PDA

View Full Version : Max Occupancy in DVC Resorts


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

zfw4609
10-31-2004, 05:30 PM
Will Disney allow 2 adults and 3 toddlers in a 1BR villa? I read somewhere that the max capacity for a 1BR was 4 but I'm not sure how young children are counted.

zfw4609

kathleena
10-31-2004, 05:48 PM
As long as at least one is under the age of 3, yes. But your best route is to call MS tomorrow.

Disney Doll
10-31-2004, 08:56 PM
4 people + 1 child under the age of 3 who can sleep in a Pack&Play

WebmasterDoc
10-31-2004, 09:04 PM
Stated occupancy limits for a 1BR villa at all DVC resorts are four plus a child under age 3 in the provided pack-n-play. Many have reported no problems having more in the room and some have reported having MS note the additional occupants on their reservation confirmation. DVC resorts will not provide extra beds/cots or linens, but are not likely to do a head count to find the number in the room. Some have had great success taking an air mattress for additional sleeping space.

For a glimpse at the polar attitudes about this topic, please take a look at this closed occupancy thread. (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=578230)

CarolAnnC
10-31-2004, 09:05 PM
We are going to give the topic of Occupancy another chance here on our DVC Discussion Board. Please keep within our DIS Posting Guidelines, and allow the topic to remain open here. Thanks everyone in advance!

pplasky
11-09-2004, 02:03 PM
I read on the community board that someone who went to a member meeting at SSR was told that MS has officially raised the occupancy limits in a 1BR to 5 adults. If true, this should take some of the heat out of this topic. They still will not provide extra linens.

Happy Birthday Cat
11-09-2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by pplasky
I read on the community board that someone who went to a member meeting at SSR was told that MS has officially raised the occupancy limits in a 1BR to 5 adults. If true, this should take some of the heat out of this topic. They still will not provide extra linens.

Maistre Gracey is a very reliable source for that infromation. I trust it is accurate. I just wish they bothered to print it in the new vacation planner.

BTW: Thanks for opening this thread again. The topic is worthy of a civil discussion.

HBC

laceemouse
11-09-2004, 02:29 PM
Even though a 1 bedroom seems roomy, it is still only 2 beds, one in the master and one fold out. Several kids in 1 bed.....okay. Three adults in one bed????? I guess I am just a boring, old fashioned housewife LOL! I know folks bring air matresses sometimes, so I guess to each his own. Five adults using one bathroom seems like too much to me, reminds me of my sorority days.:) Not trying to make anyone mad, but I just don't think people really think it through, they are just looking for the least amount of points.

Doctor P
11-09-2004, 02:30 PM
Unfortunately, MS can't unilaterally change this. If there was an official change, we would likely know about in a different way--they would have to change all the official documents and this will delay closings that are in process (this actually happened to us with one of our point purchases--as soon as they made changes in the documents, they sent all the changes and new POS's to everyone and gave everyone an additional 14 day window to opt out and delayed all closings even though they really were not material changes).

laceemouse
11-09-2004, 02:31 PM
I should add, the OP is talking about young kids, I don't think anyone would have a propblem with that. But MS allowing 5 ADULTS sounds crazy to me. JMHO.

MAC3
11-09-2004, 02:32 PM
Just curious as to where this 5th person would sleep? Not trying to start anything but (will they bring up a cot) or are they allowing use of a sleeping bag type thing?

robinb
11-09-2004, 02:43 PM
Here's the thread where 5 to a 1BR was mentioned:
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6868151

Originally posted by Maistre Gracey
After the meeting, I chatted with Judi Kaufman (sp?), and one of the lead people in Member Services. I asked several questions, including occupancy rules, home resort retention when transferring points, and about housekeeping.
They responded that occupancy limits has just been raised to 5 adults in a 1br, with no additional bedding provided. Studio is still 4, and 2br still 8.


So, no new bedding. If you want a 5th person in the unit, they will have to bring a sleeping bag or air mattress. While most adults wouldn't want to sleep on the floor, I bet the kids would be fighting over who wouldn't have to share the fold-out!

mom23boys
11-09-2004, 03:12 PM
I can understand 5 in a 1 bedroom if you have small children. But I agree where will the 5th one sleep in not a child. We have three boys, youngest is 2 so he could sleep with us in the master but I think we would all be very unconfortable for a whole week.

My other issue with 1 bedroom vs. 2 bedroom is that if my older boys are sleeping in the living area, and my youngest is asleep in the master, where do we to watch TV or read or enjoy being by ourselves. This is why we do prefer the 2 bedrooms.

DebbieB
11-09-2004, 03:45 PM
I don't think they are going to change the contract or put it in writing because if it read 5, there would be an expectation that they will provide bedding and linens for 5. I think it's more of an "unofficial policy". Actually, the product understanding checklist that I received says limit of 4 in a studio or 1 bedroom. It does not mention anything about a child under 3, so that is also an unofficial extension.

WebmasterDoc
11-09-2004, 03:45 PM
Judy Kaufman is certainly a well-respected DVC CM. She has been the vacation guide for many on this site and is very knowledgeable. The comments she reportedly made at the update are consistent with the attitude DVC seems to have taken about the occupancy issue.

The "official" written policy still states that the 1BR villa sleeps four (plus the child under 3). Since the indication is that no additional bedding or linens will be provided, that written policy still may stand, but the apparent comments indicate an attitude that DVC is still not planning to do head counts in DVC accommodations. I do not expect to see anything in writing from DVC about this - since additional bedding would need to be provided if occupancy is truly being changed. I view the comments as "what DVC is allowing" rather than a change in any "official" stance. I think it's more of a clarification of how DVC intends to turn it's head regarding this issue.

It would be interesting to hear a comment from DVC about occupancy in the other villa sizes. Logic would suggest that the same attitude exists for 2BR villas and GV's - if not in studio units.

ahutton
11-09-2004, 03:59 PM
A suggestion for a small child that is too large for the pack and play... I realize this is not a perfect solution, but it can work. We didn't need to do this, but in a few years who knows. When you open the sofa bed in the living room of the 1 or 2 bedroom we used the cushions as a brace of sorts between the could and love seat. That love seat, with sheets and a blanket on it would make an okay bed for a child that is too big for a pack and play if you didn't want to have them sleep as the 3rd in one of the existing beds or buy an air mattress. I'm not saying this is the safest or best option - only an option. My 4 year old would probably do fine there.

DisneyKidds
11-09-2004, 04:02 PM
As I always say, if MS will take the reservation than who am I to protest ;).

I agree, we aren't lilkely to see anything in writing regarding 5 in a 1Br. If MS wants to take a reservation for 5 adults with the expectation of bedding for only 4 I'm fine with that. Let the occupants worry about who sleeps where.

idratherbeinwdw
11-09-2004, 04:23 PM
I think 5 should be allowed in a one bedroom, and who cares where they sleep? If they can work it out amongst themselves it's fine with me.

To those who think 5 in a one bedroom is too many: The Deluxe resorts allow 5 adults in a single hotel room. The rooms have two queen sized beds and a day bed. One bathroom.

A DVC 1 BR unit (yes even the "small" ones at BWV where you can grab a beer from the fridge when you're on the terrace :)) are all considerably larger than any of the deluxe resort rooms that allow 5.

So I think it should be a personal decision for whoever is traveling. If those going are willing to sleep 5 in a 1 BR I say let them figure out who sleeps where and leave them alone. ::yes:: :flower1: :wizard:

Doctor P
11-09-2004, 04:43 PM
Doesn't really appear that there was any change in policy that occurred in any official sense. The quote from Master Gracey was far from a claim that an "official policy" had been changed. Just a reiteration really of what we have heard from MS for quite a while on this issue.

Dean
11-09-2004, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Doctor P
Doesn't really appear that there was any change in policy that occurred in any official sense. The quote from Master Gracey was far from a claim that an "official policy" had been changed. Just a reiteration really of what we have heard from MS for quite a while on this issue. The official written policy per the contract is 4, even the "plus one under three" is an add on by DVC. I'd bet DVC will not put the 5 in a 1 BR in writing other than possibly listing 5 on the confirmation. DVC has not shown much attention to enforcing the policy until recently but as long as people are "reasonable", I doubt there'll be much issue. But it is an issue that affects every member to one extent or another, even if only by increased maintenance, amenity usage and the like.

CaptainMidnight
11-09-2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Maistre Gracey
After the meeting, I chatted with Judi Kaufman (sp?), and one of the lead people in Member Services. I asked several questions, including occupancy rules, home resort retention when transferring points, and about housekeeping.
They responded that occupancy limits has just been raised to 5 adults in a 1br, with no additional bedding provided. Studio is still 4, and 2br still 8.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6868151

Judy Kaufman is an outstanding guide, and has provided us with superb assistance through each of our purchases. I have complete trust that if she states there has been a change, that the change has occurred. This is wonderful news, and I'm glad to hear of this unofficial, very reasonable, needed change.

Certainly, Maistre Gracey has also proven to be very reliable.

Thank you for sharing this information. This accomodates a family of five with small children.

Great info.

I hope this thread is allowed to continue and that the need to attempt to battle this out here is not demonstrated, especially since 5 in a 1 bedroom with no additional linens provided seems so reasonable.

Granny
11-10-2004, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by zfw4609
Will Disney allow 2 adults and 3 toddlers in a 1BR villa?
The key word here is "allow". As Doc pointed out, it seems that Disney is allowing five in a 1BR....just not facilitating it by providing the bedding for the fifth person.

I also believe that Disney will not put this change in writing...if they did they would certainly have to support the change by providing bedding, towels, etc.

AnnaS
11-10-2004, 07:47 AM
I am just curious for the families that have two children - one male and one female - how are your sleep arrangements in a studio or a one bedroom? If one of the parents (like my dh) refuses to sleep with the child of the same sex for reasons like taking over the bed, getting kicked, etc. - where do you place everyone?

This is not to start a discussion with anyone who is not happy having 5 A in a one bedroom and they have two children male/female. I am just curious - if you look at all my threads/replies - I stay away from the occupancy thread like the plague. Do you bring an aoerobed? If so - isn't it tight and uncomfortable especially in studio? (I have not taken one yet - so I can't comment). Has anyone with two sexes (children) every done this?

kaseyC
11-10-2004, 07:52 AM
I believe that "5 in a 1 bdrm" allowance is also caused by CRO bookings.
Friends of ours went to WDW this past July and stayed a OKW. They booked thru CRO and they are a family of five - 2 adults and 3 Teens. CRO put them in a 1 bedroom unit.

I believe that DVC may be having a hard time enforcing the occupancy limits if CRO is booking 5 in 1 bedroom units.

Kewz1
11-10-2004, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by AnnaS
I am just curious for the families that have two children - one male and one female - how are your sleep arrangements in a studio or a one bedroom? If one of the parents (like my dh) refuses to sleep with the child of the same sex for reasons like taking over the bed, getting kicked, etc. - where do you place everyone?

This is not to start a discussion with anyone who is not happy having 5 A in a one bedroom and they have two children male/female. I am just curious - if you look at all my threads/replies - I stay away from the occupancy thread like the plague. Do you bring an aoerobed? If so - isn't it tight and uncomfortable especially in studio? (I have not taken one yet - so I can't comment). Has anyone with two sexes (children) every done this?

My kids are 8 & 10 (one of each) and they share a bed. They would love to have their own beds but they would also like to have ice cream for breakfast and be able to drive. ;) This year at HH they decided they would take turns between a sleeping bag and the sofa bed. I'm give them one night and then I think they will be back to sharing the sofa bed!

For my family it's just not been a problem -- thankfully!

Kristen :earsgirl:

jbhaupt
11-10-2004, 08:25 AM
Just wanted to share the information I was given by my guide before joining DVC. We are a family of 5. (DS is under 3 still) But this was a big question I had too. Did not want to always rely on 2 bdrm availablity. Apparently, the fire code is max 5 people in a one bedroom. If you exceed 5, you must goto the 2 bedroom. However, if child #3 is greater than 3 yo and doesn't sleep in the PNP they will not provide sleeping accommodations. (ie cot). This was verified according to my guide.
Hope this helps.

Bonnie

Luigi's Girl
11-10-2004, 09:47 AM
AnnaS We just returned from the VWL 1 bedroom villa. DS is 16 and DD is 13. There was no way they were staying in the pull out couch together. We brought a twin air mattress and i just called housekeeping and requested an extra pair of sheets and they brought them to me no questions asked. After they came in to clean the room i wondered if they were going to question me as to how many people i had staying in the room but they never did. It all worked out for us.

Macnjac87
11-10-2004, 03:57 PM
We are a family of 5- our kids are now 14, 12 and 8- while the 2 BR's are the best option for us (besides the GV's!!:earseek: ) a 1 BR would also be ok- I would just pack an inflatable air mattress for one of them- (my kids would be ok with taking turns on it, for some reason they just don't fight at Disney!!) Another option for us is to use cash on a Fri. and/or Sat. night in order to conserve some points and stay in the 2 BR. You get really really used to having 2 bathrooms and lots of space!!

BrentKohl
11-10-2004, 04:41 PM
I have a written response from Member Services that 5 people would be allowed in a 1BR at all DVC resorts, and it doesn't matter what the age of the kids is. If anyone wants the text of that response, I'd be more than happy to include the full response to you in a private message or via e-mail.

Brent

CaptainMidnight
11-10-2004, 05:13 PM
:earsboy:

Disney Doc
11-10-2004, 07:05 PM
Congratulations everyone... 10 days running, and still no padlock on this thread!

Dean
11-10-2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by jbhaupt
Just wanted to share the information I was given by my guide before joining DVC. We are a family of 5. (DS is under 3 still) But this was a big question I had too. Did not want to always rely on 2 bdrm availablity. Apparently, the fire code is max 5 people in a one bedroom. If you exceed 5, you must goto the 2 bedroom. However, if child #3 is greater than 3 yo and doesn't sleep in the PNP they will not provide sleeping accommodations. (ie cot). This was verified according to my guide.
Hope this helps.

Bonnie Bonnie, guides are not a reliable source, period. And no matter how much they say it, they have no power to change it.

Originally posted by kaseyC
I believe that DVC may be having a hard time enforcing the occupancy limits if CRO is booking 5 in 1 bedroom units. DVC should have no problem enforcing the limits at this level. Where they'll have a difficult time is in people who say 4 and sneak in 5 or similar.

Originally posted by AnnaS
I am just curious for the families that have two children - one male and one female - how are your sleep arrangements in a studio or a one bedroom? If one of the parents (like my dh) refuses to sleep with the child of the same sex for reasons like taking over the bed, getting kicked, etc. - where do you place everyone? We are in the same boat and get a 2 BR or room that will sleep 5. Not directed at you but I get amused at those who feel DVC must create something that will work for a family of five or six. To me, it's no different than the cruise industry.

CaptainMidnight
11-10-2004, 09:44 PM
I could see why a 1 bedroom wouldn't work for three kids of different genders. We have all boys, so the eon bedroom works fine.

We've always found Judy Kaufman to be very reliable.

I agree that CMs cannot make changes. But it seems to me that a traffic officer has the leeway under the direction of his/her leadership as to whether they will give someone a ticket for going one mile per hour over the speed limit, or a little higher. Seems like CMs could tell us about leadership decisions as to whether 5 in a one bedroom will get a ticket or not.

For me, I don't think that the large size of a DVC one bedroom with it's own kitchen etc., where meals are individually paid for is the same as the small size of a cruize ship cabin where meals and table seating are included in the cost of the cruise. But that's just my take on it.

Johnnie Fedora
11-10-2004, 11:01 PM
Glad to hear of the unofficial offical policy change. Either way our family of five would use our real estate interest in a manner that best fit our family's vacation point plans and comfort level. For us, that would generally include 1, 2 and 3 BR DVC stays and very few studio stays.:D

dianeschlicht
11-11-2004, 07:27 AM
Glad to see a civil occupancy thread! It did make me laugh though, because we will have a 2 bedroom for our December trip for just 3 people! I really don't want to ask my friend to sleep on the hide-a-bed, so she will have the 2nd bedroom all to herself.

BrentKohl
11-11-2004, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by dianeschlicht
Glad to see a civil occupancy thread! It did make me laugh though, because we will have a 2 bedroom for our December trip for just 3 people! I really don't want to ask my friend to sleep on the hide-a-bed, so she will have the 2nd bedroom all to herself.


What? You wouldn't book a grand villa for the 3 of you??? Don't be so cheap! ;)

leanne2255
11-11-2004, 06:21 PM
I have not seen anyone make the point that what if a 2 BR is not available, and you can only get a 1BR. Would you cancel your trip? Probably not. You would make do with 5 in a 1BR.

rinkwide
11-11-2004, 06:53 PM
(If) you can only get a 1BR. Would you cancel your trip? Probably not. You would make do with 5 in a 1BR.
Obviously you haven't met my Uncle Harry.

TCPluto
11-11-2004, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by CaptainMidnight
I could see why a 1 bedroom wouldn't work for three kids of different genders.

More than just the standard two genders?????

Sorry.. it struck me funny as worded.

Happy Birthday Cat
11-11-2004, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Dean
Not directed at you but I get amused at those who feel DVC must create something that will work for a family of five or six.

We are a family of 6 and DVC has created something that is just perfect for us. The 2BR. It sure beats how we used to have to get connecting rooms.

HBC

Dean
11-11-2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Happy Birthday Cat
We are a family of 6 and DVC has created somethinhg for us that is just perfect for us. The 2BR. It sure beats how we used to have to get connecting rooms.

HBC LOL, I almost added that above but was trying to be tactful. However, I do have little patience for those that feel DVC "owes" them something cheaper than a 2 BR just because they have 5 or 6 in their family. I do understand people wishing for something less but it is an unrealistic request, IMO. And to be clear, the industry standard for a 2 BR is 6, even when a unit will accommodate 8 with the bedding.

CaptainMidnight
11-12-2004, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by Dean
... I do have little patience for those that feel DVC "owes" them something cheaper than a 2 BR just because they have 5 or 6 in their family....
I certainly don't fee DVC "owes" my family something, a one bedroom meets the current needs of our family just fine. They don't need to come up with a new room configuration, new bedding requirements, or need to do anything differently than what they currently do in my conversations with MS, which is allow 5 in a one bedroom. We are perfectly capable of determining our family's needs and choosing the correct currently available DVC accomodation to fit it in cooperation with MS. As the boys get older, a two bedroom will certainly be in order.

I guess the real point I'd like to make is that startng to use antagonistic phrases like "little patence" and "those that feel DVC "owes" them something cheaper" is starting to take this thread in a polarizing direction that I would hope it wouldn't go in seeing as many threads on this subject have been closed. This thread shares new information from a very reliable guide, Judy Kaufman, a guide whom I have posted many complimentary statements about in the past. This issue isn't going to be decided in this forum, we can only present information to each other. Please -- there is no sense falling into old habits and beginning a comative tone on this issue.

Thank you to everyone for keeping this thread open and in a positive and information sharing tone.

Doctor P
11-12-2004, 06:23 AM
In a word: YES. Since the issue was raised, any time that an owner, guest, or renter knowingly violates the terms of the ownership contract it hurts the value of my ownership since I purchased based on the terms of that ownership, abide by those terms, and expect all other members to abide by the terms of the membership. However, I think that the policy of allowing five without providing bedding concessions is something that appears to be a consistent policy, has not changed the true rule (so it could be enforced if it ever becomes a problem), and appears to be primarily used by families with "younger" kids from what I can tell and therefore probably is not unreasonable. However, biased as this may be, I have much less problem with members having the benefit of this policy than I do people who pay cash or renters. (Let the flames begin, LOL!)

DebbieB
11-12-2004, 07:23 AM
"Knowingly violates" is a matter of opinion. Most of these families of 5 were told they could have 5 in a 1 bedroom when they bought. In their minds, DVC gave them permission for an exception to this rule, so they are not knowingly violating the rule. DVC continually used this sales tactic and now they are standing behind it, which I think is the right thing. If they wanted to hold to the letter of the contract, they should have done that from day 1.

ErinC
11-12-2004, 08:15 AM
Dean(and others), it is not that I feel DVC owe's me anything. We have 3 DD's 8, 5, 1. I am in no way comfortable letting my children sleep 2 rooms away, in a strange place on vacation. Especially, if that room has its own door to the hallway. I wouldn't want to wake up and find that one of them had wandered out into the hall, instead of the bedroom. I have read reports of this on this board. I'm glad that DVC will allow me to be up front and honest, and book a 1 bedroom, without feeling like I'm breaking the rules. When we bought DVC we only had 2 children, so I never asked the what "if" questions to my guide. When we had our third, I was glad to read reports of others that had discussed this issue with their guide. If it is just our immediate family, we will do the 1 bedroom, because it suits our needs just fine. My girls don't mind sleeping together, and we can live with just 1 bathroom!( Oh the horrors! :teeth: ) This in no way affects others stays. I'm sure that others will argue that it's an extra body at the pool, higher maintenance, ...., but for every family of 5 in a one bedroom, there are many studios with only 2 guests, or Diane with her 2 bedroom and only 3 people!:teeth: Do we credit these situations with less fees, lower occupancy at the pool?;) Anyway, I'm glad to get the nod from DVC, it will make my vacation planning easier when DD1 turns 3 and we really have to start thinking about these things. JMHO

idratherbeinwdw
11-12-2004, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by ErinC
(snip) . I wouldn't want to wake up and find that one of them had wandered out into the hall, instead of the bedroom. I have read reports of this on this board.

I have no problems whatsover with you and your girls in a 1BR. And I don't mean to make anyone anxious. But if you're in the Bedroom and the kids are in the LR couldn't one of the girls still go out the wrong door into the hall without you knowing?

I'm all for increasing comfort levels for parents but I am not sure why the kids being next door in the LR vs next door in another bedroom is much of a difference.

However, having said all this, if it feels better to you psychologically I can understand that.

Simba's Mom
11-12-2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Dean
guides are not a reliable source, period.
I agree that this is most likely the case. And yet, doesn't it bother people that the guides are out there telling potential DVC owners unreliable information sometimes? It's really opening DVC up for claims of "false advertising" one of these days on some issue that the guides told someone. It seems that DVC would want to make an extra effort to see that guides are well-aquainted with current policies. Just my two cents.

pplasky
11-12-2004, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by idratherbeinwdw


I'm all for increasing comfort levels for parents but I am not sure why the kids being next door in the LR vs next door in another bedroom is much of a difference.



Being next door in the living room lets you bolt the living room door, not to mention the children know you are in a bedroom. If they are in a totally different unit, they would need to go in the hall to get to your room, causing anxiety for a parent.

laceemouse
11-12-2004, 10:59 AM
We have 4 kids and have stayed in adjoining hotel rooms, 2 bedroom condos with doors to the hall in both bedrooms, and the like. I have never seen a hotel door that did not have one of those high up locks so that little kids would really have to pull a chair up to get the latch open, then move the chair, to open the door and get out into the hall. And, in a 2 bedroom which is not a dedicated, the kids most certainly do not have to go out into the hall to get to the living room/kitchen and master bedroom. That would only happen if you booked 2 seperate units, and it is against the rules in most hotels if no one in the room is 18 or over. Anyway, many of you with little kids will change your mind as the kids get older. They need privacy and get on each others nerves in close quarters. As far as the bathroom thing, once they hit puberty they will not bath together and dress in front of each other. We would take hours to get out in the morning if we all had to wait in line for one bathroom. When your kids are little it is hard to imagine that things will ever change, but believe me they do FAST!!! I agree with HBC, the 2 bedroom unit is heaven sent:)

DebbieB
11-12-2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Simba's Mom
I agree that this is most likely the case. And yet, doesn't it bother people that the guides are out there telling potential DVC owners unreliable information sometimes? It's really opening DVC up for claims of "false advertising" one of these days on some issue that the guides told someone. It seems that DVC would want to make an extra effort to see that guides are well-aquainted with current policies. Just my two cents.

There's no way guides are telling potential members that 5 in a 1 bedroom is OK without DVC Management's knowledge. If it was just isolated reports, I would believe it. But new members have reported it frequently and consistently over the years, so mangement has to condone it and I'm sure instructs guides on how to answer this question.

idratherbeinwdw
11-12-2004, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by pplasky
Being next door in the living room lets you bolt the living room door, not to mention the children know you are in a bedroom. If they are in a totally different unit, they would need to go in the hall to get to your room, causing anxiety for a parent.

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I respectfully disagree. You can bolt the living room door (and any doors that would lead to the hall) no matter what the accomodations. And as already been pointed out by laceemouse there is certainly no need for kids to go out into the hall to get to their parents! Laceemouse also made another point I agree with, it would take a LOT for a small child to open any locked exit doors.

I think it's a personal thing, some parents are evidently more comfortable with the one bedroom set up. And that's certainly fine, if it gives you peace of mind I am all for it! I don't see any more "danger" in a 2BR, but that's just me, everyone is entitled to live their lives the way they see fit.

Doctor P
11-12-2004, 01:23 PM
I don't want this to degenerate and I do want to keep this civil, however, remember that each and every purchaser must sign documents, directly or indirectly, that acknowledge no oral representations have no meaning and that the only binding statements are those in the POS and the Multi-site POS. Unless it is in writing and unless it is in the POS or other documents we sign, it ultimately has NO standing. This is one of the basic principles of the contract law upon which real estate transactions are based--oral statements by the guides may not be good practice, but they certainly aren't false advertising given the contract we sign. As many have said before, ask the guide to put any promise upon which you rely into writing.

DebbieB
11-12-2004, 02:35 PM
As many have said before, ask the guide to put any promise upon which you rely into writing.
They have put it in writing, as reported by BrentKohl:
Originally posted by BrentKohl
I have a written response from Member Services that 5 people would be allowed in a 1BR at all DVC resorts, and it doesn't matter what the age of the kids is. If anyone wants the text of that response, I'd be more than happy to include the full response to you in a private message or via e-mail.

Brent

They have made their positon clear. Why keep beating a dead horse.

ErinC
11-12-2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by idratherbeinwdw
I have no problems whatsover with you and your girls in a 1BR. And I don't mean to make anyone anxious. But if you're in the Bedroom and the kids are in the LR couldn't one of the girls still go out the wrong door into the hall without you knowing?

I'm all for increasing comfort levels for parents but I am not sure why the kids being next door in the LR vs next door in another bedroom is much of a difference.

However, having said all this, if it feels better to you psychologically I can understand that.


You are right, one of them could go out the LR door, but I think I would most likely hear that, whereas, I don't think I would hear the door in the 2nd bedroom. I know it sounds really paranoid, but I guess that it somehow makes me feel better. The times that we had the 2 bed. so far, my parents were with us, so they were in the studio portion. I could deal with a dedicated 2 bed easier, but some resorts don't always have them available, and BWV doesn't have them at all.

Laceemouse, I understand about the dead bolts on the door, and my DD5 would probably go through that exact process to open the door!:eek: I can actually picture it in my mind (she must have gotten those genes from DH"s family!:teeth: ). You are probably right about my attitude changing as my kids get older. Right now, we have 2.5 bathrooms in our house and the only one that gets used is the master. My kids will come downstairs to use our bathroom, when they have their own upstairs! Go figure.

NMW
11-12-2004, 03:20 PM
We also were told by both our guide and MS that 5 in a 1 BR was fine. MS also stated that bedding for that person would be given for a small fee. Before buying DVC, we (and our 3 young children) have always stayed in Deluxe rooms that allow 5. These rooms are much smaller than a 1 BR and we never had any problems with space. If a family with three children wants to stay in a 1 BR and MS allows it, I just don't see why other members would have a problem with this. In fact, it always baffles me that these threads get closed. We are friends with 2 DVC families that both have 3 kids like us. For several years they have been staying in 1 BR'S and bringing an aerobed. They always tell MS they have 5, always get 5 keys at check-in and have no problem getting additional bedding and towels when requested. I just don't see how their two 4 year old daughters raise members fees and affect any other member's vacation. I mean it's not like the 4 year olds smoke in a NS/1 BR or play loud music until all hours or anything! Our youngest is 2 and I think she barely weighs 28 pounds. She probably will sleep in the MBR with us for the next couple of years anyway. I also think "5 in a 1 BR" is a sales tactic that DVC guides have used for sometime and they should stand behind it, even if it's not in writing. For the life of me, I can't understand why this issue works up some members on this board the way it has in the past. I'm so happy to see a nice thread on this issue :D :D :D

ClarabelleCow
11-12-2004, 03:26 PM
erin c - I have 2 kids, boy and girl, so far the 1 bedroom is great of us, they either sleep together (they are 12 and 4), or they don't!!! The dedicated 2 bedrooms are great, but the non dedicated I don't think I am crazy about with the little guy. He would probably be fine in the room in the other bed with his sis. But as a Mom, (I am usuing VWL for example, as we stayed in a 1 bedroom and the studio was through a door in the livingroom), I would feel to0 removed from them for comfort.

Maybe what they need to make next is an "oversized family" 1 bedroom that sleep 6, 2 beds and a sleeper!!
(that was a joke!!):crazy:

Johnnie Fedora
11-12-2004, 04:25 PM
There are some specific perils with the 2BR layouts at some of the DVC resorts, especially BCV. Their is often a patio off the 2nd BR. At BCV, the enterance to the 2nd BR is by the hall door of the unit. That makes the 2nd BR quieter and more private. If the kids are in the 2nd BR, there is no way effective way to monitor that 2nd BR patio door from 2 rooms away. My 7 yo can open the balcony door and my 2 yo would be standing on the plastic patio chair/table on the balcony. Not a good or relaxing set-up for me. Not to mention the potential waterfun that may go on in the extra bath. Now, the same things can happen in a 1 BR unit, but it is more easily monitored by the grown-ups.


On a related topic, on one trip to VWL we were in the pool view rooms (the part of the DVC building that is "L"shaped). I could see on the other side of the "L", a toddler pushing the plastic chair up to the patio railing and climb up on top of the chair. While I stood and watched, the kid had his "king of the world" moment on the chair at the railing. :eek: :eek: :eek: I could see mom through the window ironing in the room next door. I did not know what to do!!?? I wanted to run over to their unit, but I knew I wouldn't be able to figure out which one it was. about the time I thought about calling security the kid climbed down and went back in the unit. Mom came out a few minutes later and closed the patio door without ever knowing what had transpired. Disney may be kid friendly, but new surroundings often encourage a kids curiosity.

laceemouse
11-12-2004, 05:12 PM
Erin, I smiled when I read about all of your kids coming into your bathroom! I remember those days very well (and fondly!) Now only my DS9 comes into the master bath. It seems that his 3 sisters have taken over the kids bathroom! He can't stand the hairy brushes, smelly concoctions, and the toothpaste globs (DD13 is an extreme slob!) :) Lacee

CaptainMidnight
11-12-2004, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by idratherbeinwdw
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I respectfully disagree. You can bolt the living room door (and any doors that would lead to the hall) no matter what the accomodations. And as already been pointed out by laceemouse there is certainly no need for kids to go out into the hall to get to their parents! Laceemouse also made another point I agree with, it would take a LOT for a small child to open any locked exit doors.

I think it's a personal thing, some parents are evidently more comfortable with the one bedroom set up. And that's certainly fine, if it gives you peace of mind I am all for it! I don't see any more "danger" in a 2BR, but that's just me, everyone is entitled to live their lives the way they see fit.
Actually, our three boys sleep in our bedroom while on vacation, we don't even use the pullout in the living room. I agree, we wouldn't care for them in the second bedroom while they are still so young. They are very content in sleeping bags on the floor. Actually, that's what I always did as a kid on vacation too. This will certainly change as they get older.
Originally posted by Johnnie Fedora
[B]There are some specific perils with the 2BR layouts at some of the DVC resorts, especially BCV. Their is often a patio off the 2nd BR. At BCV, the enterance to the 2nd BR is by the hall door of the unit. That makes the 2nd BR quieter and more private. If the kids are in the 2nd BR, there is no way effective way to monitor that 2nd BR patio door from 2 rooms away. My 7 yo can open the balcony door and my 2 yo would be standing on the plastic patio chair/table on the balcony. Not a good or relaxing set-up for me. Not to mention the potential waterfun that may go on in the extra bath. Now, the same things can happen in a 1 BR unit, but it is more easily monitored by the grown-ups.
Great points. Even if we got a two bedroom, we wouldn't use the second bedroom. It is a safety issue for us too.

Laurabearz
11-12-2004, 08:49 PM
More often than not, we all set up camp in the second bedroom, and make the Master the walk in closet/ daddy's sports cave. The girls in one bed, dh and I in the second bed and boy in the PnP. As the week progresses sometimes DH and I slip back into the Master. But we are happy in the second bedroom.

When the kids get older, we will take some 1 bedroom trips.... But DH would miss his cave, and I would miss my closet... ::yes::

Sammie
11-12-2004, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by leanne2255
I have not seen anyone make the point that what if a 2 BR is not available, and you can only get a 1BR. Would you cancel your trip? Probably not. You would make do with 5 in a 1BR.

We would not go if we could not book a 2 bedroom. We will only go when everyone has a "bed" to sleep in and that does not include an aero bed.

It is not a vacation to us if you are camping out on the floor and stepping over people.

I don't care if the new ruling is 5 in a one bedroom, personally I would not do it due to comfort.

However I do think now it will open up the situation where 5 is legal let's sneak one more and make it six.

Dean
11-12-2004, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by DebbieB
"Knowingly violates" is a matter of opinion. Most of these families of 5 were told they could have 5 in a 1 bedroom when they bought. In their minds, DVC gave them permission for an exception to this rule, so they are not knowingly violating the rule. DVC continually used this sales tactic and now they are standing behind it, which I think is the right thing. If they wanted to hold to the letter of the contract, they should have done that from day 1. And as such, any complaints currently would be with DVC and not the members who use DVC within reason and within the guidelines told them by DVC and the guides. But those that feel this is a victimless crime are simply wrong. There are costs involved that affect each and every member. How much is somewhat irrelevant but I suspect it's larger than the additional fees will be at OKW for the pool. And while it's up to DVC to police, to say it's none of the membership's business is a bit selfish, not to mention wrong (another reference to previous thread's).

ErinC, my comments refer back to previous thread's on this subject. There are those out there that feel that DVC "owes" them something that is cheaper than a 2 BR and will sleep 6. And it is only those few people that should take any offense from my statements.

CaptainMidnight, my style is to be direct and honest. If that's a problem, I'm sorry. But I have to call it like I see it. If that's not ok, again I'm sorry.I agree that this is most likely the case. And yet, doesn't it bother people that the guides are out there telling potential DVC owners unreliable information sometimes? It's really opening DVC up for claims of "false advertising" one of these days on some issue that the guides told someone. It seems that DVC would want to make an extra effort to see that guides are well-aquainted with current policies. Just my two cents.

Not really. DVC sales staff are milk toast. You should hear some of the lies and tactics used by others, like Westgate and others. DVC will likely only police this issue of those who feel strongly about it complain. Unfortunately, some have mistaken my willingness to discuss the issues involved as evidence that I feel strongly about the topic, which I do not.

laceemouse
11-13-2004, 09:00 AM
Sammie, all of your points are excellent!!! I agree 100% Lacee

Dean
11-13-2004, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by CaptainMidnight
Whatever this is suppose to mean, Judy Kaufman's name was directly mentioned in the thread, and she does not deserve to be disparaged in any way. She is honest and forthright and has been a wonderful guide for us. Just because she may be sharing information that a poster doesn't agree with is no justification to cast aspersions. She really is great, and I'm confident her saying represents a management position.

Seriously, all I ask is that this thread isn't taken down the same paths (in some cases by the same people) that caused the other threads to be closed. That's all. Seems like a reasonable request. I believe I'm not alone in that desire for this thread.
Milk toast is a term used to define, bland, mild or the like. In this context, it means they are nice, honest, and attempt to be honorable.

As for the discussion, I'm not sure I agree that we can discuss the issues of this area without someone possibly getting upset. If we can't address the impact on the maint fees, legal issues, reasonableness, industry standards, product understanding checklist, POS and certain abuses; then why discuss it at all as those are the type of issues that make up the subject. The problem that has gotten previous thread's closed are two fold. One is that certain people have taken to direct personal attacks when they didn't agree with a position or simply have a problem with the person themselves. The other is that DIS goes overboard to avoid controversy most times.

rinkwide
11-13-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Dean
But those that feel this is a victimless crime are simply wrong.

...to say it's none of the membership's business is a bit selfish, not to mention wrong...

DVC sales staff are milk toast.

I'm not sure I agree that we can discuss the issues of this area without someone possibly getting upset.

...certain people have taken to direct personal attacks when they didn't agree with a position or simply have a problem with the person themselves.
Hmm, hard to imagine why that is.


"Thread self-destruct sequence has begun, detonation in: 60, 59, 58, 57, 56..."

Macnjac87
11-13-2004, 03:31 PM
I'm quietly leaving now.;) y'all behave!

CaptainMidnight
11-13-2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Dean
...impact on the maint fees, legal issues, reasonableness, industry standards, product understanding checklist, POS and certain abuses

Unfortunatly, some proporting knowledge in these areas are spreading missinformation. For example, DVC resorts are certainly not similar to the cruise industry where meals are included and issues of life jackets, and lifeboat capacity come into play. The analogy is far fetched at best IMHO. In other cases legal issues are claimed that do not have a basis in fact although they are presented as such, these pseudo legal claims are used as a rationalizatoin to justify a position by those without legal expertise IMHO. No need to rehash those faulty approaches here, lets keep the thread open.

The bottom line is we have information about an MS policy in this thread. IMO it is a reasonble policy. If others dont' think so, I understand and certainly they have every right to express it, but there's no reason to throw labels and names toward those that do agree.
Originally posted by Dean
...certain people have taken to direct personal attacks when they didn't agree with a position...
Agreed. I would submit those "certain people" are a larger audience and more inclusive than some would be willing to admit, and were observed from both sides of the issue.::yes:: No need to rehash those old approaches here.
Originally posted by rinkwide
Hmm, hard to imagine why that is.


"Thread self-destruct sequence has begun, detonation in: 60, 59, 58, 57, 56..."
Exactly. Thank you for pointing out what seemed very obvious to me.

WebmasterDoc
11-13-2004, 05:20 PM
As usual, this topic has begun to degrade quickly into comments about why the thread should be closed instead of discussion of the topic.

Further posts of this nature will be removed from the thread without comment or warning.

Thanks in advance.

CaptainMidnight
11-13-2004, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by WebmasterDoc
Judy Kaufman is certainly a well-respected DVC CM. She has been the vacation guide for many on this site and is very knowledgeable. The comments she reportedly made at the update are consistent with the attitude DVC seems to have taken about the occupancy issue.

The "official" written policy still states that the 1BR villa sleeps four (plus the child under 3). Since the indication is that no additional bedding or linens will be provided, that written policy still may stand, but the apparent comments indicate an attitude that DVC is still not planning to do head counts in DVC accommodations. I do not expect to see anything in writing from DVC about this - since additional bedding would need to be provided if occupancy is truly being changed. I view the comments as "what DVC is allowing" rather than a change in any "official" stance. I think it's more of a clarification of how DVC intends to turn it's head regarding this issue.

I agree doc. I don't think we'll see official documents rewritten. I also appreciate your comments about Judy, I'll give her a call soon and check in with her, and let her know she is being quoted so she is aware. I'll also reask her about this new policy.

5 in a one bedroom seems like a very resonable clarification to a policy of MS turning thier head or deciding what to allow and enforce that hasn't been clear. I feel 6 is too many, others may not.

I confess, I am bias by our family's vacation needs and my families comfort and safety during our vacation. I hope if there were only 4 of us, I'd still have the same view, but it wouldn't impact nearly to the same degree it does since we have 3 children and directly applies to us. I was pleased to read this new information. One of the reasons we bought into DVC was the flexibility and the ability to expand our accomodations to a two bedroom as our needs increased, we've purchased plenty of points at the two resorts where we own to make that happen.

Our next vacation is a two bedroom with the grandparents invited to join us. That'll be 7 in a two bedroom with one under 3. We are looking forward to a wonderful time.

Happy posting everyone.

Dean
11-13-2004, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by CaptainMidnight
Unfortunatly, some proporting knowledge in these areas are spreading missinformation. I'd like to know what you think is misinformation. If you want to discuss the topic, lets discuss it.

Deb & Bill
11-13-2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by CaptainMidnight
... I feel 6 is too many, others may not...

And I feel 5 is too many. So we disagree.

pplasky
11-13-2004, 07:50 PM
I was thrilled when I read that 5 people would "officially" be allowed in a one bedroom. With three young children it just makes sense for our family. I was also thrilled when they reopened this thread so I could let others know. I am so disappointed that the "same" discussions from the "same" posters have popped up again. This is an important thread to many people and if we could just help people who need it rather than discuss legal documents and who feels comfortable with what others should do, we would be alot better off.

Sammie
11-14-2004, 03:29 AM
Captain, since I did not quote any of your comments, I have not posted any critism of your situation.

I was responding to the comment that no one has posted they would cancel if they could not book a 2 bedroom and had to take the one bedroom.

We would. This does not work for us, it is not comfortable or enjoyable.

If 5 in a one bedroom works for you, then that is your personal choice, just as it is mine not to do it.

If you disagree with that I see it as a difference of opinion, I would never see it as a critism. Which is probably why I do not get upset over anything posted on the forums. :)

Doctor P
11-14-2004, 05:39 AM
I remain curious about one issue that I don't think has ever been answered--the following are quotes from the documents we sign at the time of purchase:

"Occupancy in DVC Resort Vacation Homes is limited to 4 persons in a Studio or 1-Bedroom, 8 persons in a 2-Bedroom, and 12 persons in a 3-Bedroom."

"The prospective purchaser should not rely upon oral representations as being correct and should refer to this document and accompanying exhibits for correct representations. The seller is prohibited from making any representations other than those contained in this purchase agreement and this public offering statement."

Without debating whether 5 or more in a studio or 1BR makes logical or equitable sense, my question is why anyone would have any EXPECTATION, given these two statements, that they would be able to have five or more persons in these accomodations. I know what MS says and does, and I am not arguing with that. I'm asking about an owner's expectation basically at time of purchase, I guess. And keep in mind that even the times that MS has put the policy in writing in emails (including to me), that it still doesn't satisfy the above. I'm really not trying to or interested in debating the issue. I'm just really curious.

NMW
11-14-2004, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Doctor P
I remain curious about one issue that I don't think has ever been answered--the following are quotes from the documents we sign at the time of purchase:

"Occupancy in DVC Resort Vacation Homes is limited to 4 persons in a Studio or 1-Bedroom, 8 persons in a 2-Bedroom, and 12 persons in a 3-Bedroom."

"The prospective purchaser should not rely upon oral representations as being correct and should refer to this document and accompanying exhibits for correct representations. The seller is prohibited from making any representations other than those contained in this purchase agreement and this public offering statement."

Without debating whether 5 or more in a studio or 1BR makes logical or equitable sense, my question is why anyone would have any EXPECTATION, given these two statements, that they would be able to have five or more persons in these accomodations. I know what MS says and does, and I am not arguing with that. I'm asking about an owner's expectation basically at time of purchase, I guess. And keep in mind that even the times that MS has put the policy in writing in emails (including to me), that it still doesn't satisfy the above. I'm really not trying to or interested in debating the issue. I'm just really curious.


Just my opinion, but I think there are many families with 3 young children who take these DVC tours and decide not to buy because they would need a 2 bedroom. When they are assured by the guides, MS, and even the front desk CM's, that 5 is fine I think it's reasonable to assume that it is in fact "fine". These people are the FACE of the DVC to prospective members. Why would these families think they were being lied to? I think because of Disney's reputation many people will trust what it's representatives "say" even when that info is contradicted in legal documents. Is that smart in the long run? I don't know. We purchased enough for a 2 bedroom in the Fall or Winter. When our children are older if school becomes an issue, I'm sure we will purchase more points for summer stays. In the mean time, I still don't understand why any member would care if my children (all under 7) stayed in a 1 bedroom with us. I would never feel that comfortable with them in another bedroom with a door to the hallway and a balcony. My almost 3 year old is a major climber and somewhat of an escape artist. :p I'd prefer her to be right where I can see her. ::yes::

Dean
11-14-2004, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Doctor P
I remain curious about one issue that I don't think has ever been answered--the following are quotes from the documents we sign at the time of purchase:

"Occupancy in DVC Resort Vacation Homes is limited to 4 persons in a Studio or 1-Bedroom, 8 persons in a 2-Bedroom, and 12 persons in a 3-Bedroom."

"The prospective purchaser should not rely upon oral representations as being correct and should refer to this document and accompanying exhibits for correct representations. The seller is prohibited from making any representations other than those contained in this purchase agreement and this public offering statement."

Without debating whether 5 or more in a studio or 1BR makes logical or equitable sense, my question is why anyone would have any EXPECTATION, given these two statements, that they would be able to have five or more persons in these accomodations. I know what MS says and does, and I am not arguing with that. I'm asking about an owner's expectation basically at time of purchase, I guess. And keep in mind that even the times that MS has put the policy in writing in emails (including to me), that it still doesn't satisfy the above. I'm really not trying to or interested in debating the issue. I'm just really curious. Doctor P, there are many facets to this question. The written rules are clear and straightforward. DVC has chosen to look the other way whether it be an extra under 3 or {possibly} 5 in a 1 BR. I don't think it's accurate to say MS doesn't care, but they don't appear to care enough to consistently enforce the rules at hand.

Add to this that the timeshare sales staff routinely tell people it's OK and it's no wonder a lot of people get the idea that it is. But the truth is that oral representations by a timeshare sales person are not an enforceable event. At this point any issues anyone would have would be against DVC and MS, not the members who use DVC reasonably but in violation of the written rules. I'm quite convinced it would be fairly easy to force DVC to enforce this issue. I suspect one well worded letter of complaint and one phone call to Tallahassee would change to total complexion of this issue forever if anyone were so moved to go that route. Personally I am one for following rules but not particularly concerned about an extra person, even two in a unit here and there ( know these are competing issues). But I do fell strongly about clarifying the issues and the misinformation (like MS does care or that the guides have the power to make oral contracts).

And the reality is that even if DVC strictly enforces the issues, there will still be a culture of people that sneak in. At that point the responsibility is with the guest and we'd be having a totally different discussion, likely one that would get closed quickly.

Doctor P
11-14-2004, 09:45 AM
Thanks. Other opinions or thoughts?

laceemouse
11-14-2004, 10:17 AM
Dr. P, you pose an interesting question. We joined already having 4 kids so we knew right from the start that a 2 bedroom was in order. Many folks have 3 kids, it seems to be the norm around here. If those folks are wavering, to buy or not to buy, I can see a sales person telling them that a 1 bedroom would meet their needs, particularly when their kids are tiny, as so many on the dis seem to be (see the "how many people have kids?" poll.) So, I am sympathetic to them. It takes a lot of points to get a 2 bedroom, especially during school vacations. That is why we just bought more points. I don't have a real problem with them squeezing into a 1 bedroom, but I think in reality they will start to feel this is too tight as the kids grow. As Sammie put so well, stepping over people sleeping on the floor, and waiting in line for the bathroom, is no vacation IMO. Dean raises a good point too, some people will do what they want no matter what the rules are.

rinkwide
11-14-2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Doctor P
...my question is why anyone would have any EXPECTATION...that they would be able to have five or more persons in these accomodations...
Well, let's say you read about it being allowed on these boards, were told it was allowed by a guide, got a letter saying it was allowed from management, were allowed to book it with MS, and then actually checked-in and stayed five to a one-bedroom with no repercussions.

After all that I think someone might have a reasonable expectation no matter what the contract says.

Dean
11-14-2004, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by rinkwide
Well, let's say you read about it being allowed on these boards, were told it was allowed by a guide, got a letter saying it was allowed from management, were allowed to book it with MS, and then actually checked-in and stayed five to a one-bedroom with no repercussions.

After all that I think someone might have a reasonable expectation no matter what the contract says. I don't think there's any question how people can, and do, get the idea about this issue and a couple of others. I perfectly understand and anyone who is upset should be upset with DVC at this point, assuming "reasonable" use. OTOH, that does not preclude DVC from enforcing the written rules if they chose and while a member might have a valid argument to the contrary, they would not have a legal leg to stand on to force the issue. If push comes to shove, it will be what's in the contract, which is vividly clear. And everyone that bought directly from DVC signed a paper that says that they understand there are no oral representations outside the legal paperwork. Everyone that bought resale were then bound to the original written rules by nature of the deed and sale.

So if DVC does decide to enforce the policy more stringently, the proper response is "oh well, nothing lasts forever" or something to that effect.

plamp
11-15-2004, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Dean
I don't think there's any question how people can, and do, get the idea about this issue and a couple of others. I perfectly understand and anyone who is upset should be upset with DVC at this point, assuming "reasonable" use. OTOH, that does not preclude DVC from enforcing the written rules if they chose and while a member might have a valid argument to the contrary, they would not have a legal leg to stand on to force the issue. If push comes to shove, it will be what's in the contract, which is vividly clear. And everyone that bought directly from DVC signed a paper that says that they understand there are no oral representations outside the legal paperwork. Everyone that bought resale were then bound to the original written rules by nature of the deed and sale.


I disagree. Disney by asdvertising and allowing 5 in a one bedroom over such a long period should not be able to enforce the written contract rule of 4 per 1BR. Custom between the parties over time can trump the written agreement. BUT, a DVC member, especially a new one who has purchased DVC relying upon the written contract, as an owner would probably succeed in getting some type of injunction to force Disney to enforce the written rule.

Lesley
11-15-2004, 12:29 PM
Laurabearz....I love how you use the 2br...what a great idea! Now I have something to look forward to.

I do now feel safe admitting that I had always planned to use the 1br as long as my family of 5 is all comfortable there...I'll probably be the first to get annoyed if we take an air mattress....but the baby sleeps with my dh and I (usually the 4yo too...) and will probably still do that for several years to come. We sleep on a queen at home so we find it quite comfortable.

My older children (9 and 4) are a boy and a girl and have and will continue to share a bed until we decide to go for a 2br....or until the baby sleeps in the pull out with her sister and we put our son on an air mattress. I hope that once we take a 2br they'll at least continue to share the second bedroom....probably not the bed since our girls seem to like sleeping together. Part of the point of a 2br for me would be having a living room that didn't have to be used as a bedroom.

DisneyKidds
11-15-2004, 02:06 PM
Disney by asdvertising and allowing 5 in a one bedroom over such a long period should not be able to enforce the written contract rule of 4 per 1BR. Custom between the parties over time can trump the written agreement.
Unfortunately, no. Parties to a contract can make whatever agreements or agree to whatever terms they like outside of a contract, but unless the contract is amended it is not something that will ever have real legal standing. If someone decided to make "push come to shove" and "wrote a well placed letter" to "succeed in getting Disney to enforce the written rule" they would most defintely have the legal leg to stand on. They would also be in serious need of a............ah, I better not ;). Let me just say that anyone who is that focused on this issue has a little too much time on their hands :teeth: .

Dean
11-15-2004, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by plamp
I disagree. Disney by asdvertising and allowing 5 in a one bedroom over such a long period should not be able to enforce the written contract rule of 4 per 1BR. Custom between the parties over time can trump the written agreement. BUT, a DVC member, especially a new one who has purchased DVC relying upon the written contract, as an owner would probably succeed in getting some type of injunction to force Disney to enforce the written rule. I agree with DisneyKidds and the POS has statements in it that essentially say than any variation of issues does not affect any of the rest of the enforcement. Besides, I think it'd be tough to prove this was ever a "rule" for over the limits rather than just individual variation in enforcement, which is what I believe it is even now. But I do understand the sentiment and know it'll be tough for someone who bought with the assurances of a guide or some on this board and then had the rug pulled out from under them.

Sammie
11-15-2004, 06:22 PM
I am sure allowing 5 in a one bedroom, and changing the contract to make 5 "legal" is somehow tied to liability and insurance. Being that if there were a situation and claims made against Disney say in a fire or hurricane damage. Disney is only going to liable for 4 people in the unit. Number 5 will be out of luck.

By not providing bedding for the 5 person in essance to Disney the 5th person does not exist.

DebbieB
11-15-2004, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Sammie
I am sure allowing 5 in a one bedroom, and changing the contract to make 5 "legal" is somehow tied to liability and insurance. Being that if there were a situation and claims made against Disney say in a fire or hurricane damage. Disney is only going to liable for 4 people in the unit. Number 5 will be out of luck.

By not providing bedding for the 5 person in essance to Disney the 5th person does not exist.

I work in insurance. The only way that would be remotely possible is if the injury was caused solely by having the 5th person in the room and you did not list them on your reservation. Considering you can have 5 in a deluxe room or a Port Orleans trundle room less than 1/2 the size, I don't know how an injury would be traced to "overcrowding" in a 1 bedroom. I also don't believe fire codes are involved, considering the total square footage of the room. Plus you have at least 2 possible exits (counting the porch/balcony), which you don't have in the POR room. It's very difficult to get out of a liability claim unless you can prove total negligence on the part of the injured party.

Deb & Bill
11-15-2004, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by DebbieB
I work in insurance. The only way that would be remotely possible is if the injury was caused solely by having the 5th person in the room and you did not list them on your reservation. Considering you can have 5 in a deluxe room or a Port Orleans trundle room less than 1/2 the size, I don't know how an injury would be traced to "overcrowding" in a 1 bedroom. I also don't believe fire codes are involved, considering the total square footage of the room. Plus you have at least 2 possible exits (counting the porch/balcony), which you don't have in the POR room. It's very difficult to get out of a liability claim unless you can prove total negligence on the part of the injured party.

Fire codes require a certain amount of space for egress, corridor widths, number of exits, etc, figure into this. The actual amount of space in the room does not, except to figure the distance to the means of egress from the most remote corner of the space. So if you have a 100 square foot room with three bunks in it and the appropriate amount of width and distance to the exit corridor, you could be more in agreement with the code in that small space than in a one bedroom with five people in it. Since the balcony does not allow you to exit safely from the unit (without a stair from the balcony), it cannot be counted as an exit just like windows don't really count for exits.

rinkwide
11-15-2004, 11:34 PM
Someone pass me the Advil.

Sammie
11-16-2004, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by DebbieB
I work in insurance. The only way that would be remotely possible is if the injury was caused solely by having the 5th person in the room and you did not list them on your reservation. Considering you can have 5 in a deluxe room or a Port Orleans trundle room less than 1/2 the size, I don't know how an injury would be traced to "overcrowding" in a 1 bedroom. I also don't believe fire codes are involved, considering the total square footage of the room. Plus you have at least 2 possible exits (counting the porch/balcony), which you don't have in the POR room. It's very difficult to get out of a liability claim unless you can prove total negligence on the part of the injured party.

That is not what I meant. I meant if there were a fire or such and someone wanted to sue Disney, I am not sure Disney can be held accountable for the safety and well being of more than 4 in the room. I did not mean that having 5 in the room would contribute to anything.

Firebug
11-22-2004, 05:08 PM
I think the bottom line is this. Disney wants to make money. If they feel relaxing a rule is going to allow them to sell more units. Disney is going to do it. In the end they will weigh how many complain verses how much money they can make selling more units. I am betting making money is going to win out. Just because something is a rule or even a law doesn’t always matter. The rule or law stays on the books. It is just not enforced because it would not be popular or doesn’t meet the agenda of the enforcing authority. I could give examples until dooms day. Public opinion is what seems to dictate what happens in reality.

Firebug

CaptainMidnight
11-22-2004, 07:48 PM
Personally, I do not think DVC ever intended to hold strictly to the guideline of 4 in a one bedroom as a hard and fast unbreakable rule. They put the most conservative position in the documents in case they ever had to fall back on them regarding providing bedding, etc., just like lots of the cover your rear end clauses they put in the documents like selling off DVC resorts. Guides have always known this was not going to be a strict 4 only in a one bedroom hard and fast unbreaable rule, so they have provided appropriate factual information to purchasers accordingly. I think most rational people here recognize it as well. They may not agree with it if it doesn't fit thier own family's personal needs, but my opinion is they recognize the most conservative worst case senarios were written into the documents in case DVC ever needed it, many with never any intention to really use.
http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/c4.gif

Dean
11-22-2004, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by CaptainMidnight
Personally, I do not think DVC ever intended to hold strictly to the guideline of 4 in a one bedroom as a hard and fast unbreakable rule. They put the most conservative position in the documents in case they ever had to fall back on them regarding providing bedding, etc., just like lots of the cover your rear end clauses they put in the documents like selling off DVC resorts. Guides have always known this was not going to be a strict 4 only in a one bedroom hard and fast unbreaable rule, so they have provided appropriate factual information to purchasers accordingly. I think most rational people here recognize it as well. That position would not be consistent with timeshare standards. 2-4 in a studio, 4 in a 1 BR and SIX in a 2 BR is standard in the industry. Even those that will sleep more, only technically trade for the above number in most cases. But the fact remains that DVC hasn't been consistent in enforcement for whatever reason.

OneMoreTry
11-22-2004, 10:01 PM
I think DVC would serve us best by focusing on keeping smoke out of smoke free rooms.

I wouldn't mind 8 neat, courteous and well-mannered people in a 1BR as much as 2 noisy, inconsiderate, rude slobs in a Grand Villa. The latter use more resources and waste more of my dues dollars. Not to mention the aggravation of having to look at them.

:earsboy:

DVCcollector
11-22-2004, 10:09 PM
We have put 3 adults and 3 kids in our 1 bedroom and have never had a problem.

Deb & Bill
11-22-2004, 10:39 PM
What you can and what you should do are two different things.

rinkwide
11-22-2004, 10:50 PM
We put 7 adults and a miniature horse in a 2 bedroom and had a big problem.

DrTomorrow
11-22-2004, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by rinkwide
We put 7 adults and a miniature horse in a 2 bedroom and had a big problem. It's no wonder - according to the POS and the contracts we all signed, a 2BR unit has a capacity of 8 adults -OR- 6 adults and one miniature horse.

rinkwide, when you bought into DVC, you should have made sure that your livery needs could be met within stated occupancy limits.

CaptainMidnight
11-23-2004, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by DrTomorrow
It's no wonder - according to the POS and the contracts we all signed, a 2BR unit has a capacity of 8 adults -OR- 6 adults and one miniature horse.

rinkwide, when you bought into DVC, you should have made sure that your livery needs could be met within stated occupancy limits.
His guide probably told him 1 miniture and 1 full size horse were OK. As long as MS agrees......

DVCcollector
11-23-2004, 07:55 AM
My wife and I take the master my mom and my oldest use the inflateable queen size and the 2 youngest ones sleep on the pullout. The airbed inflates in 3 minutes and deflates in 3 so we blow it up at nihgt and deflate it in the morning. This way we have no space issues etc. Now the kids are 8, 3 and 2 and everyone was on the reservation.

laceemouse
11-23-2004, 09:26 AM
Collector, you must have one young, cool mom. My mom is 75, and no way would I make her sleep or an air matress, or even really a pull out. And none of my kids would want to sleep with granny! I think since your youngest 2 are so little things are working, but I think you will change your mind as they get older. They no longer bath together and run around naked in front of each other as puberty gets near....you have been warned. Enjoy the little ones while you can!

Jillpie
11-23-2004, 09:51 AM
We are a family of five. Believe it or not, when we bought into DVC, our guide told us it was ok for us to be in a studio, if that is what we wished. We would just have to provide the bedding. That clinched it for us, we decided right then and there we would buy. Our first trip this past January was in a 2 br, but the flexibility was also there for a studio if we wanted. Interesting, ha?

roadtripper
11-23-2004, 11:26 AM
Wait a minute--
miniature horses are allowed? My guide never told me that!;)

DVCcollector
11-23-2004, 03:52 PM
laceemouse thanks for the reply my mom is only shall we say a ahndfull of years older than I am LOL you know can't give away the ladies age after all LOL. I am only 35 and she is a mere 19 years older than I am.

WebmasterDoc
11-23-2004, 03:58 PM
As usual, another occupancy thread has found it's way to veer far from the topic.

Please keep posts on topic and feel free to continue other conversation on the DVC Community Board.

Thanks.

CaptainMidnight
11-23-2004, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Dean
...consistent with timeshare standards. 2-4 in a studio, 4 in a 1 BR and SIX in a 2 BR is standard in the industry...
If this is indeed accurate, perhaps standardizing with the time share industry may be the reason these guidelines were listed in our documents, all the while DVC guides and MS knowing that 5 in a one bedroom was just fine with them. For example, there are clauses in the Vero documents that talk about selling the Vero resort. Just because it's written in the documentation that way doesn't mean that Vero will definitely be sold. While its a possibility, it is not a steadfast fact that it will absolutely be sold. There are several "last resort", "lets make sure we are covered just in case" type clauses in the documents. I don't think DVC ever had any intention to strickly adhearing and restricting members to 4 in a one bedroom, and guides have always been aware of the leeway, and willing to communicate to their clients about it. We see the same type of leeway given to commercial use with for-profit rental practices. Whether I agree or not with the level of enforcement of these practices, DVC gives those members with high volume rentals leeway, (although language surrounding this is much fuzzier). A service excellence approach provides for a degree of leeway, not strict adherance to steadfast conservative CYB policies. Strict adherance to steadfast conservative CYB policies in todays service economy is a recipe for failure.

Dean
11-23-2004, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by CaptainMidnight
If this is indeed accurate, perhaps standardizing with the time share industry may be the reason these guidelines were listed in our documents, all the while DVC guides and MS knowing that 5 in a one bedroom was just fine with them. For example, there are clauses in the Vero documents that talk about selling the Vero resort. Just because it's written in the documentation that way doesn't mean that Vero will definitely be sold. While its a possibility, it is not a steadfast fact that it will absolutely be sold. There are several "last resort", "lets make sure we are covered just in case" type clauses in the documents. I don't think DVC ever had any intention to strickly adhearing and restricting members to 4 in a one bedroom, and guides have always been aware of the leeway, and willing to communicate to their clients about it. We see the same type of leeway given to commercial use with for-profit rental practices. Whether I agree or not with the level of enforcement of these practices, DVC gives those members with high volume rentals leeway, (although language surrounding this is much fuzzier). A service excellence approach provides for a degree of leeway, not strict adherance to steadfast conservative CYB policies. Strict adherance to steadfast conservative CYB policies in todays service economy is a recipe for failure. I'd agree there are just in case scenarios but I can't see the occupancy issue as one. It's written into the contract AND into the product understanding checklist. While DVC has thus far chosen to bend a little, if it's abuse, this will change. So ultimately, this will be on the members in all likely hood.

Timeshare vary and there is a difference between usage and exchanging. As a rule, timeshares are looked at from a private capacity standpoint. This means separate sleeping quarters with a direct access to a BR. This is definitely true from an exchange standpoint. And many timeshare are EXTREMELY RIGID ABOUT OCCUPANCY including one I know of that has you sign a contract at checkin specifically related to occupancy, and recourse, if you violate it.

CaptainMidnight
11-23-2004, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Dean
I'd agree there are just in case scenarios but I can't see the occupancy issue as one.

Well, we dissagree on this. And, we are reading where new MS unofficial guidelines are being stated about 5 being OK in a one bedroom. Seems very reasonable to me.

if it's abuse, this will change. So ultimately, this will be on the members in all likely hood.

There is no evidence of this to date. Abuse of any of the aspects could result in change, not just occupancy issues including for profit rental practices or other abuses. It doesn't seem like a few families with 3 children will really cause that much problem.

And many timeshare are EXTREMELY RIGID ABOUT OCCUPANCY including one I know of that has you sign a contract at checkin specifically related to occupancy, and recourse, if you violate it.
Obviously, DVC doesn't ask us to sign such a checkin contract. Just because others are extremely rigid doesn' mean DVC ever intended to be extremely rigid about this, expecially given the numerous statements we have learned about from Guides, especially a guide with the expertise and competency of Judy Kaufman.

Maistre Gracey
11-23-2004, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by BrentKohl
I have a written response from Member Services that 5 people would be allowed in a 1BR at all DVC resorts, and it doesn't matter what the age of the kids is. If anyone wants the text of that response, I'd be more than happy to include the full response to you in a private message or via e-mail.

Brent
In case others have missed Brent's earlier post in this thread, he has confirmed the "five adult rule".

I don't usually get involved in these threads, but yes, the "five adult rule" is the info that was told to me after the member update. The actual person who said it was not Judy Kaufman, but rather the manager guy from Member Services. Judy was there when he said it. Actually, he said they were just discussing that issue, then looked at Judy with a nod of the head.

Now, I have absolutely no idea of the legality on this, nor do I know how any member here could suppress them from allowing five adults in the room.

I am simply passing along the info, as it really doesn't matter to me either way... :cool:

MG

CaptainMidnight
11-23-2004, 09:10 PM
Thanks for the clarification Maistre Gracey.

DebbieB
11-23-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Dean
I'd agree there are just in case scenarios but I can't see the occupancy issue as one. It's written into the contract AND into the product understanding checklist. While DVC has thus far chosen to bend a little, if it's abuse, this will change. So ultimately, this will be on the members in all likely hood.

Timeshare vary and there is a difference between usage and exchanging. As a rule, timeshares are looked at from a private capacity standpoint. This means separate sleeping quarters with a direct access to a BR. This is definitely true from an exchange standpoint. And many timeshare are EXTREMELY RIGID ABOUT OCCUPANCY including one I know of that has you sign a contract at checkin specifically related to occupancy, and recourse, if you violate it.

Those timeshares that are extremely rigid, are they explicit about it in their sales presentations? Or do they mislead potential buyers just to sell their product?

Dean
11-23-2004, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by DebbieB
Those timeshares that are extremely rigid, are they explicit about it in their sales presentations? Or do they mislead potential buyers just to sell their product? Does it matter? I think most DVC members still don't understand that what a timeshare sales person says doesn't mean a hill of beans. If it's not written, it's not enforceable. I'd assume they didn't. I'd love for each and every member of this board to go to at least one HIGH pressure timeshare sales pitch then find out the real rules and issues, it would give them a whole new perspective on this topic.

Bottom line is what the guides say means nothing unto itself, they have no authority.

DebbieB
11-23-2004, 09:58 PM
I just wondered if other timeshares were upfront about their rules. If DVC decided to enforce this rule, even though legally they could, it could be ugly for them. They would not want the "disney name" tied in with sleezy timeshare sales tactics. That is why I doubt they will ever enforce this rule. The fact that they are putting it in writing now reinforces my belief. I know legally they could change it, but I don't think they will.

pplasky
11-24-2004, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by DebbieB
If DVC decided to enforce this rule, even though legally they could, it could be ugly for them. They would not want the "disney name" tied in with sleezy timeshare sales tactics. That is why I doubt they will ever enforce this rule. The fact that they are putting it in writing now reinforces my belief. I know legally they could change it, but I don't think they will.

This is exactly right. I never understood the big debate on this issue. If MS allows it, why do people get so tied up in the "legal aspect" of it. I have a family of 5. A 1BR is fine for us at this time and MS allows it. We should be helping people to judge what really is permitted, rather than the rare case that some day Disney might "legally" enforce the rule.

Doctor P
11-24-2004, 07:56 AM
I think one could argue that we all signed a contract that has the occupancy limitations in it. While some people would argue that it is none of one's business how many people one puts in a room, one could also argue that one always has the right to have the contract provisions enforced for whatever reason one chooses. It's a little like the covenants in the subdivision in which we live--they prohibit above ground pools, they prohibit televison antennas, and they prohibit fences higher than 4 feet. Since we all signed the same covenants, any owner has the right to have them enforced against any neighbor and should not be chastised for doing so. I'm not saying that is what should happen in this case, but, IMHO, any owner can force the contract to be enforced (and be strictly enforced).

Geoff_M
11-24-2004, 10:45 AM
My personal experience and take....

We're one of the 5-person families that was on-the-fence about DVC due to the "4 person rule". Our Guide, Randy Krueger, informed us in 2003 that MS would allow our family to book into a 1 BR unit and said he had directly double-checked with MS management. We bought. I booked our first stay with DVC for last June and I held my breath as I talked to MS. At first I tought I was in trouble when the MS rep said that the 1 BR "only sleeps four"... but once I acknowledged that I understood that no extra bedding would be provided, there was no problem and our 3rd child was added to the reservation with no problems.

I don't feel that DVC "owes me" a 5th person in a 1 BR unit. We read the paperwork and signed it. I understand that this is an "extra" that MS is allowing for now... and hopefully the future. If DVC were to announce that they would enforce the written rules to the letter, I would have no recourse other than to say "It was nice while it lasted!"

So why does the contract language still read four? My guess is that to alter the contract at this point would create a legal inequity between the older owners that held contracts that stated one limit and newer buyers that were given contracts with another limit. It also gives DVC the option that if they conclude that the addition of another person has a measureable impact on maintanance costs, utilities, etc. they can opt to enforce the policy if they so choose.

DebbieB
11-24-2004, 11:27 AM
If they changed the product understanding checklist to 5, it would imply that there would be bedding & supplies (towels) for 5. They don't even mention "plus a child under 3" in the product understanding checklist (who could sleep in the pack and play).

Dean
11-24-2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by DebbieB
I just wondered if other timeshares were upfront about their rules. If DVC decided to enforce this rule, even though legally they could, it could be ugly for them. They would not want the "disney name" tied in with sleezy timeshare sales tactics. That is why I doubt they will ever enforce this rule. The fact that they are putting it in writing now reinforces my belief. I know legally they could change it, but I don't think they will. Of course it varies with the timeshare company and the salesman and the answers are all over the place. It suffices to say that a certain percentages FLAT OUT LIE TO YOU intentionally. I've seen it myself on a number of occasions. While DVC guides usually try to be accurate, they are not always. Sometimes it's an honest misunderstanding but occasionally one is OVERZEALOUS so to speak. Actually to change it would require a vote of the membership as this is one of those issues that could materially affect the members. If they changed the product understanding checklist to 5, it would imply that there would be bedding & supplies (towels) for 5. They don't even mention "plus a child under 3" in the product understanding checklist (who could sleep in the pack and play). Actually the rules are quite specific and there is no rule that says a child under 3. So why does the contract language still read four? My guess is that to alter the contract at this point would create a legal inequity between the older owners that held contracts that stated one limit and newer buyers that were given contracts with another limit. It also gives DVC the option that if they conclude that the addition of another person has a measureable impact on maintanance costs, utilities, etc. they can opt to enforce the policy if they so choose. Actually to change it would require a vote of the membership as this is one of those issues that could materially affect the members. But DVC members should know that just because some one answered an email or a timeshare sales person said something, does not make it accurate or "legal". I'll believe it's a new rule when I see it in writing on the website, VM or other official paperwork. Until then it's simply just another case of Disney inconsistency.

Deb & Bill
11-24-2004, 09:11 PM
I guess I get interested in them because of the big investment my family has made in DVC. Roughly $40K for our points, plus the monthly dues. I tend to be a rule follower, that there is a reason for some rules and don't pick and choose the ones I will follow. I think it bothers me when some people don't think they need to follow the rules and can do what they choose or whatever suites their needs. Forget about others. Just my opinion.

CaptainMidnight
11-24-2004, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by pplasky
This is exactly right. I never understood the big debate on this issue. If MS allows it, why do people get so tied up in the "legal aspect" of it. I have a family of 5. A 1BR is fine for us at this time and MS allows it. We should be helping people to judge what really is permitted, rather than the rare case that some day Disney might "legally" enforce the rule.
I'd have to agree with you. Some staunch supporters of strict contract interpretation do so because it has no impact on thier family or size of unit. We have 3 small boys, and a one bedroom suits us just fine. If we did get a second bedroom, we wouln't use it, we'd have to close it off unused.

I also do not think the analogy of this being similar to neighborhood building restrictions on above ground pools that would become a permanent part of the neighborhood. That is an apples and oranges comparison in my book.

CaptainMidnight
11-24-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Doctor P
....any owner has the right to have them enforced against any neighbor and should not be chastised for doing so. I'm not saying that is what should happen in this case, but, IMHO, any owner can force the contract to be enforced (and be strictly enforced).
Naaahhh........ we agreed to have the DVC management company and Board govern those decisions as a part of the documents we signed. People can get excessively demanding about many things and behaviors they wish others to display, that doesn't make them right, or mean that the Board has to direct the DVC management to enforce them. As I said previously, there are many, many cover your behind clauses in the contract. Certainly DVC never had any intention of exercising every one of them. It is really not reasonble to make that assumption. MS decides as we pay them to do.

I really think they make a great decision saying 5 in a one bedroom is OK.

laceemouse
11-24-2004, 09:49 PM
While I tend to be a "rule follower" too, I am more perplexed by these threads because folks will be so UNCOMFORTABLE, IMO, to save a few points! I know very well how expensive DVC is, we always have to get a 2 bedroom and generally travel when school is out, and we do NOT have mega points. But for us, we enjoy the luxury of DVC. I can't see that waiting in line for the bathroom, sleeping with kids in the bed, and stepping over people sleeping on the floor could be considered a vacation. This is just my opinion, but I would rather have less trips and really be able to relax and enjoy them....Lacee

mom2rb
11-24-2004, 09:56 PM
I am glad they are now saying 5 is ok. We only have two boys and they are small. When they stay at Grandma's house they sleep with her, on her pull out couch. It is fun for them. This trip we are bringing my MIL and I booked a one bedroom. I also listed everyone on the reservation. I know that soon I will have to get a two bedroom even for just my family, my boys will get big. I even bought enough points to do that in the future. But for this trip I felt a one bedroom was perfect for us.

NMW
11-25-2004, 08:08 AM
I too find it amazing that a few people get so worked up about this issue. I do think the person that said it's the same people over and over again is correct. We know several DVC families (not DIS board) who have been putting 5 in a 1 BR for years. When I told some of them how angry some DIS board members got at this issue and how long the threads got, they really thought it was very funny. They didn't even realize this was an "issue". :p

:earsboy: :earsgirl: pirate: pirate: princess:

Dean
11-25-2004, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by CaptainMidnight
I'd have to agree with you. Some staunch supporters of strict contract interpretation do so because it has no impact on thier family or size of unit. We have 3 small boys, and a one bedroom suits us just fine. If we did get a second bedroom, we wouln't use it, we'd have to close it off unused. We get a 2 BR for four because we have teens of different gender. So those without 5 people many times have to make the same decisions. But I'd say that those with a vested interest (room stuffers they were called in a previous thread) are far less objective than the rest. It's essentially the "everyone else is driving as fast or faster than I am" defense. There's no question that until DVC enforces it consistently, it is a technical discussion. But I for one don't feel it'd be at all difficult to get DVC to enforce the issue. At the risk of making a few people mad at me, want to put a wager on it. That's the only way this argument is going to end and it could end badly for some people.

idratherbeinwdw
11-25-2004, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by laceemouse
While I tend to be a "rule follower" too, I am more perplexed by these threads because folks will be so UNCOMFORTABLE, IMO, to save a few points! I know very well how expensive DVC is, we always have to get a 2 bedroom and generally travel when school is out, and we do NOT have mega points. But for us, we enjoy the luxury of DVC. I can't see that waiting in line for the bathroom, sleeping with kids in the bed, and stepping over people sleeping on the floor could be considered a vacation. This is just my opinion, but I would rather have less trips and really be able to relax and enjoy them....Lacee

You're entitled to your opinion, but when you say as a statement "Folks will be so uncomfortable to save a few points" that makes ME uncomfortable. What's uncomfortable to you is not uncomfortable for all.

It reminds me of all the people who say to me "What, you're going to WDW AGAIN?". Just because they wouldn't do it they assume anyone else who does is somehow wrong.

By the way I am one who likes to spread out, when I go with both my teenager daughters we stay in a 2 bedroom so everyone has their own space. I have never gone over occupancy limits. But if another family is fine putting 5 in a 1BR I don't judge their comfort level. To each his or her own.

DVCcollector
11-25-2004, 03:18 PM
Yes they could enforce it but unless they are coming around at night to do a head count there is truly no way of stopping it. What if you have friends that come to visit and you have a few drinks would you rather them drive after drinking or spend the night even though it puts you over the limit. These are types of situations that may happen and with a family of 5 myself I use a studio currewntly while my youngest are still under 5 once they get a little older I will use a 1 bedroom all the time.

CaptainMidnight
11-25-2004, 08:08 PM
:confused3

Dean
11-25-2004, 08:16 PM
have no interest in being involved in a wager with you. I also have no interest in seeing you participate in any action your alluding to or potentially threatening with this veiled comment.
Actually no threat. Just trying to point out that that's the only way this will end, if someone pushes it. If I had interest in that end, I would have inquired long ago as I have a friend who works in that office her in Tallahassee.

CaptainMidnight
11-25-2004, 09:24 PM
:)

laceemouse
11-25-2004, 10:29 PM
Point well taken....ITA:)

rinkwide
11-26-2004, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by Dean
...At the risk of making a few people mad at me, want to put a wager on it. That's the only way this argument is going to end and it could end badly for some people.
Oh, that's rich.

Dean
11-26-2004, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by rinkwide
Oh, that's rich. lighten up, it was merely a shock tactic to get people to realize it's a fragile "perk". One that could easily be taken away.

BostonDisneyKid
11-26-2004, 07:00 AM
My $0.02 is that I find the occupancy thread entertaining at a minimum and often comedic. I do not, nor do I care to, understand why people feel so strongly on this issue (or the whole 'taking kids out of school to vacation' issue and other non-issue-issues (IMO)) but I do find it amusing to read.

I do wonder though, how many families have 5 or 6 people in a studio, reuse the mugs from 3 trips ago, have taken their kids out of school for the duration of the vacation and then go pool hoping at SAB while staying at OKW...

NMW
11-26-2004, 07:18 AM
I do wonder though, how many families have 5 or 6 people in a studio, reuse the mugs from 3 trips ago, have taken their kids out of school for the duration of the vacation and then go pool hoping at SAB while staying at OKW... [/B][/QUOTE]


Very Funny :teeth:


:earsboy: :earsgirl: pirate: pirate: princess:

jarestel
11-26-2004, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Dean
Actually no threat. Just trying to point out that that's the only way this will end, if someone pushes it. If I had interest in that end, I would have inquired long ago as I have a friend who works in that office her in Tallahassee.

Sorry Dean. With all of the problems facing Florida from the hurricanes, I can't imagine your friends in high places would do any more than laugh at the suggestion that Tallahassee needs to get right on this DVC occupancy thing, for the sake of free and decent people everywhere.

kweaver
11-26-2004, 11:53 AM
I realize that this whole issue has been debated to death. It is almost beyond my imagination that having 5 in a 1BR bothers a very select group people so much.

I understand that rules are rules. However, if DVC has decided not to enforce this rule...or even go beyond that and state aloud during a member update that they are allowing 5 people in a 1BR, then so be it. It's their decision...not ours. Good for them for trying to make their members happy (without causing themselves harm). We all understand what we signed...and if DVC changes their mind later, no one here has any room to complain.

Dean, this issue obviously bothers you a lot. I have no idea why...but it does. I have a lot of respect for you, even though I don't share some of your opinions or beliefs about the timeshare industry. However, no one likes or needs threats...name dropping...or power plays. You already went to DVC about this (and a few other issues) a while ago. If I remember correctly, you came back and (in my opinion) bragged about your conversation...basically stating that that ability to have five in a 1BR was soon going by the wayside. Obviously, this has not happened. In fact, from what we are hearing from MS and the DVC folks at the member meetings, it looks like the opposite decision was made to allow it. (Edited to say: I would like to see it in writing...but as long as MS is allowing 5 on a reservation...that's good enough for me.)

You are a smart guy. Everyone here knows your feelings about this issue. You don't need to stoop to shock tactics to make a point. Think about it. If you truly feel that that this issue is causing you distress while trying to use your DVC points, then stop beating around the bush and call your friend in Tallahassee. If not, then let's just drop it and let everyone enjoy DVC the way they feel is right for them.

Dean
11-27-2004, 11:50 AM
I realize that this whole issue has been debated to death. It is almost beyond my imagination that having 5 in a 1BR bothers a very select group people so much.

I understand that rules are rules. However, if DVC has decided not to enforce this rule...or even go beyond that and state aloud during a member update that they are allowing 5 people in a 1BR, then so be it. It's their decision...not ours. Good for them for trying to make their members happy (without causing themselves harm). We all understand what we signed...and if DVC changes their mind later, no one here has any room to complain.

Dean, this issue obviously bothers you a lot. I have no idea why...but it does. I have a lot of respect for you, even though I don't share some of your opinions or beliefs about the timeshare industry. However, no one likes or needs threats...name dropping...or power plays. You already went to DVC about this (and a few other issues) a while ago. If I remember correctly, you came back and (in my opinion) bragged about your conversation...basically stating that that ability to have five in a 1BR was soon going by the wayside. Obviously, this has not happened. In fact, from what we are hearing from MS and the DVC folks at the member meetings, it looks like the opposite decision was made to allow it. (Edited to say: I would like to see it in writing...but as long as MS is allowing 5 on a reservation...that's good enough for me.)

You are a smart guy. Everyone here knows your feelings about this issue. You don't need to stoop to shock tactics to make a point. Think about it. If you truly feel that that this issue is causing you distress while trying to use your DVC points, then stop beating around the bush and call your friend in Tallahassee. If not, then let's just drop it and let everyone enjoy DVC the way they feel is right for them.Katie, it actually doesn't bother me much at all. I have two competing issues. One is what the rules say and I'm a "rule follower" and feel others should be as well. Actually an extra person here and there doesn't really bother me, other than it's against the official rules. As for the other issues, it would be unethical of me to ask my friend "to help" in this situation. If it were something I felt strongly enough to pursue, I'd just call and make a formal complaint, as anyone else would. To me this is an academic discussion more than anything else. A question of reading the rules, discussing them and determining who's more correct. I was really only pointing out that this is a discussion that will only end when one of two things happens. When DVC publishes a written rule expanding the occupancy, and I mean a real one, not some email from MS saying it's OK. Or if they stop taking reservations for over the limit. Many will still violate the rules, as they do in many situations (pets, etc). But to be clear, I won't have sympathy for the "but my guide said" stance, if it doses change.

As for the previous thread, you should go back and reread my posts. I simply casually mentioned it to ask for information while I was discussing other issues anyway. I didn't ask for any action and I'm sorry you feel I was bragging about it, that wasn't my intention.

CaptainMidnight
11-27-2004, 06:35 PM
...It is almost beyond my imagination that having 5 in a 1BR bothers a very select group people so much.....

....Dean, this issue obviously bothers you a lot. I have no idea why...but it does.....

....(Edited to say: I would like to see it in writing...but as long as MS is allowing 5 on a reservation...that's good enough for me.)...

...Everyone here knows your feelings about this issue....
kweaver, I think you statements are dead on. I have to agree, I don't know why it bothers a very select group so much, it seems absurd. We hire MS and the board of directors to make these decisions, and I feel they are making them wisely, and in the majority's best interest, with almost no impact whatsoever on those who do not agree, or will not be using the 5 in a one bedroom guideline. It is strange.

I've said several times, given our ages of our 3 young children, we would not even use the second bedroom of a two bedroom unit, it would go completely unused, which is pretty silly to advocate. I also do not think DVC is selling Vero Beach in the near future as is also provided for in the documents we signed, along with many other cover your tail clauses Disney included, too many to list here.

5 in a one bedroom with no additional bedding provided is a reasonable guideline for DVC and MS to establish. This is part of the service quality I purchased. Claiming every rule has to be followed to the letter is a recipe for disaster and complete service failure. Rules can never keep pace with the needs of the customers, and this is not consistent with best practice organizations whom I regularly survey.

I have strong feelings on this issue because it directly affects me since I have 3 small children and recognize that with our current kds ages, the one bedroom accomodation makes the most sense for us. We purchased plenty of points so that as our family's needs change and the kids get older, we can graduate to the two bedroom accomodation. :thewave:

I also recognize what service quality means.

DebbieB
11-27-2004, 07:07 PM
I'm sure the fact that they announced this at a member update and also put it in writing in an e-mail, that they had to have passed it by their legal department. They know it's a hot issue, I would think they would have reviewed the possible legal consequences.

tinkerbee
11-28-2004, 12:00 PM
I think that it a good thing to allow 5 people in a one bedroom. Some people were "forced" to get a two bedroom for that 5th person when they didn't really need it in the case that they had smaller children.

That now leaves a studio open (if its a lock off) for maybe 4 more people to stay. So instead of 5 people Disney now has 9 people in the same amount of space. More people more MONEY!!

DrTomorrow
11-28-2004, 01:11 PM
[...] That now leaves a studio open (if its a lock off) for maybe 4 more people to stay. So instead of 5 people Disney now has 9 people in the same amount of space. More people more MONEY!!

Bwahahahahaha.

:rotfl: :rolleyes1 :rotfl:

KristiKelly
11-28-2004, 03:15 PM
I don't really get into the occupancy debate either. I am now pregnant with #3. do I see all of us squeezing into a studio, probably not (unless I only have a few points left & gotta fulfill a little fix:rolleyes: ). However, will we do a 1 bedroom, yep for a few years anyway, I can't afford more points for a 2 bedroom right now. I have known people to squeeze 2 adults & 3 kids (ages 4-8) into a room at the All Star, now to that I say "to each it's own" I can't imagine. My kids love aerobeds & I would probably take a twin for them to take turns on. Would we be cramped? I don't think so. How could 5 people be more cramped in a 1 bedroom than 4 people in a regular hotel room? I'm sure I'll get flamed but that's okay, our guide told us that 5 could work in a 1 bedroom.

wisbucky
11-28-2004, 03:46 PM
I don't really get into the occupancy debate either. I am now pregnant with #3. do I see all of us squeezing into a studio, probably not (unless I only have a few points left & gotta fulfill a little fix:rolleyes: ). However, will we do a 1 bedroom, yep for a few years anyway, I can't afford more points for a 2 bedroom right now. I have known people to squeeze 2 adults & 3 kids (ages 4-8) into a room at the All Star, now to that I say "to each it's own" I can't imagine. My kids love aerobeds & I would probably take a twin for them to take turns on. Would we be cramped? I don't think so. How could 5 people be more cramped in a 1 bedroom than 4 people in a regular hotel room? I'm sure I'll get flamed but that's okay, our guide told us that 5 could work in a 1 bedroom.

As much as I am a rule follower I do feel for families with many children. I can certainly see how folks with children would try to occupy a stuido filling it with 5 or 6 people. After all raising children costs money let alone bringing them all to Disney. No flames from me KristiKelly.

Disney Doll
11-28-2004, 03:47 PM
5 works fine in a 1BR as long as one of them is under age 3 and sleeps in a pack & play.

I agree with not wanting to be tripping over folks on my way to the bathroom etc by having an excessive # of people in a unit. And that is my opinion, and pertains to only how I feel. If other folks choose to put 7 or 8 people in a 1BR with air mattresses all over the place, I couldnt care less as long as I am not one of the people staying in that unit with them!

Human nature being what it is, there are always those who think the rules don't apply to them. I worry about my own behavior and let others worry about theirs.

NMW
11-28-2004, 05:04 PM
I think that it a good thing to allow 5 people in a one bedroom. Some people were "forced" to get a two bedroom for that 5th person when they didn't really need it in the case that they had smaller children.

That now leaves a studio open (if its a lock off) for maybe 4 more people to stay. So instead of 5 people Disney now has 9 people in the same amount of space. More people more MONEY!!


I never even thought of that. Good Point. This new "policy" probably benefits Disney in many ways. Happier members, more people in the resorts spending more money. Of course, there's probably still those 4 or 5 DVC members unhappy with someone breaking the "official rules" but, I don't think that's the majority of the DVC. :earboy2:

CaptainMidnight
11-28-2004, 05:07 PM
...If I were a psychologist I would write a grant proposal and come up with some theory for why saying.....
:crazy:
I think if you were a psychologist or behavioral health professional you really wouldn't have to look to hard to see what some of psychological underpinnings of these aurguments are. Most of it is pretty obvious. Occupancy threads are not the only threads where these "underpinnings" come through. You could write up your psychological results in a weekend, and have the rest of the grant money to fritter away.....

I confess, 5 in a one bedroom directly affects my family and our vacation plans, we have three small children. We do not put 5 in a one bedroom just to save money or be 'cheap', it is an issue of safety, our children are not old enough for us to feel comfortable leaving them in a separate bedroom in a travel situation with a balcony directly attached to the room. It would not be comfortable for us to do so at our kids young age. Technically, one is still under three. Certainly as they get older we will spread out into a two bedroom unit. Still, I shouldn't fall for the bait and get suckered into the occupancy discussion as often as I do by the oppposition (which it really has almost no tangible effect on).

The results of The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) instrument for some of the key posters in these discussions are rather predictable, grant or no grant. Just my $0.02.

NMW
11-28-2004, 05:29 PM
It's always the SAME PEOPLE complaining about 5 in a 1 bedroom. I've only been reading these boards for 9 months and I can tell you that! :) Why anyone would care that I have my 3 year old in bed with us and my two little boys on the sofa bed, I'll never understand. I actually think people are upset that MS is now upfront about allowing it. It baffles me, but it is fun to read. :earboy2:

:earsboy: :earsgirl: pirate: pirate: princess:

DebbieB
11-28-2004, 05:53 PM
I too find it amazing that a few people get so worked up about this issue. I do think the person that said it's the same people over and over again is correct. We know several DVC families (not DIS board) who have been putting 5 in a 1 BR for years. When I told some of them how angry some DIS board members got at this issue and how long the threads got, they really thought it was very funny. They didn't even realize this was an "issue". :p

:earsboy: :earsgirl: pirate: pirate: princess:

The ironic part is DVC doesn't see it as an issue either.

Disney Doll
11-28-2004, 06:32 PM
MMax is 5 people if one of them is under the age of 3 and can sleep in the pack & play.

Doctor P
11-28-2004, 07:32 PM
Obviously DVC DOES see it as an issue if they still see fit to continue to put it in the product understanding check list (and not just in the documents themselves).

CaptainMidnight
11-29-2004, 06:04 PM
Obviously DVC DOES see it as an issue if they still see fit to continue to put it in the product understanding check list (and not just in the documents themselves).
I do not see that they need to change this process, there are $$ attached to changes. MS is willing to allow some flexibility to this and is standardizing that to say 5 in a one bedroom is OK. That takes care of the issue as far as I can see. It doesn't seem necessary to go through dramatic document language changes because of the flexibility they are offering. Besides, I think DVC always intended to provide that flexibility and that's why guides have been telling 5 in a one bedroom was OK for a long time.

CRSNDSNY
11-29-2004, 06:40 PM
........
I do wonder though, how many families have 5 or 6 people in a studio, reuse the mugs from 3 trips ago, have taken their kids out of school for the duration of the vacation and then go pool hoping at SAB while staying at OKW...
I reuse my mugs. Am I going to be arrested? LOL

OneMoreTry
11-30-2004, 12:33 PM
I think the occupancy issue is analogous to speed limits.

Going above the speed limit increases the risk of harming others around you. Yet it's done all the time. And the police allow it, usually up to 10mph above the posted speed. (The exact amount is not the point, so don't harp on that.) And the vast majority of the population have no problem accepting it's OK to speed a little.

To those of you who are vehemently against any bending of occupancy rules: Do you ever fudge on the speed limit? If so, how do you rationalize when the potential harm of that to others is much more obvious than that of squeezing an extra person into a room?

FredS
11-30-2004, 02:44 PM
Same as speeding? Too dangerous to have a larger unit? "Everyone knows" that Disney doesn't care? Anyone who does care has major personality disorder?

I am with those who choose to follow the rules because 1)it is a rule, and seems perfectly reasonable to me, and 2)I don't want my children's memories of Disney to be like they are hillbillies or refugees, with people sleeping on the floor and too many sharing one little bathroom.

To each his own, I guess?

tinkerbee
11-30-2004, 04:23 PM
Quote:by FredS{like they are hillbillies or refugees, with people sleeping on the floor and too many sharing one little bathroom.}

My fiancee grew up in a house with 8 people in 5 bedrooms and 1 bathroom I guess that makes him a hillbillie.
:crowded:

And I bet that refugees would be happy to have what comes in a one bedroom.
Get real!!!

DrTomorrow
11-30-2004, 06:16 PM
[...] And I bet that refugees would be happy to have what comes in a one bedroom.
Get real!!! Actually, a recent poll showed that 74.9% of all refugees thought that 5 occupants over the age of 3 in a 1BR Villa qualified as 'overcrowding'. Surprising, no?

idratherbeinwdw
11-30-2004, 07:09 PM
Same as speeding? Too dangerous to have a larger unit? "Everyone knows" that Disney doesn't care? Anyone who does care has major personality disorder?

I am with those who choose to follow the rules because 1)it is a rule, and seems perfectly reasonable to me, and 2)I don't want my children's memories of Disney to be like they are hillbillies or refugees, with people sleeping on the floor and too many sharing one little bathroom.

To each his own, I guess?

What? You don't make moonshine in the bathtub? Gee, next thing you'll be telling me you don't even take the critters to the ce-ment pond at your resort.

dallastxcpa
11-30-2004, 07:28 PM
What? You don't make moonshine in the bathtub? Gee, next thing you'll be telling me you don't even take the critters to the ce-ment pond at your resort.

You know I am from Texas and I find that Ohhh so funny..... Thanks for the humor.

:scratchin Of course if your going to make moonshine in the bathtub you have to get the one bedroom because those little studio tubs would never make enough to last you a whole week.

CaptainMidnight
11-30-2004, 09:02 PM
To each his own, I guess?
Exactly!!! To each his own.

No need to direct disparaging comments toward those taking advantage of the rules MS establishes given thier legal interpretation of the contract in light of, and balanced with taking care of their customer's needs. There are many books on Disney management methods if you'd like to learn more. But I've never seen any references in those books of how directing culturally disparaging comments to individuals with Appalachian mountain heritage is appropriate, or in any way supports a discussion position.

With proud heritage in West Virginia, where I've met some of the most genuine, forthright and honorable people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting.

idratherbeinwdw
11-30-2004, 09:22 PM
You know I am from Texas and I find that Ohhh so funny..... Thanks for the humor.

:scratchin Of course if your going to make moonshine in the bathtub you have to get the one bedroom because those little studio tubs would never make enough to last you a whole week.

LOL, naturally, goes without saying!

By the way, I'm glad you took this in the spirit I intended. I absolutely agree with Captain Midnight, there is no place on these boards (or in life for that matter!) to judge other people based on their heritage.

And by the way Fred S, why is the speeding analogy so faulty? It IS true that it's more dangerous to speed than to put 5 in a one bedroom. So if anyone being all righteous about "following rules" speeds they are being a hypocrite.

OneMoreTry
11-30-2004, 09:29 PM
I meant this as a meta-occupancy thread. It is becoming an occupancy thread.

I want to say something about Appalachian culture -- from the viewpoint of someone who grew up in S Fla and has lived in many places from there to Washington state.

I live in the Appalachians now. The culture is different from what I'm used to in many ways. The culture CAN be somewhat closed at times. But the people are just like you and me. They are just as intelligent. Just as talented -- maybe more so. And they have done something most of America hasn't. They have preserved a culture. How? They are willing to sacrifice the rat race, the most expensive cars, the biggest houses with the best fixtures. They sacrifice for family and principles. For their values. They believe it's worth squeezing into a smaller space. Even giving up trips to WDW.

And that's what we haven't the guts to do.

I would rather have kids that are hillbillies than snobs. But on the other hand I want kids that respect rules and respect others. So I can say I'm on both sides of the issue. I would have a hard time exceeding the limit. but I don't judge those that do.

I hope this doesn't offend anyone. (If it does there's room in my mailbox.)

rigsby25
11-30-2004, 09:43 PM
I just purchased and haven't ever stayed as a DVC member yet. This is for the "rules" people. When we went through the SSR presentation in May 04, probably because my daughter's friend was with us and we numbered 5, the person doing the selling said it was perfectly o.k. to bring an airbed and sleep 5 in a studio. I guess the "rules" go out the window if they are trying to make a sale and become "guidelines".

CaptainMidnight
11-30-2004, 09:54 PM
I guess the "rules" go out the window if they are trying to make a sale and become "guidelines".
Actually, I don't think that is what is happenning at all with the discussion you cite. I think guides have always known and been informed by DVC management that MS would allow 5 in a one bedroom without extra bedding, and they are simply communicating that to potential purchasers.

This perspective that is always thrown up by so called "rules" people (or selective rules people, since they violate many other rules) is that the DVC sales persons are constantly lying. Personally, I don't see that as a valid assessment when it comes to the issue of occupancy.

There are lots of rules that I try to follow, some listed in my signature. But I don't see it as my role to try to force others to follow rules that don't affect me, or cause me harm. I certainly don't see it as my role to dictate vacation sleeping arrangements to others that are more restrictive than MS allows.

OneMoreTry, nicely said. Thank you for sharing.

"To each his own..." Enjoy your vacation.

KristiKelly
12-01-2004, 07:26 AM
I can't help but wonder why 5 in a 1 bedroom is overcrowded, but 5 in a room at Port Orleans with a trundle bed that has to squeeze somewhere is not.

Our DVC guide said it's okay, so in my mind - case closed.

NMW
12-01-2004, 10:46 AM
We have put five in a BCR room, POLY room and BWI room. We have never done the POR w/ a trundle option but I imagine that's really small. Why does not one person ever say that these rooms are too small for 5? IMO a 1 bedroom is quite large compared to any of these options. I don't think the overcrowed arguement holds water. As for comparing a couple and three young children in a 1 bedroom villa to refugees that's just, well, insane. Are you serious? Would you say 2 adults and 3 kids in a POLY room are like refugees because they have only 1 bathroom? Why would a 1 BR villa at a DVC resort be any different? I don't know anything about hillbillies being from the NorthEast, but I have seen many refugees on the news and they do not look like a family, ANY family, on a Disney vacation.
BTW, I also enjoyed the "Quiet Pools:with or without children" thread. Some of those people got REALLY mad. Those are the best threads to read! :earboy2:

:earsboy: :earsgirl: pirate: pirate: princess:

jarestel
12-01-2004, 02:32 PM
I am with those who choose to follow the rules because 1)it is a rule, and seems perfectly reasonable to me, and 2)I don't want my children's memories of Disney to be like they are hillbillies or refugees, with people sleeping on the floor and too many sharing one little bathroom.

To each his own, I guess?

FredS, I get a little nervous when the old "rule-follower" argument gets trotted out. There are hundreds of rules "most" people break whenever it's convenient for them to do so. For example: 13 items in the 12 item line ( hey, it's only one over the limit ), and as you indicated driving one or 100 hundred miles over the speed limit is, nevertheless, "breaking the rules". Or how about talking in libraries or speeding up when a light turns yellow so one can hurtle through the light as it changes to red? Ever call in sick to work when you felt fine? Or accidentally bring a dozen or so pens and notebooks home from work? I'm sure you can think of many more examples, but the point is unless one is an absolute "rule-follower" in all situations, it's kind of hypocritical to denigrate others who may not be as enlightened. And come to think of it, if one was so enlightened as to follow all of the rules all of the time, it would be difficult to believe they would feel compelled to pass judgement on the rest of us mere mortals.

But bottom line is this: I have a finite number of points I can use each year at WDW. I COULD book a 2-BR for my trip with my wife and 3 grandchildren ( which would make you happy ), or I could book a 1-BR and have points left over for another trip later in the year ( which would make me happy ). Now who do you think I want to make happy? I'm afraid that as long as MS keeps taking my ressies for 5 in the 1-BR, I'll keep making them so Jed, Granny, Elly, Jethro, and Pearl can get that extra trip.

greenban
12-01-2004, 02:43 PM
We have put five in a BCR room, POLY room and BWI room. We have never done the POR w/ a trundle option but I imagine that's really small. Why does not one person ever say that these rooms are too small for 5? IMO a 1 bedroom is quite large compared to any of these options. I don't think the overcrowed arguement holds water. As for comparing a couple and three young children in a 1 bedroom villa to refugees that's just, well, insane. Are you serious? Would you say 2 adults and 3 kids in a POLY room are like refugees because they have only 1 bathroom? Why would a 1 BR villa at a DVC resort be any different? I don't know anything about hillbillies being from the NorthEast, but I have seen many refugees on the news and they do not look like a family, ANY family, on a Disney vacation.
BTW, I also enjoyed the "Quiet Pools:with or without children" thread. Some of those people got REALLY mad. Those are the best threads to read! :earboy2:

:earsboy: :earsgirl: pirate: pirate: princess:

I did the POR 5-in-a-room, and I'm a POOH sized person, who got to sleep on the trundle bed! (I have a bad back and could not tolerate the beds in POR)

Yes, the room was way too small! It was tight with four, and painfully cramped with 5! We specifically booked a '5' in-a-room at reservation time.

Of course my last Disney hotel was the Grand Californian, and the one before was the Grand Floridian, so I was rather disappointed with this 'moderate' resort, but I couldn't afford a GF suite!

Never, ever again will I do 5 in POR, but I will try 5 in a studio (once) and 1 Bedroom to see if I need a 2 bedroom everytime we come home!

tinkerbee
12-01-2004, 02:44 PM
I can't help but wonder why 5 in a 1 bedroom is overcrowded, but 5 in a room at Port Orleans with a trundle bed that has to squeeze somewhere is not.

Our DVC guide said it's okay, so in my mind - case closed.


Great Point.

idratherbeinwdw
12-01-2004, 03:18 PM
<snip>
But bottom line is this: I have a finite number of points I can use each year at WDW. I COULD book a 2-BR for my trip with my wife and 3 grandchildren ( which would make you happy ), or I could book a 1-BR and have points left over for another trip later in the year ( which would make me happy ). Now who do you think I want to make happy? I'm afraid that as long as MS keeps taking my ressies for 5 in the 1-BR, I'll keep making them so Jed, Granny, Elly, Jethro, and Pearl can get that extra trip.

This was so funny and yet made the point incredibly well.

BTW I hope y'all are gonna drive to WDW in that cool truck with Granny in the rocking chair.
:cool1: :daisy:

Dean
12-01-2004, 08:05 PM
I can't help but wonder why 5 in a 1 bedroom is overcrowded, but 5 in a room at Port Orleans with a trundle bed that has to squeeze somewhere is not.

Our DVC guide said it's okay, so in my mind - case closed.The guides have no real power nor does them saying it make it enforceable or contractual. It's much like my teens when they say "but everyone is doing it". But until DVC decides to enforce it, the argument would be with DVC and not a member who is trying to be "reasonable".

DisneyDVClover
12-04-2004, 03:12 PM
Ok don't shoot the newbie but why is this occupancy such a tough topic? We have 5 in our family and use a studio or a 1 bedroom mind you we have young children 8 and under. I look at it this way if Disney has a problem with it then they should say so and not allow it when booking we always have our entire family named on our res and have not been denied any accomodation yet. If people wish to do this on THEIR vacation so be if Disney doesn't like it they should enforce the rules in place in the contract it isn't for any of us to whine and cry about IMHO.

DrTomorrow
12-04-2004, 03:24 PM
[...] if Disney doesn't like it they should enforce the rules in place in the contract it isn't for any of us to whine and cry about IMHO. However, it is important for folks to be aware that there are such rules in the contract and that DVC may enforce them any time they wish. Take a look at the rumor/fact that the new MYW tickets will be biometric. If this is true, it is an example of a rule (non-transferability of tickets) that Disney didn't enforce for years, but will now enforce with a vengance, spending $$$ to revamp their ticket offerings and installing more biometric admission booths. [IMHO, this is one of the major points Dean has been making about this issue.]

DisneyDVClover
12-04-2004, 04:19 PM
Point taken and in all honesty if they do start to enforce the occupancy rules we will abide we have never given away or sold hoppers with leftover days as we know we are always going to make another trek to the World so why give away something we will use. I guess it is ultimaletly up to Disney to decide if they will enforce the rule or change the rule and we have only to abide by it at that time or continue to use the rule leaniancy as it is now.

Sammie
12-04-2004, 09:28 PM
However, it is important for folks to be aware that there are such rules in the contract and that DVC may enforce them any time they wish. Take a look at the rumor/fact that the new MYW tickets will be biometric. If this is true, it is an example of a rule (non-transferability of tickets) that Disney didn't enforce for years, but will now enforce with a vengance, spending $$$ to revamp their ticket offerings and installing more biometric admission booths. [IMHO, this is one of the major points Dean has been making about this issue.]

This is true and I have been told by friends that work for Disney that the changes in Early Entry and the Late Night Extra 3 hours will require any Disney resort guest wanting to remain to have a vaild resort ID including children except those under 3. So basically if you have more in your room than you have ID for then you will not get a wristband for the extra hours for that person.

It's basically a passive way to enforce occupancy.

jarestel
12-05-2004, 07:55 AM
This is true and I have been told by friends that work for Disney that the changes in Early Entry and the Late Night Extra 3 hours will require any Disney resort guest wanting to remain to have a vaild resort ID including children except those under 3. So basically if you have more in your room than you have ID for then you will not get a wristband for the extra hours for that person.

It's basically a passive way to enforce occupancy.

True enough if you're "sneaking" extra people into the room. However, anyone listed on the reservation will get resort IDs and Disney will be the one deciding whether occupancy rules have been "violated" or not.

pplasky
12-05-2004, 05:01 PM
This is true and I have been told by friends that work for Disney that the changes in Early Entry and the Late Night Extra 3 hours will require any Disney resort guest wanting to remain to have a vaild resort ID including children except those under 3. So basically if you have more in your room than you have ID for then you will not get a wristband for the extra hours for that person.

It's basically a passive way to enforce occupancy.

Disney has checked our ids for early entry already. We have had 5 in a room, and all of us had id's since we are all on the reservation.

Sammie
12-05-2004, 05:27 PM
True enough if you're "sneaking" extra people into the room. However, anyone listed on the reservation will get resort IDs and Disney will be the one deciding whether occupancy rules have been "violated" or not.


Exactly as it should be. My point is some have posted they sneak people into the room by not adding them to the reservation. These will not have ID and will not be able to enjoy the perks associated with that ID.

If Disney allows for the extra ID's its fine by me.

CaptainMidnight
12-05-2004, 09:24 PM
The guides have no real power nor does them saying it make it enforceable or contractual.
I think guides are working well within the directions management has been giving them concerning room capacity. Discounting guides doesn't address the issue.

... It's much like my teens when they say "but everyone is doing it".
I'm always surprised at the off base analogies that are attempted to be applied to 5 in a one bedroom occupancy discussions. One poster said DVC room capacity was like the cruise ship industry, but I guess they forgot the parts about unlimited meals one has on a cruise ship, table seating requirements at those meals and the need to pack food stores prior to the ship's departure, or legal lifejacket requirements and lifeboat capacity requirements. Seems like I noticed a difference in the size of the cruise ship pools and DVC resort pool sizes, but perhaps thats just me. The analogy seemed completely and totally off base to any part fo the discussion regarding 5 in a onebedroom at DVC, and yet is was presented in such a factual manner. How the phrase "but everyone is doing it" is suppose to apply when MS is saying they are OK with 5 in a one bedroom is a mystery.

Perhaps I just need to learn more about analogies, and maybe study some poker strategy to learn more about "bluffing".

5 in a one bedroom is OK with MS, a story with a happy ending. :thewave:

Sammie
12-05-2004, 11:11 PM
FredS, I get a little nervous when the old "rule-follower" argument gets trotted out. There are hundreds of rules "most" people break whenever it's convenient for them to do so. For example: 13 items in the 12 item line ( hey, it's only one over the limit ), and as you indicated driving one or 100 hundred miles over the speed limit is, nevertheless, "breaking the rules". Or how about talking in libraries or speeding up when a light turns yellow so one can hurtle through the light as it changes to red? Ever call in sick to work when you felt fine? Or accidentally bring a dozen or so pens and notebooks home from work? I'm sure you can think of many more examples, but the point is unless one is an absolute "rule-follower" in all situations, it's kind of hypocritical to denigrate others who may not be as enlightened. And come to think of it, if one was so enlightened as to follow all of the rules all of the time, it would be difficult to believe they would feel compelled to pass judgement on the rest of us mere mortals.

But bottom line is this: I have a finite number of points I can use each year at WDW. I COULD book a 2-BR for my trip with my wife and 3 grandchildren ( which would make you happy ), or I could book a 1-BR and have points left over for another trip later in the year ( which would make me happy ). Now who do you think I want to make happy? I'm afraid that as long as MS keeps taking my ressies for 5 in the 1-BR, I'll keep making them so Jed, Granny, Elly, Jethro, and Pearl can get that extra trip.

You know I truely do not care how many people pack in a room at Disney. That is up to Disney to enforce. If having too many in a room disturbs my visit, I will complain then.

But for some reason it really bothers me when these discussions come up that some can not realize that some of us do not break rules. I don't. I don't speed, I drive slightly under to allow for any difference in my speedometer and the cops. I don't steal pens from work, I have plenty at home, I don't go to the library so I don't talk there. I have actually returned items when shopping to go in the Express line, or change lines.

It's not that I am a saint, I am just a person that sees no reason to break rules. There is no advantage to me to do so. Speeding leads to tickets which cost me money, stealing at work could cost me my job, speeding through a yellow light could get me killed. Having more items in the express line is rude to the others.

Maybe I am just a very logical person that sees rules are to be obeyed and there is a reason to have them. Actually I think I abide by rules because I am a polite person.

My Mother was a teacher, my Dad an exMarine. At our house rules were rules and were not up to discussion over abiding by them for convenience.

But please do not insult those of us who do abide by them, by saying we don't exist.

Deb & Bill
12-05-2004, 11:24 PM
Sammie, like you said. ::yes::

jarestel
12-06-2004, 06:04 AM
But please do not insult those of us who do abide by them, by saying we don't exist.


I follow rules myself, Sammie. However in my town, if I were to drive at or below the speed limit I'd have been run over from behind a couple of dozen times by now, so it's more or less a defense mechanism to "go with the flow". But I'm trying! Didn't mean to insult anyone, just got carried away making an abstract point.

Dean
12-06-2004, 06:16 AM
I think guides are working well within the directions management has been giving them concerning room capacity. Discounting guides doesn't address the issue.Neither the guides nor MS has the authority or ability to make rules or contracts, period. And I'd be very surprised if anyone in authority specifically told them it was OK to tell members that breaking the written rules was OK. No one is arguing that MS currently doesn't enforce the rules but that's a far cry from an "official" blessing.

And I'd agree with Sammie above, I think a large portion of people try to follow all the rules they are aware of, I certainly do to the best of my ability. However, making a mistake does not change the appropriateness of following the rules, no matter how many break it. If you didn't like the "everyone's doing it" analogy, maybe you'd like to compare it to legalizing pot. You can't enforce it so just legalize it. You must attribute the cruise analogy to someone else, it wasn't me.

jarestel
12-06-2004, 06:47 AM
And I'd agree with Sammie above, I think a large portion of people try to follow all the rules they are aware of, I certainly do to the best of my ability. However, making a mistake does not change the appropriateness of following the rules, no matter how many break it. If you didn't like the "everyone's doing it" analogy, maybe you'd like to compare it to legalizing pot. You can't enforce it so just legalize it. You must attribute the cruise analogy to someone else, it wasn't me.

Dean, Exactly! You have hit the nail right on the head, put your finger on the crux of the matter, and crystalized my thoughts exactly. I have no problem ( not that anyone cares whether I have a problem or not, LOL! ) with folks stating that occupancy limits should be enforced because... ( list REASONS here ). And I DON'T condone or advocate sneaking extra people into rooms or doing anything underhanded in order to get one's own way. But the reason the "rule-follower" argument doesn't wash with me is because if I list all of my guests on the ressie and MS accepts it and books me into a room, then as far as I am concerned, I'm following the rules. And if they one day say, "No, you can't do that anymore", that will be fine and I promise I won't appear here with alligator tears flowing down my face railing about the injustice of it all. I'm just asking the rule followers to show me the same courtesy.

Dean
12-06-2004, 07:00 AM
Dean, Exactly! You have hit the nail right on the head, put your finger on the crux of the matter, and crystalized my thoughts exactly. I have no problem ( not that anyone cares whether I have a problem or not, LOL! ) with folks stating that occupancy limits should be enforced because... ( list REASONS here ). And I DON'T condone or advocate sneaking extra people into rooms or doing anything underhanded in order to get one's own way. But the reason the "rule-follower" argument doesn't wash with me is because if I list all of my guests on the ressie and MS accepts it and books me into a room, then as far as I am concerned, I'm following the rules. And if they one day say, "No, you can't do that anymore", that will be fine and I promise I won't appear here with alligator tears flowing down my face railing about the injustice of it all. I'm just asking the rule followers to show me the same courtesy.Which is why I've routinely said that at the present time, any beef is with DVC and MS; assuming reasonable usage. The argument doesn't go away, just the object of it changes.

DisneyDVClover
12-06-2004, 10:35 AM
We have never had a problem in a 1 BDRM or a Studio we have 2 adults and 3 children the oldest is 8 the youngest is 2 and even for our next trip when he is 3 they were fine with it.

pplasky
12-06-2004, 11:24 AM
We have never had a problem in a 1 BDRM or a Studio we have 2 adults and 3 children the oldest is 8 the youngest is 2 and even for our next trip when he is 3 they were fine with it.

Just want to add that we were unable to put 5 on a ressie in a studio last time. We were able to put 5 in a 1BR. Not sure why we hit a snag, but it can happen.

CaptainMidnight
12-06-2004, 06:56 PM
...If you didn't like the "everyone's doing it" analogy, maybe you'd like to compare it to legalizing pot. You can't enforce it so just legalize it.
I can't say that I agree that having 5 in a one bedroom is analogous to using illegal drugs, but that's just me.

You must attribute the cruise analogy to someone else, it wasn't me.

Oops, I don't mean to incorrectly assign an analogy, I must have missunderstood the reference to it being "no different than the cruise industry." Seems to me 5 in a 1 bedroom DVC land resort is very different than the cruise industry.
http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/c4.gif
....Not directed at you but I get amused at those who feel DVC must create something that will work for a family of five or six. To me, it's no different than the cruise industry.
(sigh......) http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/tweetz/headshake.gif

Seems to me that I hire DVC management and Board to make appropriate determinations for the best interest of our members. I'm glad they have decided 5 in a one bedroom is OK. Enjoy your vacations. :thewave:

Dean
12-06-2004, 07:59 PM
Oops, I don't mean to incorrectly assign an analogy, I must have missunderstood the reference to it being "no different than the cruise industry." Seems to me 5 in a 1 bedroom DVC land resort is very different than the cruise industry. I don't recall saying it as it's not really the way I think of it. If I recall, others were discussing the cruise issue at the time. Sorry you're having trouble with the analogies, do you want me to explain them further.

CaptainMidnight
12-06-2004, 08:40 PM
I don't recall saying it as it's not really the way I think of it. If I recall, others were discussing the cruise issue at the time.
Well, its a direct quote of your statements earlier in this thread. If you'll check the discussion surrounding your cruise statement, you'll see that no body brought up the cruise issue except yourself (at least that I noticed). Apparently, given this quote, your statement:
You must attribute the cruise analogy to someone else, it wasn't me.
was made in error. If I read the statement correctly, you did write "To me, it's no different than the cruise industry." My opinion is that such a statement is flawed, and that 5 in a one bedroom at a land based DVC resort is very, very different than travel accomodations/food services/life jacket and boat requirements on a cruise ship.
Sorry you're having trouble with the analogies, do you want me to explain them further.
Thanks for the offer, but I think that many attempted analogies are so far fetched and non-applicable I do not think further explination would be of benefit. What would be of even greater help is if analogies were used that are even partially applicable to the discussion at hand. As previously stated, there's no way a moving cruise ship occupancy with the amenities, food and sea worthy requirements can compare to a DVC land based room for me, those each have very different requirements. And I cannot really see how 5 in a one bedroom is analogous to using illegal drugs, but then I don't have any experience in that area to draw from. Maybe the the problem is that the one position may not be very defendable beyond the, "....cannot break rules...no flexibility allowed... " mantra.

Regardless, 5 in a one bedroom personally affects our current use of vacation accomodations at our children's current ages. I am bias on this issue and therefore post about it. I do find it very puzzling as to why other posters who say they do not have strong views, at the same time have numerous and multiple posts on the issue. Me thinks somone is attempting to bluff others with proported statements of indifference. Thank goodness MS is now applying some reasonableness to the occupacy issue. We find the one bedroom accomodations very nice for our family, and would not use the second bedroom for our kids at thier current ages. It would be locked off and go totally unused if we got a two bedroom villa at this point. Our children still need supervision, especially in strange environments with balconeys right outside the rooms. It really doesn't make sense for us to rent the two bedroom and then never use the second bedroom.
:thewave:
Best wishes for choosing the accomodations that best fit your familes needs in cooperation with MS.

pplasky
12-07-2004, 07:32 AM
Regardless, 5 in a one bedroom personally affects our current use of vacation accomodations at our children's current ages. I am bias on this issue and therefore post about it. I do find it very puzzling as to why other posters who say they do not have strong views, at the same time have numerous and multiple posts on the issue. Me thinks somone is attempting to bluff others with proported statements of indifference. Thank goodness MS is now applying some reasonableness to the occupacy issue. We find the one bedroom accomodations very nice for our family, and would not use the second bedroom for our kids at thier current ages. It would be locked off and go totally unused if we got a two bedroom villa at this point. Our children still need supervision, especially in strange environments with balconeys right outside the rooms. It really doesn't make sense for us to rent the two bedroom and then never use the second bedroom.
:thewave:
Best wishes for choosing the accomodations that best fit your familes needs in cooperation with MS.

Ditto!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MiaSRN62
12-07-2004, 08:03 AM
I've followed this thread, but didn't participate until now. I guess I've been a little intimated into thinking I'm a "criminal" or something. But this November, our family of 5 stayed in a 1 bedroom at OKW. I don't see how this particularily compares to some of the analogies offered here either. We were on a waitlist for 2 months for a 2 bedroom but none ever came through. MS was well-aware we were a family of 5 and never said a thing either when making the reservation or at check-in. Honestly, we would have preferred the extra beds (my son slept on an aerobed), but the 1 bedroom was nowhere near as bad as I thought it might be. It was very doable imho. We actually felt like we had a huge amount of space. We actually felt way more cramped when staying in one room (with trundle) at Riverside back in '98. This was considered "legal" ( :confused3 ) I guess for our family of 5.
The OKW 1 bedroom worked well for our family and honestly, the only time I ever felt like I was possibly doing anything wrong is here on these boards. I've decided to not let some of the opinions of others get to me. It's nice that we can all discuss this rationally for the most part. If the situation arose again where we couldn't secure a 2 bedroom, I'd have no problem booking another 1 bedroom for our family. If MS or the resort itself decided to change their thinking on this matter, then that would be fine too. But I hardly feel like I'm doing anything illegal :confused: I agree with other posters who say it comes down to what fits an individual family's needs.

Doctor P
12-07-2004, 08:27 AM
The OKW 1 bedroom worked well for our family and honestly, the only time I ever felt like I was possibly doing anything wrong is here on these boards. I've decided to not let some of the opinions of others get to me.

That's a nice way to rationalize things, and I am not saying that I wouldn't have done the same thing in your circumstance. However, I find it incredulous that you didn't have any feeling that you were possibly doing anything wrong when you blatantly were violating the terms of your contract, enforced or not. Can't get into your head, but I know that I'm aware when I violate the speed limit and aware that I am "possibly doing something wrong" (your words) even if the policy is not being enforced at a given point in time. That said, I AM glad your trip worked out, and I'm glad you were able to be accomodated.

DebbieB
12-07-2004, 08:46 AM
I don't get the speed limit analogy. I doubt a policeman is going to tell you "it's OK to go over the speed limit, you have my permission". In this case, DVC is managing the resorts and they are saying it's OK over and over again. They are the ones responsible for managing the contract and it's their decision to make accomodations to the rules.

idratherbeinwdw
12-07-2004, 09:03 AM
If you didn't like the "everyone's doing it" analogy, maybe you'd like to compare it to legalizing pot. You can't enforce it so just legalize it.

Fine with me. Pot doesn't kill, isn't addictive, and many many fine upstanding citizens indulge without causing any harmful effects to society It should be legal, but that's another thread for another board I suppose. :smooth:

Doctor P
12-07-2004, 09:10 AM
Actually, as a management entity, DVC MS has no authority to waive contract provisions. I am just pointing out a fact, and not saying it should be challenged. Just responding to several statements that MS itself has more authority than they truly do.

MiaSRN62
12-07-2004, 09:31 AM
That's a nice way to rationalize things
Well, I don't believe I am rationalizing anything in my statement. Perhaps you could insinuate I am rationalizing if we snuck the 5th person into the 1 bedroom (ie kept that information from MS and the resort). But this was not the case.
I specifically pointed out to MS that we would require a 2 bedroom because we had 5 people. I was secretly hoping this would increase my chances of getting a 2 bedroom. But the response from MS, was "it won't be a problem" in reference to our 1 bedroom ressie for our family of 5. If it's such a major violation, why did MS let me proceed with the reservation ? Why didn't they say, "sorry, you'll need either 2 studios or a 2 bedroom" and put me strictly on a waitlist ?
In regards to violating a speed limit ???? That endangers lives. How can this be compared to our staying in a 1 bedroom ???? Sorry, I'm just not seeing eye-to-eye on several of the analogies here on this thread.

Doctor P
12-07-2004, 09:47 AM
Unless directed by DVD (not the same as DVC or MS) to do otherwise, MS has absolutely no incentive to enforce the occupancy limits. They are responsible for management and operating the resorts and providing customer service. Why would they enforce limits on room occupancy with those responsibilities? They can keep more people happy by not enforcing the limits, and unless they are told to do otherwise will not do so. On the other hand, if it could ever be proven that DVD gave the guides instructions or suggested that they might make the occupancy claims or promises that many say have been made, DVD could be in serious trouble and have some liability, IMHO.

CaptainMidnight
12-07-2004, 10:26 AM
On the other hand, if it could ever be proven that DVD gave the guides instructions or suggested that they might make the occupancy claims or promises that many say have been made, DVD could be in serious trouble and have some liability, IMHO.
Dean & Doctor P, I disagree. There's no way DVD could be in serious trouble or have some liability if they are providing this guidance to MS and guides, your really stretching attempting to make points like these. Contracts all over the place have modifications in actual practice.

It's a very reasonable guideline, why are you so up in arms about it? Is the point just to aurgue? Just because your family doesn't need this option for your vacations? Come on.....
:rockband:

Doctor P
12-07-2004, 10:45 AM
Captain Midnight,

With due respect, I don't think you understand real estate law and the specific nature of written provisions in timeshare contracts and declarations. The items we are talking about are legally recorded tenets of the binding terms of the existence of the resorts. Yes, contracts can be changed, but things are a little different when you are talking about real estate contracts and those involving condominium declarations that are legally recorded binding covenants on one's deed. Most contracts I suspect you are referring to are neither real estate, timeshare, or recorded covenants/POS documents. The only analogue outside real estate that I can quickly think of would be mutual funds or other securities for which a Public Offering Statement is required. If a firm was knowingly violating the terms of a securities' POS, you can bet the SEC would be interested. Now, don't misunderstand, I'm not advocating any challenge or change, merely pointing out that this is serious stuff (much more serious than people want to believe).

DisneyDVClover
12-07-2004, 12:01 PM
Actually Dean your quote about pot is funny as we are on the verge of legalizing it in Canada. Another thing I find funny is how people ridicule one another here be is subtly or otherwise I mean after all this is a form of bullying which we all know we don't like to have happen to our children and don't want our children to partae in yet it is fine for adults to do this.Honestly until DVD and DVC start to enforce the occupancy rules or cange it a party of 5 in a 1 bedroom will be fine and will work for everyone who chooses to use it and even for that family that doesn't it is still available to them. I also understand the speeding analogy we have a posted limit of 100KPH on our highways mind you our accepted limit is 120KPH the police will not pull you over for anything from 100-120 but over that and you will get a ticket if caught it is an accepted bend in the rules on the road as is the 5 in a 1 bedroom at DVC resorts why can't people accept that they allow it and until they enforce it it will remain that way.

Dean
12-07-2004, 02:08 PM
Regardless, 5 in a one bedroom personally affects our current use of vacation accomodations at our children's current ages. I am bias on this issue and therefore post about it. I do find it very puzzling as to why other posters who say they do not have strong views, at the same time have numerous and multiple posts on the issue. Me thinks somone is attempting to bluff others with proported statements of indifference. Thank goodness MS is now applying some reasonableness to the occupacy issue. We find the one bedroom accomodations very nice for our family, and would not use the second bedroom for our kids at thier current ages. It would be locked off and go totally unused if we got a two bedroom villa at this point. Our children still need supervision, especially in strange environments with balconeys right outside the rooms. It really doesn't make sense for us to rent the two bedroom and then never use the second bedroom.And I think it's colored your objectivity. To you this appears to be an emotional issue. And I can understand if one were told one thing and agreed to another, how this could be a concern. It happens in timeshare sales all the time. Then one signs a paper that says everything they've been told is in writing and nothing else will be applicable. To be clear, the occupancy issue itself isn't important but the fact that MS enforces the written rules IS. Besides, if a couple of us don't stand up and defend the position, everyone would think it's a non issue. This is far from the truth, IMO. And there are real consequences of room overcrowding like pool, restaurant, parking crowds as well as increased maint issues. How much this affects, I don't know. But my guess is it's a lot more than you'd think it is. Plus I find it interesting when people know the rules and still insist on breaking them and telling everyone about it, even if MS is complicit. I think it reflects society in general where most people are most interested in what's in it for them.

As for what's OK with MS, I think that's a subject where the jury is still out. Not enforcing it and it truly being OK are totally different things. Hence the pot legalization analogy. MS may have decided it's not worth the effort, again that's not the same as saying it's OK. There are rules and there are actually ways that the rules can be changed.

DebbieB
12-07-2004, 02:14 PM
Are occupancy limits in the public offering statement? The only place I can recall seeing it is on the Product Understanding Checklist.

idratherbeinwdw
12-07-2004, 02:30 PM
<snip> And there are real consequences of room overcrowding like pool, restaurant, parking crowds as well as increased maint issues. How much this affects, I don't know. But my guess is it's a lot more than you'd think it is.

Your guess??? Hey I can guess too, and I guess it's a lot less than you think it is.

5 in a one bedroom is a non issue for the most part. Unless it's five Wooly Mammoths, in which case I see your point. :D

Maistre Gracey
12-07-2004, 02:36 PM
5 in a one bedroom is a non issue for the most part. Unless it's five Wooly Mammoths, in which case I see your point. :D
Well... There goes my idea of stuffing my mother-in-law into our 1br.

MG

DisneyDVClover
12-07-2004, 02:37 PM
I can't see how 5 in a 1 bedroom would affect parking wouldn't they all come on the same shuttle or in the same car I can't see them all driving on their own. As for the pool it would be no worse than pool hopping and the locals as they are called using the pools.

Doctor P
12-07-2004, 02:38 PM
Yes, the occupancy limits are part of the POS.

Dean
12-07-2004, 02:51 PM
Are occupancy limits in the public offering statement? The only place I can recall seeing it is on the Product Understanding Checklist.I know it's in the multi site POS listed as Sleeping Capacity on the charts that show the number of units. It's also in the II info delivered at closing and referenced in the POS related to exchanging.

Dean
12-07-2004, 02:55 PM
Your guess??? Hey I can guess too, and I guess it's a lot less than you think it is.

5 in a one bedroom is a non issue for the most part. Unless it's five Wooly Mammoths, in which case I see your point. :DMy guess but at least we agree there are consequences and that was the point.
I can't see how 5 in a 1 bedroom would affect parking wouldn't they all come on the same shuttle or in the same car I can't see them all driving on their own. As for the pool it would be no worse than pool hopping and the locals as they are called using the pools.Only to a degree. A certain percentage will be adults that will add another vehicle. Plus, the family that stays in the extra unit freed up will also bring a vehicle in many cases. As for the pool hopping, etc, the extra people for a room stuffer will be on top of those other groups and actually reduce the viability of pool hopping.

DisneyDVClover
12-07-2004, 03:00 PM
Well I know our family travel with the 3 kids and usually my mother but we all come in one vehicle or pick up whoever flies in at the airport so no extra vehicle. Now I can only speak for my family but pool hopping is a perk we can honestly live without we seldom do it and could care less about it.

Maistre Gracey
12-07-2004, 04:01 PM
I can't see how 5 in a 1 bedroom would affect parking wouldn't they all come on the same shuttle or in the same car I can't see them all driving on their own.
I have been known to trailer-in the wooly mammoth (mother-in-law), and the trailer can take up some significant park area.

MG

CaptainMidnight
12-07-2004, 04:13 PM
To you this appears to be an emotional issue.

Dean and Doctor P - Quite the contrary, it is not just emotional, it is a very practical issue since we currently have our three children stay with us in a one bedroom. This is not some philosophical exercise attempting to interpret real estate law, or some trumped up baloney about how all the resort amenities will be overused, it is practical application of real world vacation practice. If you are suggesting there is emotion tied to the practicality of not using points for a second bedroom that would be locked off anyway, then I would agree, there is emotion tied to it, of course. Why wouldn't there be?

I think it reflects society in general where most people are most interested in what's in it for them.

So regardless of the societal concerns you raise, I guess we are agreed that your analogy of the cruise industry you stated earlier was something you did in fact raise, and is not applicable? Earlier you said an analogy about cruising shouldn't be attributed to you ("You must attribute the cruise analogy to someone else, it wasn't me"), then you said othersl were talking about cruising ("others were discussing the cruise issue at the time"), but I think if you look back you'll see that wasn't really the case.

Hence the pot legalization analogy.
Sure doesn't seem like a very good explanation of a far fetch analogy any more than the far fetched cruise analogy.

It still doesn't adequately answer the question as to why some get so bent out of shape on this issue when they will not be using the 5 in a one bedroom grace that MS offers and they will not see a visible tangible effect on thier current vacation experience. If anything, going with the 5 in a 1 bedroom will be a limitation to the 5 in a studio and mroe than 5 in a one bedroom practices we have read about on this forum. I notice Dean and Doctor P as being very much in alignment on thier views, both say they would not use it regardless given thier family situations, both seem or appear equally bothered by the issue given the numerous strong factually worded posts, and at least one is saying it really doesn't matter to them, they are just discussing the issue. I find it puzzling as to why the views are so strong. I hope I've been clear on why I think the issue is important.

Now, don't misunderstand, I'm not advocating any challenge or change, merely pointing out that this is serious stuff (much more serious than people want to believe).

I am not a real estate law expert by any means. If you are an attorney in real estate law you would certainly have greater expertise in this than I do. I mistakenly thought your name indicated you were some type of doctor, sorry if that was in error. Somehow I thought Dean was also in the medical profession. I may be wrong there as well. My layperson's opinion is that some are attempting to trump this up as some big legal issue in an attempt to support thier personal opinion more than it really is. I'd certainly welcome a real estate attorney's first person opinion on this for our forum.

I guess the one idea I'm sharing that I haven't read previously is that if anything, my opinion is that going with the 5 in a 1 bedroom guideline from MS will be a limitation to the 5 in a studio and more than 5 in a one bedroom practices I have read about on this forum. If MS follows this, there should be a reduction in the use of resort resouces compared to current practices IMO.

DisneyDVClover
12-07-2004, 04:14 PM
MG that is funny but totally understandable as my wife says the same thing when we bring my mom. I love my in laws to death but my mom seems to smother when we take her and she spoils the kids rotten not that I mind as it leaves more money for us but my wife hates it. Mind you we always take my moms van so my wife really shouldn't care LOL.

Doctor P
12-07-2004, 04:51 PM
Captain Midnight,

My opinion is no more important than any one else's in the forum, expertise or no expertise. The point of my post was to indicate that much of the discussion is, contrary to what has often been claimed, based in fact rather than opinion. I am not a medical doctor. My professional expertise does include contract, land use, and real estate law as part of my portfolio, and that is why I have been so concerned about some of the directions that some of the threads on this topic have taken, while not actually being concerned about the practice of allowing 5 in a studio or 1BR. Dean actually stated many of the same concerns I have.

Dean
12-07-2004, 08:56 PM
Dean and Doctor P - Quite the contrary, it is not just emotional, it is a very practical issue since we currently have our three children stay with us in a one bedroom. This is not some philosophical exercise attempting to interpret real estate law, or some trumped up baloney about how all the resort amenities will be overused, it is practical application of real world vacation practice. If you are suggesting there is emotion tied to the practicality of not using points for a second bedroom that would be locked off anyway, then I would agree, there is emotion tied to it, of course. Why wouldn't there be?

So regardless of the societal concerns you raise, I guess we are agreed that your analogy of the cruise industry you stated earlier was something you did in fact raise, and is not applicable? Earlier you said an analogy about cruising shouldn't be attributed to you ("You must attribute the cruise analogy to someone else, it wasn't me"), then you said othersl were talking about cruising ("others were discussing the cruise issue at the time"), but I think if you look back you'll see that wasn't really the case.

Sure doesn't seem like a very good explanation of a far fetch analogy any more than the far fetched cruise analogy.

It still doesn't adequately answer the question as to why some get so bent out of shape on this issue when they will not be using the 5 in a one bedroom grace that MS offers and they will not see a visible tangible effect on thier current vacation experience. If anything, going with the 5 in a 1 bedroom will be a limitation to the 5 in a studio and mroe than 5 in a one bedroom practices we have read about on this forum. I notice Dean and Doctor P as being very much in alignment on thier views, both say they would not use it regardless given thier family situations, both seem or appear equally bothered by the issue given the numerous strong factually worded posts, and at least one is saying it really doesn't matter to them, they are just discussing the issue. I find it puzzling as to why the views are so strong. I hope I've been clear on why I think the issue is important.

I am not a real estate law expert by any means. If you are an attorney in real estate law you would certainly have greater expertise in this than I do. I mistakenly thought your name indicated you were some type of doctor, sorry if that was in error. Somehow I thought Dean was also in the medical profession. I may be wrong there as well. My layperson's opinion is that some are attempting to trump this up as some big legal issue in an attempt to support thier personal opinion more than it really is. I'd certainly welcome a real estate attorney's first person opinion on this for our forum.

I guess the one idea I'm sharing that I haven't read previously is that if anything, my opinion is that going with the 5 in a 1 bedroom guideline from MS will be a limitation to the 5 in a studio and more than 5 in a one bedroom practices I have read about on this forum. If MS follows this, there should be a reduction in the use of resort resouces compared to current practices IMO.I finally was able to go back and read the quote you posted from me. You quoted it out of context. The point was that for a cruise, you have no choice. I'm not ducking what I said, I just didn't remember saying it nor does sit particularly apply to the way I think about it as a general issue. As for profession, I am a Pediatrician with a fair amount of expertise in contracts and Timeshares in general. Certainly far more than the average lawyer when looking at the combined expertise. Many lawyers don't know about timeshares.

But since when does not having 5 people in my family affect my ability to have an opinion or post it. I usually get a 2 BR for four people, why wouldn't I for 5. I believe your emotional and practical applications have colored your objectivity. My opinion is based in the fact that the rules are explicit, you're arguing a moving target. If 5 is OK, why not 6, etc. Even if you only had 4 in your family, you might truly care if people don't follow the rules, that would be your choice.

But I particularly like your subtle personal attacks. The old shoot the messenger if you don't like the message approach. If you want to discuss the issues, that's what I'm about but it seems this is about feelings for some and not factual information. Do I want MS to enforce this issue, absolutely, to the hilt. Will I feel for those that have been lied to, absolutely, it's not their fault if they were misled. But it is their mistake for signing something they didn't understand fully. But I'd say every member on this board knows what the rules are and most that MS doesn't currently enforce them very well. What's worse is they tend to enforce them variably and that's what happens when you don't enforce a single standard.

BTW, I also post on the rental issue and it really doesn't affect me much there either, likely not any now as I've just sold one of my contracts.

Johnnie Fedora
12-07-2004, 09:55 PM
What constitutes occupancy? If you have friends (in excess of 4) over to your 1-BR unit for a large part of the day aren't you breaking the occupany rule. If your friends are sleeping at All-Stars, but spend the rest of their stay with you at an OKW 1-BR aren't you breaking the occupancy rule? Or is it only sleeping in the unit that cements the violation?

Just as many of the other POS rules have situational degrees, maybe occupancy does as well.

idratherbeinwdw
12-07-2004, 09:57 PM
Originally Posted by idratherbeinwdw
Your guess??? Hey I can guess too, and I guess it's a lot less than you think it is.

My guess but at least we agree there are consequences and that was the point.
.

No we don't agree. My alot less meant none at all. Unless everyone had 5 in a one bedroom the effect is negligible IMHO. It's probably "evened out" by the fact that many times 2 or 3 stay in a one bedroom and it's "under" occupied. In fact I am going alone in January and staying in a one bedroom. So three families can stay 5 in a room and it will balance out my underuse.

MDonley
12-08-2004, 01:19 AM
What constitutes occupancy? If you have friends (in excess of 4) over to your 1-BR unit for a large part of the day aren't you breaking the occupany rule. If your friends are sleeping at All-Stars, but spend the rest of their stay with you at an OKW 1-BR aren't you breaking the occupancy rule? Or is it only sleeping in the unit that cements the violation?

Just as many of the other POS rules have situational degrees, maybe occupancy does as well.

Bravo! That being said, it seems that the elevator at VWL has a higher occupancy rate than any 1-BR!

jarestel
12-08-2004, 07:01 AM
It's a hoot when the wanna-be attornies start throwing out legal opinions as if that actually meant anything. The fact of the matter is, if real estate law, or any category of law, was so cut and dried, there would be no need for real estate lawyers now would there? I'm absolutely convinced you could round up 2 actual, (not pretend) attornies who would claim each side of the great occupancy debate is correct. The interpretation of the "law" in any situation isn't cut & dried, black & white, or pre-defined. (Not to mention the varying degrees of interpretation for any law or rule.) If it were, the court system wouldn't be clogged with cases and the attorney section of the phone book would be much smaller. Sorry, but for those who think the world operates strictly "by the book", they must find it a very disappointing place.

CaptainMidnight
12-08-2004, 07:25 AM
I finally was able to go back and read the quote you posted from me. You quoted it out of context.

I did no such thing sir. Please be more honest than to post such statements.

The point was that for a cruise, you have no choice.

That was not the point you made at all. That was never in any part of your explanation. You stated that other people were discussing it, they were not. You stated "You must attribute the cruise analogy to someone else, it wasn't me". That is an incorrect statement as well.

I'm not ducking what I said,
All evidence to the contrary.

On one hand you post that this issue really doesn't matter much to you, and how it has no impact on your family's personal reservations. On the other you are up at the top on the number of times your reply and post on this issue. Those two facts between what you say and how frequently and strongly you post on the issue do not match.

If 5 is OK, why not 6, etc.

As you clearly know from the threads you very frequently post on this issue, MS is establishing a guideline of 5 being OK in a one bedroom, not 6. Your distorting the issue again. They are not establishing a guideline of 6 being OK in a one bedroom. They are saying 5 is OK in a one bedroom.

I hope you practice a higher degree of forthrightness in other areas than you are in posting your opinion of the issues of occupancy. I see your analogies as misleading and non-applicable at best. Your description of the cruise analogy is lacking IMO.

If you want to discuss the issues, that's what I'm about

Unfortunately, evidence does not support this claim. It would be nice if that were consistent with your posts, and your attempts at analogies were more applicable to the discussion. I'm simply refuting thier applicability, because they do not help make the point your are attempting to use them to make regarding occupancy. That sir, is discussing the issues.
Sorry you're having trouble with the analogies, do you want me to explain them further.

The problem I'm having with the analogies is they are not very good or applicable, and don't support the intended discussion point. Is there some other subtly I'm missing in the post above?
It's a hoot when the wanna-be attornies start throwing out legal opinions as if that actually meant anything. The fact of the matter is, if real estate law, or any category of law, was so cut and dried, there would be no need for real estate lawyers now would there? I'm absolutely convinced you could round up 2 actual, (not pretend) attornies who would claim each side of the great occupancy debate is correct. The interpretation of the "law" in any situation isn't cut & dried, black & white, or pre-defined. (Not to mention the varying degrees of interpretation for any law or rule.) If it were, the court system wouldn't be clogged with cases and the attorney section of the phone book would be much smaller. Sorry, but for those who think the world operates strictly "by the book", they must find it a very disappointing place.
Excellently stated, thank you for making this point in such a clear and forthright manner, it is refreshing. I agree that those proporting such 'legal expertise' (although not thier primary profession) claiming the issue is so cut and dried are themselves all wet with such claims. :thewave:

I certainly do have emotions tied to this issue, I agree with that point, it directly affects my vacation patterns. Given the current ages of our children, if we reserved a two bedroom, one of the bedrooms would be locked off and completely unused for the vacation. I think MS has done the right thing in establishing the guideline of 5 being OK in a one bedroom. They didn't say "6", they are saying "5".
:rockband:

WDWMom
12-08-2004, 07:50 AM
It's a hoot when the wanna-be attornies start throwing out legal opinions as if that actually meant anything. The fact of the matter is, if real estate law, or any category of law, was so cut and dried, there would be no need for real estate lawyers now would there? I'm absolutely convinced you could round up 2 actual, (not pretend) attornies who would claim each side of the great occupancy debate is correct. The interpretation of the "law" in any situation isn't cut & dried, black & white, or pre-defined. (Not to mention the varying degrees of interpretation for any law or rule.) If it were, the court system wouldn't be clogged with cases and the attorney section of the phone book would be much smaller. Sorry, but for those who think the world operates strictly "by the book", they must find it a very disappointing place.

Wow, I can't imagine a better reply. In my last three years or so of being on these boards I have seen opinions thrown around with such authority that one wonders why they are not written on stone. I couldn't agree more with your evaluation of lawyers and our court system. It would seem that rarely is an issue decided on the basis of right or wrong anymore, or even on specific language, but rather it is the side most determined(spends the most) to win. I believe that lawyers are increasingly drawing up contracts so that no one knows exactly what they mean anymore. Recently we had 5 college graduates all looking at one paragraph in a contract and between the 5 of us we had 4 different ideas on what the language meant.

CaptainMidnight
12-08-2004, 07:52 AM
Originally Posted by idratherbeinwdw
No we don't agree. My alot less meant none at all. Unless everyone had 5 in a one bedroom the effect is negligible IMHO. It's probably "evened out" by the fact that many times 2 or 3 stay in a one bedroom and it's "under" occupied. In fact I am going alone in January and staying in a one bedroom. So three families can stay 5 in a room and it will balance out my underuse.
I think that's an excellent point. This concept that suddenly all the resort resouces will be over run is nonsense. If anything the new 5 in a one bedroom guideline will lessen the demand on resort resouces. Postings seem to indicate people having 5 in a studio and more than 5 in a one bedroom. If that represents the current condition, this guideline should reduce the current demand on resources. Besides, I think local pool crashers are a bigger problem.

idratherbeinwdw, well stated.

Dean
12-08-2004, 06:50 PM
CaptainMidnight, I'm going to try to quit arguing with you as there is no common ground. As for MS changing the rules, there is a method to do that. It will certainly take more than a second hand quote from a timeshare sales person to document this. And until there is more information, there is no fact to your stipulation.

Dean
12-09-2004, 05:58 PM
I think that's an excellent point. This concept that suddenly all the resort resouces will be over run is nonsense. If anything the new 5 in a one bedroom guideline will lessen the demand on resort resouces. Postings seem to indicate people having 5 in a studio and more than 5 in a one bedroom. If that represents the current condition, this guideline should reduce the current demand on resources. Besides, I think local pool crashers are a bigger problem.

idratherbeinwdw, well stated.Since you took the time to send me an insulting PM, I'll respond. No one said the resorts will be over run. Only that there will be an extra strain on various resources. We don't know how much of a strain and NONE of us have the info to determine it one way or another.

CaptainMidnight
12-09-2004, 08:53 PM
No one said the resorts will be over run.
You're right, that is an exaggeration on my part. However, I think the resource strain is made out to be a bigger deal than it really is or will be with the 5 being OK in a one bedroom MS guideline.

We don't know how much of a strain and NONE of us have the info to determine it one way or another.
You are correct, I do not have data to support whether there will or will not be a strain or to what degree the strain will exist or subside from what we are currently experiencing. I also do not know if DVC is making this decision based on data or simply drawing what they consider to be a very reasonable line in the sand. My opinion is that this is a very moderate guideline and if accurate imposes limitations on studios to 4 (not previously enforced) and one bedrooms to 5 that were not enforced previously. This would lead me to believe that it may reduce the use of resouces that we experience currently. It is also my opinion that local pool crashers are a bigger problem causing resource strain than allowing the occasional 5 in a one bedroom, although I do not have data to support that view.


CaptainMidnight, I'm going to try to quit arguing with you...
That's fine, I do not have a desire to discuss this issue if we are not adding new information. We all know this issue is not going to be decided on this discussion forum, it will be decided by MS under the Board's governance.

Given the current ages of our children, if we reserved a two bedroom, one of the bedrooms would be locked off and completely unused for the vacation due to safety issues with very young children. I think MS has done the right thing in establishing the guideline of 5 being OK in a one bedroom. I'm still puzzled as to why some get so bent out of shape over it.

Dean
12-10-2004, 06:31 AM
It is also my opinion that local pool crashers are a bigger problem causing resource strain than allowing the occasional 5 in a one bedroom, although I do not have data to support that view. That's fine, and I don't disagree. However, I don't see it being applicable to this discussion.

Tabatha
12-10-2004, 07:17 PM
This question is somewhat off the topic of the heated moral controversy of following the laws of occupancy, but my delima is this-

I currently have a family of 5 and by the time we take our next vacation we will be 6 strong. That's 2 adults, DD-4, DS-4, DD-3, and newborn. All of our children are very close and although we have 2 sets of bunk bends at home the kids typically share a bed everynight b/c they are extreamlly close. The fact that they are different genders does not bother me nor does it bother them. We cohabitate quite nicley in our real world daily lives in our 2 bdr home with little to no problem.

So my question is this- Would we be able to accomadate a 1bdr villia at WDW? Would WDW "allow" this? We've managed a regular hotel room just fine with the 5 of us and actually enjoy being close. I agree that 2bdr wuld be nice, but I hesitate to place 4 small children in a room by themselves, with access to the "outside world".

Ive read all the responses on the ethical reasons to follow the outlined rules, but obviously there is some gray areas or this discussion would not even be here. I dont care to hear anyones opinion of right/wrong of the situation, b/c that wont change anything. I am just intrested in knowing if this could be done. Thanks for any information you might have or if you have ever heard of anyone in this type of situation.

Johnnie Fedora
12-10-2004, 08:27 PM
Tabatha, welcome to the DIS. Nothing like jumping into the fire with your first post.:wave: If you want the official answer, this would be a question for a MS. But if you really want a lot of DIS advice, post a new thread like "Is 6 OK in a 1BR?".

Since your kids are so little and one will be in the pack-n-play. I see how it could work for you. Good luck, and of course, enjoy your DVC!

Dean
12-10-2004, 08:59 PM
This question is somewhat off the topic of the heated moral controversy of following the laws of occupancy, but my delima is this-

I currently have a family of 5 and by the time we take our next vacation we will be 6 strong. That's 2 adults, DD-4, DS-4, DD-3, and newborn. All of our children are very close and although we have 2 sets of bunk bends at home the kids typically share a bed everynight b/c they are extreamlly close. The fact that they are different genders does not bother me nor does it bother them. We cohabitate quite nicley in our real world daily lives in our 2 bdr home with little to no problem.

So my question is this- Would we be able to accomadate a 1bdr villia at WDW? Would WDW "allow" this? We've managed a regular hotel room just fine with the 5 of us and actually enjoy being close. I agree that 2bdr wuld be nice, but I hesitate to place 4 small children in a room by themselves, with access to the "outside world".

Ive read all the responses on the ethical reasons to follow the outlined rules, but obviously there is some gray areas or this discussion would not even be here. I dont care to hear anyones opinion of right/wrong of the situation, b/c that wont change anything. I am just intrested in knowing if this could be done. Thanks for any information you might have or if you have ever heard of anyone in this type of situation.I think you'll have to ask MS what is currently allowed plus decide what you're comfortable with. A BR, LR and one Bath will be tough with that many.

laceemouse
12-10-2004, 09:28 PM
Tabatha, we have 4 kids also. When they were 6, 4, 2, and an infant we stayed in one of those trundle bed rooms at Dixie Landings. About a year later we stayed in one room at the Polly. Both times we were legal as the youngest was under 3. As they get older though, close quarters like that get way too crowded. Also, as puberty nears they will no longer want to sleep with, change in front of, or bathe with the opposite sex. That is why we bought DVC, to get the 2 bedroom unit and have some space!!! Do you own DVC? Just be aware that as the kids get older you will have to use more points, but you should be okay for the next few years. Welcome to the DIS!!! Although I don't always agree with everyone I generally enjoy it here :wave: Lacee

laceemouse
12-10-2004, 09:32 PM
Also, that 2 bedroom house will get tight too! A year ago we moved to a five bedroom so everyone has their own space now! It is heaven!!!

CaptainMidnight
12-11-2004, 08:26 AM
I think you'll have to ask MS what is currently allowed plus decide what you're comfortable with. A BR, LR and one Bath will be tough with that many.
I agree with this. The decision lies with MS, not with posters on opposite sides of this discussion on this forum. As you've probably read, there are many polarized views on this occupancy issue. My understanding is that 6 in a one bedroom is too many, that the new guideline is 5 in a one bedroom, but checking with MS is the appropriate way to go.

Welcome to this forum, on most issues it is a wonderful resource. There are only a couple of issues like 'occupancy' and 'for-profit rental practices where prime holiday periods are auctioned off' that create controversy that can sometimes be unproductive.

Have a wonderful vacation with whatever you work out with MS.

Dean
12-11-2004, 01:18 PM
I agree with this. The decision lies with MS, not with posters on opposite sides of this discussion on this forum. As you've probably read, there are many polarized views on this occupancy issue. My understanding is that 6 in a one bedroom is too many, that the new guideline is 5 in a one bedroom, but checking with MS is the appropriate way to go.We agree, but for different reasons. It's MS responsibility to enforce the rules. Until or unless they decide to do so, any concerns should be placed with them. If MS decides to enforce the rules, as I think they should, the responsibility shifts to the member and any concerns then would be with the violator.

DrTomorrow
12-12-2004, 12:59 PM
Tabatha,

Welcome! From a practical point of view, I'm not sure where you'll put everyone; if you and hubby have the MBR, there's only a sleeper sofa and the pack-n-play crib for the four little ones. But if your 4YOs and 3YO can share one sleeper - or you can squeeze in an aero-bed - you should be OK (again, only from a logistical POV).

I ask a favor of you: please come back and share with us your decision - and how your dealings with MS go. It's always nice to have a few actual cases to chew on in the midst of all our opinions!

Be well!

CaptainMidnight
12-12-2004, 02:55 PM
Have a wonderful trip.

{Posted edited}

Hope you had a great trip DrTomorrow.

DrTomorrow
12-12-2004, 04:56 PM
Woo-hoo - now it's my turn to get flamed and/or misconstrued!

Let me just reassure you, Tabatha, and all of my other loyal fans (Mom? Honey? Son? Are you three out there? ;)) that I'm really just curious as to what MS says to someone who wants to book 6 (5 with 1 under 3YO). And the portion of my comments that Capt.Midnight quoted were from a meta-thread, a totally humorous and sarcastic response to another post (referring to hillbillies and refugees); the self-mocking is obvious if you read what I said - I think I insulted everyone equally!

Be well, Oh Ye Denizens Of The Occupancy Thread - The Doctor Lurves you all! :love: :love: :love:

Happy Birthday Cat
12-12-2004, 05:10 PM
DT,

Get to work on your trip report and stop trying to dig yourself out of the hole you put yourself into. I haven't been able to work for the past week because I've been waiting by my computer for your words of wisdom and trying to figure out which category I fit into regarding room occupancy. (Of course, I guess I just answered that).

HBC

FreeTime
12-12-2004, 05:52 PM
After seeing the post about 5 in a 1-BR I called MS to make reservations for my sis's family. I haven't read all of the responses on the post yet (I don't think I can get through that many pages of occupancy opinions :rolleyes:) so maybe a similiar response has been received. The associate advised me that 5 could only sleep in a 1-BR if there was a daybed. I asked her which resorts offered the daybed. She said BWV and BCV. I told her that I was aware of daybeds at BWV in studios but not 1-BRs. She said they are in 1-BRs as well. So if this is true, which if it is I can't believe I am just now hearing about it, how many of these 1-BR rooms with day beds exist and where are they putting the daybed?

DebbieB
12-12-2004, 06:12 PM
I've stayed in 1 bedrooms at BWV 6 times and have never seen a daybed. Never heard of anyone else having one either. 1 bedrooms have bedding for four, 2 in the king and 2 on the sofabed. If you want 5, you'll have to bring additional bedding (aero bed, sleeping bag).

Deb & Bill
12-12-2004, 07:10 PM
After seeing the post about 5 in a 1-BR I called MS to make reservations for my sis's family. I haven't read all of the responses on the post yet (I don't think I can get through that many pages of occupancy opinions :rolleyes:) so maybe a similiar response has been received. The associate advised me that 5 could only sleep in a 1-BR if there was a daybed. I asked her which resorts offered the daybed. She said BWV and BCV. I told her that I was aware of daybeds at BWV in studios but not 1-BRs. She said they are in 1-BRs as well. So if this is true, which if it is I can't believe I am just now hearing about it, how many of these 1-BR rooms with day beds exist and where are they putting the daybed?

That just shows you how much these people really know. The so-called daybed (more of an upholstered luggage rack) is about the size of a portable crib or smaller. And are only located in the dedicated studios at BWV. I have stayed in one of those rooms. The "daybed" is located where the door to the adjoining one bedroom would be.

ILPHIL
12-13-2004, 02:28 PM
Won't even touch the "moral" argument. You will ever get either side to accept the other's viewpoint. So let me bring up something I haven't noticed in this thread (must admit haven't read every post)...the ecomonic side of the issue.
I'm sure when it comes to setting the amount of dues, the accountants have to take into account projected expenses for replacing things as they wear out or break. I would have to think that consistently having any property used by more people than planned for is going to accelerate the life cycle and lead to the need for replacement sooner than if used by the expected number of people. My guess is that raises everyone's dues to some degree.
So, if your decision is to put 5, 6, however many in a 1 bedroom villa, can you really make the claim that your decision doesn't impact anyone else?

Just my slightly more than 2 cents worth...

idratherbeinwdw
12-13-2004, 04:27 PM
Won't even touch the "moral" argument. You will ever get either side to accept the other's viewpoint. So let me bring up something I haven't noticed in this thread (must admit haven't read every post)...the ecomonic side of the issue.
I'm sure when it comes to setting the amount of dues, the accountants have to take into account projected expenses for replacing things as they wear out or break. I would have to think that consistently having any property used by more people than planned for is going to accelerate the life cycle and lead to the need for replacement sooner than if used by the expected number of people. My guess is that raises everyone's dues to some degree.
So, if your decision is to put 5, 6, however many in a 1 bedroom villa, can you really make the claim that your decision doesn't impact anyone else?

Just my slightly more than 2 cents worth...

This aspect has been mentioned on this thread. Some agree with your way of thinking. Some, like me, think it's all balanced out by people who stay with LESS than the amount allowed. For instance, I am going in January by myself to a one bedroom. Could have fit 3 more but chose to go that one alone. In April I am going to have a 2 BR for me, my 14 year old daughter, and her friend. So we will be 3 in an accomodation that is allowed to have 8. In October I am going with my 14 and 19 year old daughters, 3 of us in a two bedroom, 5 less than allowed. So IMHO (and the opinion of others who have written similar posts) underusing the rooms makes up for an occasional 5 person in a one bedroom. :D

Dean
12-13-2004, 05:15 PM
This aspect has been mentioned on this thread. Some agree with your way of thinking. Some, like me, think it's all balanced out by people who stay with LESS than the amount allowed. For instance, I am going in January by myself to a one bedroom. Could have fit 3 more but chose to go that one alone. In April I am going to have a 2 BR for me, my 14 year old daughter, and her friend. So we will be 3 in an accomodation that is allowed to have 8. In October I am going with my 14 and 19 year old daughters, 3 of us in a two bedroom, 5 less than allowed. So IMHO (and the opinion of others who have written similar posts) underusing the rooms makes up for an occasional 5 person in a one bedroom. :DI'm sure that any hotel plans for some over and some under. But when people are encouraged to go over, the number will be skewed in that direction. What is the effect on wear and tear is unknown but it's likely to have some negative effect. As is any group who abuses the rooms.

Dean
12-13-2004, 05:20 PM
Tabatha,

I ask a favor of you: please come back and share with us your decision - and how your dealings with MS go. It's always nice to have a few actual cases to chew on in the midst of all our opinions!

Be well!I would agree. In spite of someone else's posting, I don't recall anyone who was attacked in any way for reporting their personal experiences. I can see some would be intimidated by the strong posts on either side of the fence but that is different than being personally attacked.

murcor
12-14-2004, 09:31 AM
Hi all

After all this talk of 5 now being allowed in a 1 bedroom I called CM.

I was going to book a 1 bedroom for 5 people, but was told that the 1 bedroom units are for a max of 4 and that there is no possible way to put 5 people on a reservation as once 5 is entered in the computer it defaults and automatically books a 2 bedroom.

I would constantly be worrying that they would do a "head count" and we would get kicked out, but it doesnt look like that has happened to anyone here.

After reading this thread, Im curious how the extra person uses the bus system, dont you have to show resort ID or something? Are there other things you cant use or participate in?

Thanks

Angela

Cant wait for for our 9 days at SSR in January

Mike
12-14-2004, 09:35 AM
I was going to book a 1 bedroom for 5 people, but was told that the 1 bedroom units are for a max of 4 and that there is no possible way to put 5 people on a reservation as once 5 is entered in the computer it defaults and automatically books a 2 bedroom.



I have 5 people listed on my reservations for a 1 BR. MS had no problem with this. I would call back.

murcor
12-14-2004, 09:42 AM
.....

childsplay
12-14-2004, 11:55 AM
I have 5 people listed on my reservations for a 1 BR.
When we checked in to our 1BR at the BCV this last June, the CM asked me if I wanted keys for all six people on our reservation. I looked at him and said "Can I get a seventh in case I make a new friend at the pool?" He just stared at me, at which time I pointed out I was staying in a one-bedroom and that there was no way I had six people with me.
He and his computer were perfectly willing to allow me to have six people in a one bedroom.......I agree.......call back.

pplasky
12-14-2004, 01:22 PM
.....

If you are booking through MS it shouldn't matter.

CarolMN
12-14-2004, 01:52 PM
If you are booking through MS it shouldn't matter.
However, if you book via CRO, you will get told that the 1 bedroom units are for 4 persons plus an infant.

Best wishes -

MiaSRN62
12-14-2004, 05:15 PM
We got 5 keys for our family last month. As for the bus system. In 10+ years of staying onsite, we've never been asked for our room ID's when boarding WDW busses, but I'm sure they have the perogative to do so if they choose.