it forever instead of a right to use lease which for DVC expires in 2042.
What Disney did is set up a points based system which allows all owners the same access to the available units. READ THAT AS: All owners the same access to the available units.
This points based system with its flexability is a great thing but the one thing I was most concerned with when I bought.
How do I get my reservations? By using my 11 month booking window. I have always gotten what I wanted.
Do I rent my points...no, would I rent my points...if I had to or wanted to.
If the flexability of the points system and those that work within that system(by taking full 11 month advantage) lock you out of getting what you want then maybe next time you ought to use the 11 month window or buy a fixed timeshare week.
Timeshares are rented by non-owners all the time, either at DVC or any other timeshare in the world. Stopping people from renting, selling, giving or whatever their own property will never happen and should never happen in a free market.
I do understand the disappointment of not being able to secure the reservations you want and yet see people renting the week you want to go to non-members, but hey....that's the way a points based timeshare works. Using your booking windows or getting a fixed week is your only solution. I don't think changing our contractural documents with DVC which allows rentals is the answer or could even be done....Wow, I didn't think I had this much to say about this...remember this is my opinion and is not intended to flame anyone.....spruce
03-06-2001, 07:50 PM
Firefighter Mickey....they are your 600 points to do with as you see fit. You are not in the business of selling points just renting the points that you are unable to use because things changed in your life. Forget about anybodys opinion. Wait till they find themselves in the position of losing points that they can't use and see if their tune changes. And, I wish we had 600 points....spruce
03-06-2001, 08:16 PM
This is a tough question. I am basically in agreement with Dean. I feel that we do live in a free country and you are free to do with your property as you wish.
I also fell strongly about living up to agreements and contracts. While renting is explicitly allowed, renting out as a business is implicitly prohibited with the "commersial" reference.
I like to enforce the spirit of the contract. I think that the spirit of the contract allows renting and forbids buying for the purpose of renting.
I do feel Disney owes us a fudiciary responsibility of looking into and sanctioning those that are in conflict with the spirit of the contract. I think that renters that rent a significant portion of their points each year should be at a small disadvantage in acquiring reservations. I think that people that rent as a commercial venture should be forced to forfeit their points. I think that if a renter does not declare the rentee as a "renter" they should be sanctioned, forfeiting those points sounds reasonable.
How do we determine a "commercial" venture. I threw out a possible rule of thumb of 1/2 the points whould be used by family or friends. Is that fair? I am not sure, the previous poster seems to fall into, what I would consider, a non-commercial venture. Yet he fails my 1/2 test.
I don't know, in a perfect world, I would say that for reservations made for the purpose of the owner staying and as a matter of circomstance, he can't go, even Christmas day is fair to rent out. This type of thing shouldn't happen more then once in ten years. All other reservations made for the purpose of renting should be made at ten months....I think that the home resort advantage is fine to use to rent....lets lock out those VBers....only kidding, but I do think that 10 months would be fine. Never SSPL, but ten months is fine.
How many points? A pattern of rservations and usage that is obviously commercial?? I think these things should be looked into by DVC, I believe they have a duty to do that.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx, pretty sick, huh?
03-07-2001, 03:41 AM
Several people have noted that DVD explicitly allows renting. All I can find in the documents is language that implies that renting is allowed. Can somebody help me with an explicit statement that renting is allowed? (BTW, I am not arguing that renting should not be allowed...just trying to get on the same page with everybody). I agree that much of the problem would go away if sites like the rent/trade board were regulated, but there is a rule that DVC could enforce that is in the documents--members must notify MS that the reservation they are making is for a renter. This is in the documents and I suspect that it is not followed. A very simple rule would be: no reservation made through SSPL or the home resort period may be converted to a rental reservation without cancellation and rebooking. I'm sorry, but I think that DVC owners should be given preference to use the DVC network resorts before renters are given such a privelege. I know there could be problems with such a policy, but, I repeat once again, it left a very sour taste in my mouth to be shut out of the BWV SSPL for 2001 and then see reservations being sold for that time prior to even the 11 month window--that simply is not fair nor is it the intent of DVC IMHO. BTW, the right to use one's property is never absolute, nor is there a problem with DVD/DVC making and enforcing a no rental rule even after the fact. Don't know for sure about Florida, but this has happened and survived legal challenges twice with respect to condominium associations with which I have been associated (I didn't like that it happened, but they were well within there rights to change the rules as long as they did it within the conditions of the declarations, etc.--so I expect DVC could do this too)
[This message was edited by Doctor P on 03-07-01 at 09:11 AM.]
03-07-2001, 04:03 AM
No where in DVC documents will it say you can rent "points". It does say that points have absolutely no value and are only the means by which reservations are made. It does say membership in DVC is for personal use. It does say you can share your membership and receive compensation. It does say they are for personal use. It warns several times about not depending on the ability to receive compensation for allowing others to use your reservations. It warns against trying to compete with Disney and explains that when compensation is received the person using the reservation is not entitled to the same benefits as a member. All in all I agree that it is a grey area and one that is difficult for DVC to enforce.
A lot of DVC is based on trust in Disney and their ability to run a resort operation. I am just suggesting that I hope they are aware of the increased amount of members who are running resort booking operations rather than making personal use of their points. (Personal use could include allowing others to use their reservations and to receive compensation. We are talking about bringing Mom & Dad along to stay in a studio and accepting $200 from them.)
Pete, of course, is free to do as he likes. He also had very good intentions in setting up the rent/trade board as a place for members to help each other out and that is how it was used in the beginning. If it's going to be used as a place for commercial rental and attempts to up the price then Pete should be receiving a percentage of the rental income. He is providing a real service for these people, allowing them to run a business that would otherwise be quite difficult.
The defense that we all have equal access and can book at the 11 month window is kind of a red herring. The beauty of DVC is that it is flexible and does not require booking at 11 months. I'm not sure if we've reached that point yet, but if we are to compete with a large percentage of rental agents (which is what you are if you are renting more than 150 points per year)then we will have to book at 11 months. That's not the way the system was originally set up and it's not the way it has worked for nearly 10 years. I feel too many commercial rentals will throw it out of whack.
The other problem with the majority of these rental advertisements is they are for Sunday-Thursday. This lets the renter keep the cost low enough to compete with Disney. It also contributes to the problem of under utilizing Friday-Saturday, massive check-in backlogs on Sunday that members do not like, and an inability for members who want an entire week to book it in one shot. It may help push DVC to adjust the point chart to balance out the weekday/weekend points which may disappoint members who purchased exactly what they need for stays.
Saying everyone has equal access is like saying everyone has equal access to any big show. The scalpers just happen to call sooner. I'm not saying it has become a problem yet. I just think a red-flag should go up and DVC should look into the situation and see what if any effect it could have on the operation of the DVC system for all of its members. :cool:
[This message was edited by PamOKW on 03-07-01 at 08:20 AM.]
03-07-2001, 04:20 AM
This issue does matter!!! The behavior of people whose sole/primary purpose is to maximize their financial return from ownership will "crowd out" members who just want to enjoy a vacation. Clearly, this effect increases as the number of owners with a commercial focus grows. President's week is a high profit week to rent. Should members from the Northeast that want to book during the school vacation have to compete with profit maximizers? Sure they both have the same "opportunity" to get the ressie, but is the playing field level? Imagine the profit maximizer with a phone bank and hired temporary help dialing for dollars to get the premium spots!!! If it isn't happening already, it will happen eventually. DVC has to be protected from commercial interests or the whole system will break down.
03-07-2001, 04:24 AM
Pam - thanks for this thread; excellent interchange of ideas on a clearly polarized topic.
As owners, DVC does impose some restrictions (regulations) upon us (11/7 month ressie window, banking windows, cancellation clauses). My assumption is that these were thought through, considering the benefits of the owners, yet preserving DVD's right to not take a bath on an unoccupied property at the last moment. Seems like we all have learned to live with these, and consider them for the most part to be fair and just.
Here's a "what if" (and this is a different twist on Rich's 50 % rental maximum)....
Cut back the window on ressies in the name of anyone not on the deed to X months (7,6 5, take your pick, make it seasonal if you want), but if the owner is not making the reservation in his name, no home resort priority. And no changing then name on a ressie booked outside that window. If you want to cancel, cancel.
While this approach would curtail our right to employ our 11 month home resort window to reserve for family / friends, I for one would sacrifice it, betting that I could still get second / third choices within the restricted window, and, quite frankly, if I'm booking free rooms to my inlaws and they won't accept anything than BWV preferred, well, they have an option - CRO.
If one wants to propose rule changes, they need to be easily understood and enforceable. This one is; photo id is req'd at check-in, renter, family, or friend. The current "you inform MS that the ressie is for a renter" is not.
I don't think this ties the hands of someone with excess points, because he has to manage unloading those points no matter what, it just tightens down the time frame somewhat. It certainly does put the squeeze to the guy who bought solely to make a buck (or $ 10,000) on Christmas week.
I like the idea of a poll.
Grand Floridian 1994
Yacht Club 1996-1999
Beach Club 2000
Old Key West 2001
03-07-2001, 04:25 AM
Tink, you've got what I'm trying to say. It hasn't been a problem, it may not be a problem, but there is definitely increasing activity in the sale of reservations. I think DVC owes it to the members to look at it and determine how to handle it. What I've learned about DVC is they aren't stupid (they are Disney after all) and chances are they may already be doing this.
03-07-2001, 04:32 AM
This is a difficult topic. I personally agree that there should be no problem with a person renting out a portion of their points each year or all of their points every once in a while. However, the question comes down to where is the dividing line between what should be okay and what shouldn't.
Unfortunately, DVC doesn't spell out in CLEAR language where that line is. Some people have suggested that its okay to rent out to family and friends. Unfortunately, I don't see how DVC could make this distinction between personal use and renting out.
The only way that I could see them being able to distinguish is if there was a rule that people listed on the deed had to use the points a certain percentage of the time. I don't know what this would percentage should be, but I'll give an example just for clarity sake. Say, that the listed owners had to use 50% of the points for their own use within a 3 year period. This would allow the complete renting of 1 1/2 years points every three years or half of your points every year. Now, I'm not advocating this as a rule, just saying that it would have to be something as specific as this to be clear.
I do believe that the renting of points as a commercial venture could become a problem. I can easily envision a person reserving the most desirable times and or units,say standard view Boardwalk or GVs, and then renting them out. Now, you can say that this is fine because they can do what they want with their points, but I believe that it stresses the system because this person is monopolizing those times at which they can get the best return for their money and that this will reduce the chance that non-renter can get what they want.
Take an extreme example, of someone calling and reserving all of the GVs at Boardwalk or OKW for Easter week. These are a scarce resource. Is it right that someone should be taking these away just to make the biggest return on their money?
Personally, I know I don't have enough points that I would ever plan on renting them out. However, I would certainly like to be able to rent them out if for some reason I couldn't go for a year or two. Currently, I don't see what DVC can do unless there is a change in the rules that is agreed to by the members.
03-07-2001, 04:45 AM
So far, no one has presented any positive proof that a) Rental activity is increasing, and b) that this supposed increase in activity has hurt the membership in general.
A couple of things I've noticed about the rent/trade board - yes, it is active, but is that activity a result of an actual increase in people renting points, or is it simple a result of the fact that DVC now has some 65,000+ members? Or, is it simply a result of more people thinking there's a bargin in renting and are looking for points to rent? A really quick look at the R/T board shows non-members looking, members looking for a handful of points to complete a reservation, people saying they have a few points available, and occasionally someone with a lot of points available.
Another thing; with the possible exception of 1 or 2 instances, I've not noticed people frequently making specific vacation dates available (except maybe on e-bay). Usually it's just raw points; which means that in most cases people renting are not using the 11 month window and are more equitably (if that's the word people want to use) competing with everyone else. In most of the cases where I've seen specific dates available, it looks to me like the reservation is a result of a change in plans.
Truthfully, what amazes me about this discussion every time it comes up (and it seems to be one of those that keeps coming up again and again) is how many people think that they should be able to control what I do with my points. I feel that I am in compliance with the contractual agreement that I signed with DVC. DVC apparently feels the same way, because they've been letting me rent points. DVC and MS are not clueless about rental activity. DVD wasn't clueless about this when they created the setup to begin with. I mean, have people really read the public disclosure documents? Those things talk about everything, down to the smallest detail. If DVD thought that renting points was going to be an issue, then I'm sure they would have had very explicit language in the POS about renting.
Another thought. If the system is so fragile, that people renting points are going to impact it, then the membership has more to worry about than the apparent handful of people with big blocks of points that are being rented. I would say that the system is not nearly as fragile as some who would have us believe that the sky is falling. DVC managed to make it thru the end of 1999 and 2000 with lots of people borrowing all of their points from 2000 into 1999 to make one last use of the free park passes and the whole insanity with people wanting to be at WDW for Y2K. DVC managed to do this without suspending banking/borrowing - if the system can survive that type of an onslaught, then I think it can survive a few people renting points.
03-07-2001, 04:47 AM
My biggest problem with the renters is when they scarf up the prime weeks and GVs and then rent them out for outrageous prices.
Grabbing a reservation that is difficult to get and making money off of it is like scalping. It's the same as when you finally get through at 9:05 on the ticket line only to be told that the concert is sold out. The next day, you see the ads from "ticket brokers" listing seats at that concert.
Just because we accept this as a way of life doesn't make it right IMHO.
Kimberly-Lucas and Ripley's Mom
03-07-2001, 04:58 AM
As to Doctor P's question, I don't have the documents with me but there are several places where the documents state that the rooms can be occupied by and reservations made on behalf of the "owners," their "guests" and their "lessees." The last is a legal term that has only one meaning--a person who is renting from you. The documents also provide that an owner is required to notify MS when the owner is renting (that one was actually added in 2000). There are also provisions that require the owner to include in any lease agreement with a non-member a statement that the non-member will be subject to the same rules and regulations as the owner and if not included it is deemed to be contained in any such agreement.
03-07-2001, 05:04 AM
Just an apology to mickey firefighter- I should not have used your situation as an example- I got carried away by the debate. Dsruba and Spruce make compelling points. But in my personal opinion, I agree with PamOKW, Dr. P, CRobin and Tink. The suggestion that ressies for guests (unless accompanied by member) be given a restricted time seems a reasonable solution.I would hate to lose our ability to rent, and I understand that we don't want to jeopardize this privilege. Perceived abuses are the concern here.
03-07-2001, 05:14 AM
There was a missing word (which I have corrected now!) in my previous post. I am not advocating that renting be prohibited--just wanted to clarify that! ;)
03-07-2001, 05:18 AM
Thanks, but it really isn't necessary to apologize to me; I was not offended by your example.
Speaking for myself, I plan on fighting any attempts by other members to try and take away my rights with regard to how I use my points. Creating a 3rd class of membership simply because I need to rent more than some arbitrary limit of points is something that I find offensive. I pay my dues just like everyone else. DVC allows me to rent, and as was pointed out, know when I'm renting, and they've not had a problem with it.
03-07-2001, 09:59 AM
I would oppose any attempt to change the rules and regulations regarding renting points. When I bought my points I signed a CONTRACT, just like everybody else. I intend to live up to the terms of the that contract. If I want to rent points, the terms say I can. If some of the members are unhappy with the terms of the contract, then maybe they shouldn't have signed it!
Coronado Springs 11/98
Hilton Head Isl DVC 3/01
03-07-2001, 10:35 AM
DVC in its discretion may change the terms and conditions of the membership agreement and the rules and regulations. These changes may affect an owner's rights to use, exchange and rent his ownership interest...
Commerical purpose shall include, but not be limited to, a pattern of rental activity by a Cotenant that the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or activity.
Just some of the paragraphs that show DVC does have a way to monitor things.
My concern is not the individual renter. It is the potential for members with large numbers of points or members who agree to act together to form a rental business. The attempts to try to raise the prices asked for rentals smells of "business". It's not recouping costs, it's looking to profit.
I think members should express their feelings pro or con to DVC so they can think about the future and what's best for the majority of members. They are the ones with access to real numbers and they are the ones who know if it's a problem or not. It's just clear that the potential is there.
The stumbling block to really profiting is that when you have to include weekends, the price difference between Disney and member rental drops dramatically. Maybe the points should be readjusted so that the days are equal
03-07-2001, 02:08 PM
I hope that DVC never evens out the points so that every day of the year costs the same number of points. I've travelled over xmas, summer, Oct and Jan. I like the off season values but am willing to spend more points for higher seasons as well....spruce
03-07-2001, 02:24 PM
I guess I'm dense. I don't see how someone renting their points-even for a profit- is affecting me.I book my trips at 11 months,always get what I want. Your not over crowding the resort by renting to others,your not bumping me out of my time slot,your not costing me a dime. I don't care if the persom in the next room is a member or renter.
03-07-2001, 03:37 PM
Property law, not just the contract, controls what may be done with DVC property and the restrictions that DVC may put on owners. States whose law derives from English common law, which includes Florida and Ohio, have a doctrine known as free alienability of real estate. That means that DVC cannot unreasonably limit the transfer of property rights, which includes the right to rent the use of that property. DVC owners have a legal right to rent the use of their property.
Points are just a symbol of how much DVC real estate each owner has a right to control. No one can use more than their number of points and must follow the rules. Thus, when a person rents points out, they rent no more than the property that they have a right to control. They have not taken away from anyone else.
Whether you get money when you rent points or the love and kisses of your relatives, you are receiving something of value. It does not matter what you receive for the transfer. Whether you use points by occupying the unit yourself, give them away, or rent them, you still are using your amount of property right.
Disney is limited by property law when it comes to controlling a member's right to rent. DVC can state that points are not for business purpose, but exactly what that means probably can only be determined in a court. It cannot mean that a person cannot rent points. For a parallel example, even though a person's apartment lease may say no subleasing, a court (in Ohio and most common law states) will interpret it to mean "no subleasing without approval of the landlord and that approval cannot be unreasonably withheld." That means that landlord can only apply the same standards to a sublease that he/she applies to new renters.
So, even though some would want to leave the points unused when a member cannot personally use them, it is an inefficient use of resources and property. Common law upholds the right to rent out the use of property, Disney knows this, and the rules and contract reflect this.
03-07-2001, 03:40 PM
Here are two places that explicitly talk about a Member's right to rent their Ownership Interest.
PRODUCT UNDERSTANDING CHECKLIST
(this document is signed by the purchaser)
6. You may sell, rent, transfer, or will your Ownership Interest. DVD has a right of first refusal to repurchase your Ownership Interest on the same terms and conditions, including financing, that your buyer has offered. DVD currently provides no assistance in resale or rental of your Ownership Interest. In the event you attempt to resell or rent your Ownership Interest, you would compete with DVD for buyers and renters at a substantial competitive disadvantage.
In the "Member Guidelines for DVC" the following statement can be found.
III. MEMBER BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES
5. RESERVING VACATION HOMES FOR NON-MEMBERS
3) When a Member uses his or her Vacation Points to reserve a Vacation Home on behalf of a non-Member, and the Member does not charge any rental or other fees to the non-Member for the reservation, the non-Member is eligible for some Member privileges and benefits that a Member would normally receive during his or her stay in a Vacation Home. If the non-Member is renting, it is the responsibility of the Member to notify Member Services when making the reservation. Member privileges and benefits cannot be extended to non-Members who rent Vacation Homes from Members.
03-07-2001, 03:48 PM
There's no denying that renting of points is allowed. It's just a question of being sure it is properly monitored. Let's highlight a different part of your same quote:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3) When a Member uses his or her Vacation Points to reserve a Vacation Home on behalf of a non-Member, and the Member does not charge any rental or other fees to the non-Member for the reservation, the non-Member is eligible for some Member privileges and benefits that a Member would normally receive during his or her stay in a Vacation Home. If the non-Member is renting, it is the responsibility of the Member to notify Member Services when making the reservation. Member privileges and benefits cannot be extended to non-Members who rent Vacation Homes from Members. [/quote]
Just like every other discussion we have here, we don't have all the information so we can't really judge what is or is not a problem. We don't know if 5+ in a room is becoming more common and causing problems, if it is any more difficult than in the past to book BWV, whether a Vero purchase is a mistake, or whether rentals are having any effect on the overall program.
03-07-2001, 05:08 PM
I was simply answering the question posted by Doctor P.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Several people have noted that DVD explicitly allows renting. All I can find in the documents is language that implies that renting is allowed. Can somebody help me with an explicit statement that renting is allowed? [/quote]
I provided the explicit language and was not trying to include/exclude any specific point of view. Cheers.
03-07-2001, 05:37 PM
As we are now well into the discussion of the law, one of my favorite topics, I thought I would add a few more comments as the ones I made before apparently did not fully discourage the hope that DVD might be able to do something to curb renting. It is probably stretching it quite a bit to talk about "free alienability" rights under property law to say that DVD cannot act. Free alienability has never been an extreme and there are a lot of restrictions that one can put on it including severe limitations to renting.
But here it is not needed. Under Florida timeshare law, terms in timeshare documents involving the owner's ability to "sell, convey, or lease" the ownership are deemed material to the agreement and "any restrictions" on those must be expressly set out in the documents given to the owner before closing. Post closing, the developer cannot make any amendments or changes in rules, regulations or otherwise that "would prejudice or impair to any material extent" the rights granted an owner. In the documents, Disney reserves the right to make future amendments or changes but that right, as stated in the documents themselves, cannot be used to "prejudice or impair to any material extent the rights of an owner." In other words, DVD's amendment right is severely limited. It is the same limitation that protects us from DVD just deciding the raise the total number of points needed for every night of the year. In fact, as we all know DVD reserved the right in the documents to "shift" points among nights as long as it did not raise the total. If that right to shift had not been expressly set out in the documents from the outset DVD could not even do that--and could not even attempt to add it now. DVD cannot by amendment or rule change pass any more restrictions than already exist to an owner's right to rent. It is legally impossible; if it tried, regulators would be breathing down its neck and the only issues would be how high should the fine be and should its timeshare development license be terminated. It cannot even set up rules suggested about limiting when rentals are allowed or when they can begin (like less than 7 months out). It is legally hamstrung. It is a dead issue.
Thus all DVD can rely on is the restriction in the agreement, which is vague, in that it can possibly act against somebody if they are engaging in "repeated" renting to the extent it amounts to a "commercial enterpirse." With that DVD faces one of the rules of law that is universal--in any dispute with an an owner involving the documents that DVD drafted any and all vague language will be construed in favor of the owner. The best DVD can hope for with its language is that a court will rule it can prevent people from actually being in the regular business of renting points; any one acting short of that--such as doing it part time while using points sometimes-- is going to win the issue.
Thus, for those against renting, you need a different avenue of attack from the hope that if enough is said DVD would actually do something. It can't.
Although Partly answered, below are some things I found that pertain that I thought pertained to this and related arguements. I recently stated, in response to Rich, that I thought a members only reservation time was reasonable. Say a month or so but it would need to be for the member or immediate family only (parents, children only) and not for aunts, cousins, etc. The reservation could not be converted, it could only be used or cancelled though it could be rebooked for a renter, friend, etc when that window opened up as long as the reservation were still openly available. I believe the legal wording would support that.
This is from the Exhibit "I" to the Declaration of Condominium section "Section IV. RENTALS
Subsection 4.1 Club Member Rentals A Club Member may make a reservation to use the accommodations of the Condominium or other DVC Resorts, if any, himself, make their use available to family or friends or guests, or rent them solely through his own efforts. DVD's approval of a rental by a Club Member is not required after a reservation has been made in the renter's own name, and Club Members are permitted to rent their occupancy rights on terms and conditions that they may establish. No rental assistance is being offered by DVC or DVC or any affiliate or subsidiary of DVD and DVC. All renters must comply with the rules and regulations affecting occupancy , and the renting Club Member will be responsible for the acts or omissions of his renters or any other person or persons permitted by the Club Member to use the accommodation. Neither DVD or DVC in any way represent or promote that a particular DVC Resort accommodation can be rented, or if it is rented, that any particular rental rate can be obtained for such rental."
Under PUBLIC OFFERING STATEMENT TEXT
Section 16 Restrictions upon Rental or Resale - discusses rentals and resales and that DVC is due any monies owed to them. It also references the above, as well as the Declaration of Condominium and Master Cotenancy Agreement.
Section 16 further repeats the wording in 4.1 above. This section also states that the membership cannot be subdivided except back to DVC with their permission.
Declaration of Condominium under Article XII was referenced by TroyWDW and PamOKW.
Section 18 of the POS states that "DVC SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO CREATE SUCH RESERVATION APPROVAL RESTRICTIONS AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY FROM TIME TO TIME, AND COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH RESTRICTIONS SHALL BE REQUIRED BEFORE AND DURING POSSESSION AND OCCUPANCY OF A VACATION HOME, PURSUANT TO A RESERVED USE PERIOD, BY ANY PERSON OTHER THAN AN OWNER OR HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY."
Several sites that discuss rentals and use also specify first come, first serve. "Because of the first come, first served nature of the use reservations and because of the other attributes of and limitations on the Ownership Interests outlined in the POS, Owners will be in competition with other Owners of Ownership Interest at the condominium for reservations.....in order to make use of this priority an Owner would have to make his reservations eleven months prior to his anticipated use.
03-07-2001, 06:13 PM
As far as I can tell no one was against renting. I'm not in favor of abolishing rentals. These are just opinions about concerns about percieved abuses of the system. Why is it so wrong to want to remove SSPL from rentals? Why is it wrong to suggest members not reserve prime weeks BEFORE finding a renter? Maybe we should all just get on the SSPL and call at our 11 month windows and tie up ressies-LOL -just in case we might want to go then- I know -this isn't really feasible because it ties up points you might want for another ressie. Jeez it sounds like you're ready to call in the ACLU. Well honest, we're just asking for a little consideration here, not rewriting all the rules.
kem330, it seemed obvious to me that you were in the middle on this one. I think you'll find that there are those that think that anything beyond just the yearly fees for the points should not be allowed for what ever their personal reasons. They tend to hone in on the Commercial enterprises language in the POS and I've seen it posted that anything that's above the maint fees is commercial and therefore should not be allowed. I've posted on several occasions that DVC could not legally prevent renting but it's been extensively explained by drusba and slindamood.
For the record, I'm not fond of scarffing up all the hot times and then trying to rent them out, it's just not what I'm comfortable with. I'm sure there are those that do. The "profit" just isn't worth the hassle but I've met so many nice people that I've talked to about renting. I've had pleasant conversations by email and phone with a number of people and enjoyed that immensely. I do love talking about DVC and timeshares in general. I'd say that in every case so far, the handful of renters I've had have been truly and extremely excited. One wrote after the visit, thanks for letting us use your home. Another sent us a plant. One came home and immediately planned another trip. I'm surprised none of them have bought yet, at least none that I know of.
03-07-2001, 09:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the "system is broke" [/quote]
now this statement has me more concerned than the point renting scheme. That potential for DVC being bankrupt is really disconcerting. ;)
03-08-2001, 04:45 AM
dmadman43 I didn't mean to imply all of DVC is "broke"/bankrupt I was talking about the rental system being broken/not working. I was referring to the loophole that is/could allow people to turn renting of points into a business. I'm just concerned that DVC keep an eye on how rentals are affecting members. (oops just saw your wink dmadman!)
Drusba and Dean I agree that it is too late now to stop rentals and I wouldn't really want members to be restricted from being able to share their homes. I just think the language is there to deal with gross abuse. I'm not sure if gross abuse has been achieved yet. Sometimes posts appear here or on E-Bay indicating that someone is looking to make as much money as possible on their DVC ownership. To what extent they'll go to achieve that, I can't say. It is not unreasonable to see them developing a side business in DVC rentals -- serving as an agent for others, building inventory and booking chunks of primetime weekdays for substantial profit. I'd like to see DVC flex their muscle and let people know that a true rental business along those lines will not be permitted. That is the type of rental that has the potential to impact members. Booking a vacation for yourself or someone else using normal vacation patterns shouldn't impact us. Scarfing up weekdays and never using weekends or using SSPL purely to obtain rental property could potentially create problems. SSPL is a member privilege. For 12/31/99 they changed the rules making it a lottery and only allowing one reservation per member. It seems some restriction could be added requiring a member be on property to use SSPL. At 11 months, non-member reservations could be made.
This isn't something to go to war with each over. But I do hope DVC at least gives it some thought.
[This message was edited by PamOKW on 03-08-01 at 02:09 PM.]
03-08-2001, 05:38 AM
I agree that there probably is no way to stop renting, nor should there be in the absence of abuse. While from a personal perspective I probably would prefer that owners not use the 11 month window regularly to obtain reservations to rent or use the 11 month window to provide reservations to renters, in the absence of a pretty clear pattern that violates the ban on using the membership for commercial purposes I don't think restricting members from using the 11 month window would be appropriate. However, I think it might be appropriate to have a window at the 11 month point where members could only make reservations in the name of someone on their contract with no changes to that name available (like concert sales with limits on the first day, one could program the system to only accept reservations for the first three days of the window (to get around the weekends problem that might occur) to members only reservations), and NO reservations under the SSPL can be made in other than a name on the contract with no changes allowed. This would still allow great latitude for renting, give members extra home resort preference for reservations for personal use, and protect the integrity of the SSPL.
03-08-2001, 08:32 AM
Though a unigue suggestion from Doctor P to have a short member's only window with no change to the person on the ressie, it creates problems. For example, my daughter and her family are not on my contract but I make reservations for them with my points 11 months out (and there is no renting going on). The proposal would eliminate my ability to do that.
Gary K. D.
03-08-2001, 09:47 AM
I own, in one of my contracts, 233 points at Boardwalk which, according to my deed, represents .1041% ownership in Unit 14. Do the math.... if .1041% of a unit equates to 233 points at Boardwalk then each unit represents 233823 points. There are 517 units at Boardwalk which, if my averages are correct, represent 120,000,000 points sold. That's right 120 MILLION points. OK ...maybe I'm wrong so it's half of that...60 MILLION points. How does anyone who might have a maximum of 2000 points at Boardwalk ...or .0033% of the total number of points available, going to make a substantial dent in the availability of rooms. While I have not made and then resold reservations at any of the Resorts or posted existing reservations available on a site such as E-Bay or the Rent/Trade Board, the impact of anyone renting points on any of the other owners should be minimal. Just my thoughts.
[This message was edited by Gary K. D. on 03-08-01 at 02:00 PM.]
03-08-2001, 10:21 AM
I agree with Kem330 and Doctor P and the many others who have expressed similar sentiments that the SSPL and 11 month window should be restricted to members, without the right to make changes in the names on the reservations. Unfortunately, right now, this appears to be a moral rather than a legal issue, since it's clear that rentals are permitted. But DVC certainly has reserved the right to make any changes that if it wishes. The problem with the "commercial" renters is that members who have made substantial monetary investments in DVC ownership can be closed out of prime weeks in favor of "drop in" renters with no stake in DVC other than their week's rent.
As far as those who customarily reserve prime weeks for their children at the 11 month window, I seem to recall that there is a concept of an "associate" which enables an owner to put additional names on the contract. (I'm at work,without access to my documents, so I can't check this). If I recall correctly, (adult) children's names could be added, thus allowing reservations on their behalf during "restricted" weeks.
Disneyland Paris: '94
Disney Magic: '00
WDW Off-Site: '76,'98
Caribbean Beach: '93
Grand Floridian: '95
Dixie Landings: '97
03-08-2001, 10:26 AM
When I first read this I was upset that some members were taking prime spots and renting them. Now, after reading much convincing arguments posted I feel differently. When everything is said and done you have leased an 11 month booking window at a particular resort and that is all Disney owes any of us. Yes there are options for us but none of those options are guarenteed. Like anything in life you will have people disagree about what the SPIRIT of the contract is and what actually constitutes renting. This is Disney's decsion to make not ours. I have been happy with my DVC purchase over the years and I know that Disney will keep it this way. If and I do mean IF a problem arises and Disney does not fix it than I will sell my contract and move my busniss elsewhere. I think keeping our freedoms intact is worth a few people who may offend others by their practices. Just my thoughts!
PamOKW, I think most of us are in the middle on this one to one degree or the other. None of use want to see a major attack on the system by any group including renters, conventions, etc. What I fail to understand are the people that think you shouldn't be able to rent or shouldn't get more than your yearly fees or should only be able to rent off time or fairly short notice.
drusba, read my long note with the legal stuff in it. It says member and immediate family. That would keep you ok in that situaion and that is directly from the POS.
Gary, a sales unit is not the same as a room. For example at OKW, a unit is a building. I'm not sure exactly how they divided BW up into units but I suspect it's blocks of rooms. These are the units that are declared into inventory for sales purposes. At VB early on it was an entire floor and this proved disastrous as they could only rent those extra rooms as breakage and then that income went directly to DVC, not DVD. They fairly quickly "fixed" the system.
03-08-2001, 12:16 PM
Just have to correct what Gary K.D posted as figures. First, the total number of "units" at BWV is about 120. Second, though I don't have the document with me right now and thus cannot get the exact number, the total number of points sold at BWV is actually approximately 4 million.
What you bought officially is an interest in a "unit." In the legal documents that is not a room (in fact, it could be anywhere from 1 to 8 rooms). The resort has 383 rooms (not 517) but that is irrelevant to the term "unit" for purpose of what you have a percentage of. Thus, any percentage expressed in your documents as one of a "unit" could actually be a percentage of 8 two-bedroom rooms.
Though I do not disagree with the right to rent, I do believe people have a legitimate point to make and should not be done away with by inaccurate figures. Though I doubt we are there yet, suppose we had just 50 owners that bought the maximum 2,000 points at the resort and rented them all by grabbing prime times at 11 months out. Those 50 owners would be in control of 100,000 points or 2.5% of all the points. And suppose those 50 all decided to focus on one particularly high demand week, say Presidents week. If they used all of their points for that week they would literally take every room in the resort as the total applicable to all rooms for President's Week is about 95,000
03-08-2001, 12:49 PM
While that is an interesting example, it seems rather far-fetched, and I've not personally seen any indications that such a scenario is happening.
In addition, doing that would be somewhat self-defeating, as in order to rent that many accomodations, you would literally be flooding the rental market which would ultimately drive down the cost per point, probably to the point at which you would actually be losing money.
It does make me wonder why people seem to be getting so worried about such an unlikely concatination of events though. Must be a slow week.
03-08-2001, 12:58 PM
That is exactly where I am coming from. The "rental" issue is unlikely to impact most members and particularly the ones that are flexible in their travel plans and like to come off-season. I am considering DVC membership and the only two weeks that I am likely to use regularly are Presidents' week and Easter week. These would be two very profitable weeks for renters (particularly Presidents week). I don't want to end up in a losing battle with renters to make use of my membership.
For me it is not so much an issue of whether or not renting should be allowed, but does DVC make sense for me given the risk that renters pose.
03-08-2001, 01:05 PM
Tinkerbell, even though I started this particular discussion I don't think it should be a make or break for purchasing DVC. It is more of a "what if" situation. I also think that DVC is monitoring most items of concern to members like just how many are putting more in a room and how many more, who is a potential rental agent, etc. Remember, it is the Walt Disney Company and if nothing else they know how to protect their interests. ;) As MickeyFirefighter says, it is sort of a slow day, thought starter rather than any imminent problem.
03-08-2001, 02:28 PM
Well I don't see any problem with doing what you want with your points. They are your points. And I'm sure that all you wonderful folks are claiming the income at tax time. But that's a topic for another slow week.
03-08-2001, 02:36 PM
I agree with PamOKW on that Tinker Bell; don't get overly concerned about the theorectical possibilities. I am actually on the side of the renters, but the point I was trying to make is that those expressing a contrary view weren't just being overly paranoid about something that can't possibly have any impact at all, as figures I saw earlier would suggest. The example I gave is not likely but is there to demonstrate that if you have enough people renting and reserving at 11 months out they can potentially have a real impact. Anyone actually in the business of renting would likely spread it out over many weeks of the year and not try to put all his eggs in one basket.
And to add to BillPA's point about income tax--you can ask the next question too: If they are in the business of renting at the resort are they paying the required 11% resort tax applicable to businesses that do so? We could have another two days of discussion on that one.
[This message was edited by drusba on 03-08-01 at 06:55 PM.]
03-10-2001, 11:18 AM
As a non-member a person can call up the ressie line and reserve a room/unit at least 12 months out (at least for part of each year). I've never done this at a DVC resort, but I have at lots of others...
WDW '85 offsite
WDW '89 offsite
WL '97 (again!)
AStSp '99 (YUCKY!!!)
DCL/Poly Jun/July '02
03-10-2001, 11:24 AM
While reservations at other resorts are common more than 12 months in advance, none of the DVC resorts will accommdate those requests. All of the DVC's are listed as non-available on the CRO computers until DVC itself has released any availability for cash reservations- either by nature of the obvious trend towards availability at a resort during a specific time period or until DVC members have exchanged points for other programs within the 11 month priority.
03-10-2001, 11:27 AM
Technically, I believe that applies only to that percentage of rooms specifically set aside as DVC room. A percentage of all WDW resorts is always available to regular (ie: non-DVC member) guests.
WDW '85 offsite
WDW '89 offsite
WL '97 (again!)
AStSp '99 (YUCKY!!!)
DCL/Poly Jun/July '02
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.