Any thoughts on point charts for Lakeshore Lodge

[WinterSolider]

The owners wouldn't eventually be left cabinless; they paid into the replacement cabins over the course of decades.

Correct, that's my entire point. I'm proposing that as a possible reason for the trust structure. With a normal resort, you literally own an interest in the building itself. That wouldn't work for the cabins because the building itself is going to end up in a landfill while your contract is still active. So the trust makes it such that you own an interest in the trust that lets you stay in the cabins that exist today and the future cabins that will replace them when the time comes.

 

[CarolynFH]

Coincidently, I just got a letter in the mail saying that, per Florida law, DVC conducted a structural inspection of my home resort and validated that the current maintenance fees are properly amortizing for the long term repairs.

It will be fun when the cabins have their inspections come due, but in the meantime, you have to assume that their (high) maintenance fees are amortizing for the long term repair costs (i.e. ripping the old cabins out and completely replacing them). The owners wouldn't eventually be left cabinless; they paid into the replacement cabins over the course of decades.

Because the cabins are in the trust, they won’t have the same required inspections that the condo association buildings do (which is only in Florida). But I expect Disney to inspect them and make sure they’re maintained (and eventually replaced), just as they have the condo association buildings, because ultimately they belong to Disney. So yes, the owners (trust members) will be paying all along the same as the condo association owners do.

 

[Brian Noble]

I don't think that exempts it---it depends on how the entity underlying the trust is structured. However...

It will be fun when the cabins have their inspections come due

...I think there is a different reason why the cabins will not be inspected: the relevant Florida statute only applies to condo buildings three stories or taller. From the FL statutes, emphasis added:

A condominium association under chapter 718 and a cooperative association under chapter 719 must have a milestone inspection performed for each building that is three stories or more in height by December 31 of the year in which the building reaches 30 years of age, based on the date the certificate of occupancy for the building was issued, and every 10 years thereafter

 

[maui22]

I read many stories mentioning how large Lakeshore Lodge is. It didn’t prepare me for seeing it in person. We were staying at BRV earlier in the week, so we regularly saw it across the water. One
day, we rode the bus to MK. It stopped at the FW bus stop with the construction fencing right there. It has been 20 years since I was through this area. Really struck me how well everything ties together in this area.

 

[DonkeyHoTay]

We were staying at BRV earlier in the week, so we regularly saw it across the water.

Staying at contemporary next weekend and bringing my cruise binoculars to spy on LL from afar….

 

[bama_ed]

I read many stories mentioning how large Lakeshore Lodge is. It didn’t prepare me for seeing it in person.

Yeah it's ugly in person, isn't it? Totally out of scale (and initial design appearance) with the Fort Wilderness buildings around it. And DVC will splash some ugly cabins in the campground's (former) view over Clementine's Beach because they can. Not because they should.

I said it earlier on the DIS and NOBODY disagreed with me. Your ballot has been counted.

It all depends on WHOSE ox is being GORED. Which is kinda sad - and painfully obvious.

But silence is a vote in favor of the ugly transition on the shores of Bay Lake.

Not all the shoreline on Bay Lake appears to be build-able.

But a lot of it appears to be.

DVC shows they go the cheap route (glamming onto the very popular Fort Wilderness Campground and Resort). They don't want to build any more stand-alone OKW, do they? They haven't for decades. So no stand-alone Bay Lake time shares.

Bama Ed

PS - and @maui22 , since I am technically replying to your post, I just hope those DVC guests looking at the Pioneer Hall dumpsters stay over on their side of the resort line. Dumpsters-or-Magic-Kingdom-View. (I would LOVE to see those point charts, no?). Once people experience the Fort, those folks want to SOAK up the ambiance. (we see it all the time) Who wants to go back to 4 small walls in a room with maybe one window/patio? Not dumping on you, just stating an obvious data point.

 

[RichVIII]

Not all the shoreline on Bay Lake appears to be build-able.

But a lot of it appears to be.

Knocking down the Garden Wing to build BLT2 would also seem like an easy build along the shores as well. Unless the convention business is that good and filling those rooms, it seems like another way to shift inventory.

 

[DVCsloth]

Correct, that's my entire point. I'm proposing that as a possible reason for the trust structure. With a normal resort, you literally own an interest in the building itself. That wouldn't work for the cabins because the building itself is going to end up in a landfill while your contract is still active. So the trust makes it such that you own an interest in the trust that lets you stay in the cabins that exist today and the future cabins that will replace them when the time comes.

Is this already known that the buildings won't last the life of the contract? It may be possible that they are designed to be renovated at a certain interval and not need to be replaced.

 

[ocdb8r1]

So now we can all freak out about the trust again

Maybe this isn't the proper thread for it, but I am very curious what freaks people out about the Trust? What rights as an "owner" of xxx.% of a single unit in a traditional DVC unit are important to you that you don't get with the trust product?

I am always confused when the "trust" debate pops up in other threads. As I see it as an "owner" in a traditional DVC unit, about the only "real property" ownership right you get is the right to occupy the property (of course, in accordance with the DVC rules). You have no right to further subdivide your ownership interest, you cede your rights to any meaningful vote in the condo association, your ownership rights aren't perpetual, your right to occupy can be changed by the rules of DVC (with limited exception to certain limits on such rules). I just don't quite understand what people see they get with the traditional DVC units that they are deprived of with the trust product.

 

[Steelers0854]

Maybe this isn't the proper thread for it, but I am very curious what freaks people out about the Trust? What rights as an "owner" of xxx.% of a single unit in a traditional DVC unit are important to you that you don't get with the trust product?

I am always confused when the "trust" debate pops up in other threads. As I see it as an "owner" in a traditional DVC unit, about the only "real property" ownership right you get is the right to occupy the property (of course, in accordance with the DVC rules). You have no right to further subdivide your ownership interest, you cede your rights to any meaningful vote in the condo association, your ownership rights aren't perpetual, your right to occupy can be changed by the rules of DVC (with limited exception to certain limits on such rules). I just don't quite understand what people see they get with the traditional DVC units that they are deprived of with the trust product.

I could be wrong but the thing that I understood that stood out as being most problematic to me is that as the trust grows so does the competition for booking at the 11 month mark. If I understood it correctly, any member of the trust has home resort priority at any property in the trust. So if there is a clear favorite in the trust then you have potentially a much much larger pool of members competing for those rooms than if it were a single property ownership. Of course this could be.a benefit as well as you would have a wider selection to choose from at the 11 month mark as well.

 

[Sandisw]

I could be wrong but the thing that I understood that stood out as being most problematic to me is that as the trust grows so does the competition for booking at the 11 month mark. If I understood it correctly, any member of the trust has home resort priority at any property in the trust. So if there is a clear favorite in the trust then you have potentially a much much larger pool of members competing for those rooms than if it were a single property ownership. Of course this could be.a benefit as well as you would have a wider selection to choose from at the 11 month mark as well.

Some trusts work that way but the one that DVc set up for CFW does not have to be that way and it may not end up working that way.

Units that are activated under the same RTU plan would all be given the same home resort priority.

The trust does allow them to activate units from different component sites under the same RTU plan.

However, they can also add units and create a new RTU plan that is its own home resort.

For example, the can add VLL to the trust model and give it its one RTU plan and not make it part of the CFW RTU plan..meaning each maintains its own home resort priority.

We don’t know yet what they plan to do, even if they decide to stick with the trust model.

While my prediction is about 75% that VLL and CFW will be under one RTU plan, DVC may choose to do things differently.