2017 Points Charts Out

[Dean]

BLT is our home resort, though we just came back from 4 nights at SSR. We requested and got Congress, specifically because this was more or less a non-park trip, and we wanted to spend some time at Disney Springs. We have stayed at Congress before and liked it, though the walk to the main building does take some time. So for us, the value of Congress is probably a little more than the other areas and we can understand committing a few more points. But we have always wondered why at BWV there are only two options - Std and Preferred (Garden/Pool-Boardwalk). Maybe it's just us, but we always choose a Boardwalk view over the Garden/Pool view. And a few times I have gone in to look at availability and it seems like the Boardwalk view does fill up faster than Garden/Pool. Would anyone else consider it reasonable to make a minor change in point allocation to account for this difference? I know this isn't a perfect comparison, but at BLT there is Standard, Lake view and Theme Park view. At BWV, Standard, Garden/Pool, and Boardwalk would seem to be a similar situation.

It would seem reasonable to raise BW view and lower something else proportionally. My guess is they haven't done so related to the requirement to balance and that it doesn't fit well together else they would have made that change up front. That's not to say it can't be done and I wouldn't be surprised if they did change it at some point.

 

[drusba]

BLT is our home resort, though we just came back from 4 nights at SSR. We requested and got Congress, specifically because this was more or less a non-park trip, and we wanted to spend some time at Disney Springs. We have stayed at Congress before and liked it, though the walk to the main building does take some time. So for us, the value of Congress is probably a little more than the other areas and we can understand committing a few more points. But we have always wondered why at BWV there are only two options - Std and Preferred (Garden/Pool-Boardwalk). Maybe it's just us, but we always choose a Boardwalk view over the Garden/Pool view. And a few times I have gone in to look at availability and it seems like the Boardwalk view does fill up faster than Garden/Pool. Would anyone else consider it reasonable to make a minor change in point allocation to account for this difference? I know this isn't a perfect comparison, but at BLT there is Standard, Lake view and Theme Park view. At BWV, Standard, Garden/Pool, and Boardwalk would seem to be a similar situation.

According to the the official public offerring documents BWV has two views for which point structures can be different, standard and preferred. Boardwalk view was eventually added as a booking category but it retained the same points as it had before as preferred, and thus no change of legal significance occurred. The right Disney retains for changing point structures is one to do so to address changes in demand for use days. It cannot do something that would be a fundamental change like change the points required for 1BRs to be lower than studios or make some studios more costly than other studios unless the public offering documents that purchasers received allowed those differences. Though I am sure I will get disagreement, my view is that it would be legally improper for Disney to create a boardwalk view with a higher point cost than preferred. That would violate what Disney is allowed to do and change the written representations upon which the resort was sold. Frankly, if I were an SSR owner, I would be considering suing Disney right now to prevent the change that is being made because I do not believe Disney can now create separate standard and preferred rooms with different point requirements because the public offering documents do not state that there can be such differences.

 

[Dean]

According to the the official public offerring documents BWV has two views for which point structures can be different, standard and preferred. Boardwalk view was eventually added as a booking category but it retained the same points as it had before as preferred, and thus no change of legal significance occurred. The right Disney retains for changing point structures is one to do so to address changes in demand for use days. It cannot do something that would be a fundamental change like change the points required for 1BRs to be lower than studios or make some studios more costly than other studios unless the public offering documents that purchasers received allowed those differences. Though I am sure I will get disagreement, my view is that it would be legally improper for Disney to create a boardwalk view with a higher point cost than preferred. That would violate what Disney is allowed to do and change the written representations upon which the resort was sold. Frankly, if I were an SSR owner, I would be considering suing Disney right now to prevent the change that is being made because I do not believe Disney can now create separate standard and preferred rooms with different point requirements because the public offering documents do not state that there can be such differences.

I disagree and would reference the THV at SSR as an example of such a change. All that has to happen is for the total points to remain the same for the resort for the year.

 

[drusba]

I disagree and would reference the THV at SSR as an example of such a change. All that has to happen is for the total points to remain the same for the resort for the year.

I have read that section to which you are referring many times and the fact that it says total points for all vacation homes cannot change does not mean everything else can change. The section goes on to state that due to "fluctuations in Use Day demand," not fluctuations in demand for different locations in the resort, DVCMC reserves the right "to increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day within a given vacation home during the calendar year." "Any increase or decrease in the Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirement for a given Use Day pursuant to DVCMC's right to make this Home Resort point adjustment must be offset by a corresponding increase or decrease in another Use Day or Days." A vacation home is a room. In other words, DVCMC can raise points for a room in one use day as long as it lowers them in one or more other use days. That does not say DVCMC can make the same established room category have different point requirements during the same Use Day. Moreover, in line with the statement that total resort points need to stay the same, the section also says that "the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing in a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation" of points. A unit is usually a small number of contiguous rooms, meaning at SSR any building wil have more than one unit. If DVCMC raises the points applicable to that Unit, like it is doing by raising the points needed year round to reserve the rooms in that unit, it should not be allowed.

What any SSR owner would have going for him is that nothing was ever said in any of the documents that there could be standard and preferred booking categories with different point levels. And as to Disney's arguing that the section you are referring to gives it the right to create such categories, it will face the rule of construction followed by courts when dealing with documents created by the dominant party to the transaction and created by developers for condominiums and timeshares: all ambiguities in the section will be construed against Disney's position and in favor of the DVC member; if Disney's construction of the section is reasonable and the member's different construction of the section is also reasonable, the member wins.

I also believe the THV change was improper but if no one sues, Disney always wins.

 

[wdrl]

Moreover, in line with the statement that total resort points need to stay the same, the section also says that "the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing in a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation" of points. A unit is usually a small number of contiguous rooms, meaning at SSR any building wil have more than one unit. If DVCMC raises the points applicable to that Unit, like it is doing by raising the points needed year round to reserve the rooms in that unit, it should not be allowed.

DVC has never, ever changed the number of points allotted to a Residential Unit once the condominium association is established. There is still no evidence that it is violating that rule with this point reallocation at SSR.

 

[Rochester Disney Fan]

My guess is they just moved a room or 2 from a BW/Prefered view to standard because of complaints about the view when spending the points

 

[Dean]

I have read that section to which you are referring many times and the fact that it says total points for all vacation homes cannot change does not mean everything else can change. The section goes on to state that due to "fluctuations in Use Day demand," not fluctuations in demand for different locations in the resort, DVCMC reserves the right "to increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day within a given vacation home during the calendar year." "Any increase or decrease in the Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirement for a given Use Day pursuant to DVCMC's right to make this Home Resort point adjustment must be offset by a corresponding increase or decrease in another Use Day or Days." A vacation home is a room. In other words, DVCMC can raise points for a room in one use day as long as it lowers them in one or more other use days. That does not say DVCMC can make the same established room category have different point requirements during the same Use Day. Moreover, in line with the statement that total resort points need to stay the same, the section also says that "the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing in a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation" of points. A unit is usually a small number of contiguous rooms, meaning at SSR any building wil have more than one unit. If DVCMC raises the points applicable to that Unit, like it is doing by raising the points needed year round to reserve the rooms in that unit, it should not be allowed.

What any SSR owner would have going for him is that nothing was ever said in any of the documents that there could be standard and preferred booking categories with different point levels. And as to Disney's arguing that the section you are referring to gives it the right to create such categories, it will face the rule of construction followed by courts when dealing with documents created by the dominant party to the transaction and created by developers for condominiums and timeshares: all ambiguities in the section will be construed against Disney's position and in favor of the DVC member; if Disney's construction of the section is reasonable and the member's different construction of the section is also reasonable, the member wins.

I also believe the THV change was improper but if no one sues, Disney always wins.

I read it differently when looked at as a whole. DVC has complete and unobstructed control of reservations, which this falls under. As I read it as long as the resort as a whole is unchanged in numbers then it falls within the rules. For it to not be allowed in this case there would have to be wording that prevented it since there is clearly wording that would allow it otherwise.

 

[southerngirl528]

Wouldn't a corresponding move have to be made elsewhere to keep the number of points constant over the year?

You are correct, Mousewerks. If they increase points somewhere on any DVC resort, they have to "balance" that by decreasing points at the same resort the same amount of points. The only guarantee when we purchase DVC is that the TOTAL number of points for any resort will never change. They can be shuffled around though it has been done very few times over the length of DVC.

 

[heynowirv]

You are correct, Mousewerks. If they increase points somewhere on any DVC resort, they have to "balance" that by decreasing points at the same resort the same amount of points. The only guarantee when we purchase DVC is that the TOTAL number of points for any resort will never change. They can be shuffled around though it has been done very few times over the length of DVC.

And has it been determined that they've done that in the std sections?

 

[wdrl]

And has it been determined that they've done that in the std sections?

I posted something on the DVCNews explaining how the SSR 2017 reallocation could be point-neutral. Click here.

 

[heynowirv]

Wdrl,
that's an interesting post.So It's believed that Congress Park & The Springs will become preferred for 2017 and everything else remains std?So I'm also guessing when you try to book these on line you'd know whether they were available or not.

 

[drusba]

It has not been determined one way or the other whether the total points have changed and I suspect they have not. To me that is beside the point. What is happening with SSR is not just a point shift where the points are lowered for some existing room categories and raised for others. Before DVCMC could even do a point shift, it had to first create brand new room categories of preferred and standard rooms that were not created in the public offering documents. This is not just a reservation issue. DVCMC is making a fundamental change to the structure of the resort.

Disney created room categories in the public offering documents for other resorts. Why does anyone believe Disney did that if it is correct those are just unimportant things and Disney has the absolute power to create new room categories even if it never told any purchaser they could be created. Obviously, even Disney believed putting them in the POD's was necessary to have room classifications for resorts like BLT, AKV, and VGF. The logic that Disney can just create new ones at anytime would mean Disney tomorrow could just change BLT into numerous new categories like Theme Park view high floor, Theme Park low floor, Lake view high floor, lake view low floor, standard outer circle, standard inner circle and then redo the points for all of them. In fact, Disney could go on and make dozens of new categories everywhere with different point structures and then change it every year.

To me what has occurred at SSR is a fundamental change to the structure of the resort and that is not something that it can do simply because it has some right to do point shifting.

 

[Dean]

It has not been determined one way or the other whether the total points have changed and I suspect they have not. To me that is beside the point. What is happening with SSR is not just a point shift where the points are lowered for some existing room categories and raised for others. Before DVCMC could even do a point shift, it had to first create brand new room categories of preferred and standard rooms that were not created in the public offering documents. This is not just a reservation issue. DVCMC is making a fundamental change to the structure of the resort.

Disney created room categories in the public offering documents for other resorts. Why does anyone believe Disney did that if it is correct those are just unimportant things and Disney has the absolute power to create new room categories even if it never told any purchaser they could be created. Obviously, even Disney believed putting them in the POD's was necessary to have room classifications for resorts like BLT, AKV, and VGF. The logic that Disney can just create new ones at anytime would mean Disney tomorrow could just change BLT into numerous new categories like Theme Park view high floor, Theme Park low floor, Lake view high floor, lake view low floor, standard outer circle, standard inner circle and then redo the points for all of them. In fact, Disney could go on and make dozens of new categories everywhere with different point structures and then change it every year.

To me what has occurred at SSR is a fundamental change to the structure of the resort and that is not something that it can do simply because it has some right to do point shifting.

Again, we'll have to disagree. This is simply a reservation issue just like creating a minimum stay would be as long as the total for the year for the resort stays the same. They've already done this at SSR with the THV change and created multiple categories not listed in the POS previously. I don't have access to an applicable POS right now, does the maximum reallocation chart remove view for any of the resorts? The difference for a min LOS is that the POS limits the minimum stay to 5 nights, there is no such limitation on the reservation system. I would presume you'd have the same argument against a VIP system that gave some priority over others but several other FL based timeshares have done so already. DVC has already weighed in on this subject but doing so. One can be certain their lawyers were involved in this decision.

 

[Anal Annie]

I was thinking the same think, but then DH pointed out that they don't tell you on the point charts which section of BWV is standard, or at BLT which are standard etc.

I just thought since this is a completely NEW thing for SSR they should have EXPLAINED it to the DVC members rather than just wave a magic wand and VOILA there's a new category. They still haven't really come out & told us what's behind it and what constitutes preferred over standard. If it's complete sections grouped together they should have said which section is which now. We're partial to Grandstand and will likely continue to book whatever category it is in now if we're staying at SSR unless we're trying to squeeze all we can out of our points - in which case we'd likely book a standard view at AKV rather than a section we don't want to be in at SSR (as the points would be comparable).

 

[Anal Annie]

I posted something on the DVCNews explaining how the SSR 2017 reallocation could be point-neutral. Click here.

Don't know where he got his intel but Daddio said in post #12 that the Grandstand section was also now "preferred". I just wish DVC had publicly told us what's going on…. That would eliminate so much speculating….

 

[carlbarry]

Watching

 

[southerngirl528]

While I entirely agree that it would be considerate for DVD to inform its members of upcoming changes, this new category creation is scarcely a new thing. OKW HH locale used to simply be a frequent room location request, NOT a separate booking category. Because the demand was there, they created a new category.

What I find interesting is that I have read numerous threads and posts that bemoan the fact that DVC needs to have a new category created at a resort (current hot resort for this debate is Polynesian Studio view categories), but when it is done as it apparently has been at SSR, folks are surprised….jus' sayin'.

There should most assuredly be a balance of the points for the year for SSR as Dean also mentions. There has been an offset every time before that DVD has increased points in some category. I believe they will do that again.

 

[drusba]

While I entirely agree that it would be considerate for DVD to inform its members of upcoming changes, this new category creation is scarcely a new thing. OKW HH locale used to simply be a frequent room location request, NOT a separate booking category. Because the demand was there, they created a new category.

Creating booking categories without changing points applicable like was done at OKW is not a fundamental change like the one being done with SSR. All that occurred with OKW was a resevation change in that a non-guaranteed request became a guaranteed request. The usual dispute at resorts over room classifications is that there are rooms that are misclassified within the classifications originally created, e.g., Poly has standard and lake view as decalared in the POD's but as Disney has done before, such as at BLT with theme park view, it put rooms in a higher existing classification which had no business being in that higher classification.

 

[carlbarry]

All that occurred with OKW was a resevation change in that a non-guaranteed request became a guaranteed request.

Except one time when I had specified Near Hosptality House and upon arrival was told that wasn't available. And I had reserved 11 months out at my home resort, OKW! (However, the studio I was given first locked me out despite my Magic Band, and then created a flood with a leaking air conditioner unit over the kitchenette, so the Runner assigned to me moved me to a 1 BR. So I can't complain.)

 

[Dean]

Creating booking categories without changing points applicable like was done at OKW is not a fundamental change like the one being done with SSR. All that occurred with OKW was a resevation change in that a non-guaranteed request became a guaranteed request. The usual dispute at resorts over room classifications is that there are rooms that are misclassified within the classifications originally created, e.g., Poly has standard and lake view as decalared in the POD's but as Disney has done before, such as at BLT with theme park view, it put rooms in a higher existing classification which had no business being in that higher classification.

But we've speculated over the yeas about possible changes for BW view points compared to preferred and there's been discussion of the same for Poly as well as possibly a third category.

Except one time when I had specified Near Hosptality House and upon arrival was told that wasn't available. And I had reserved 11 months out at my home resort, OKW! (However, the studio I was given first locked me out despite my Magic Band, and then created a flood with a leaking air conditioner unit over the kitchenette, so the Runner assigned to me moved me to a 1 BR. So I can't complain.)

I presume this was a booking category reservation and not a request. The reality is the NO reservation can ever be completely guaranteed. There have been reports of people being upgraded for such issues as well as reports of people having no room and being shuttled to a different resort. I recall one situation for BCV where apparently they overbooked or some similar situation where at least one person was shuttled to OKW being told that was their option since it was their home resort and another same timeframe being put in I think it was BWI with concierge or meal plan IIRC.