Anyone else struggling with the climate of evasiveness?

[john7994]

Given any broad set of decisions (real or imagined) - there will always be a group that finds fault in something that is done. Whether this rises to the level of evasiveness or some other insidious behavior, is an only an opinion that I don’t happen to share or remotely agree with - especially given the support for these accusations - it feels like a hammer looking for a nail.

 

[walt34]

As for BPK, opinions about the desirability are neither right nor wrong, but the obvious intention of DVD was to cheaply and quickly flip the building, which was more my point. Whether one likes the outcome doesn’t change the fact that it was done for that reason.

I guess the obvious intention of DVD for any property is to make as much money as possible. As long as they deliver value to the customer (and don't deceive anyone and thus tarnish the brand), I don't see the problem. Was it cheaper to add BPK to VGF than to build a completely new resort somewhere else? Certainly. But it was also cheaper to add VGF to GF and make use of the existing infrastructure than to build somewhere else.

How much money they made of it is not the question (that's capitalism). The question is, whether people got what they paid for.

 

[lowlight]

The question is, whether people got what they paid for.

That isn’t the only question. The more pertinent (to this discussion) question is, were any existing VGF owners materially harmed by the addition of BPK? The answer is yes. We will never know what percentage, but there are certainly owners who have no interest in staying in the first DVC villa without a kitchenette or a damn fridge even, that feel they are now competing with millions of more points for their existing villas. This wasn’t just a benign capitalism event, it had impacts on existing owners and that was my point. I don’t trust DVC to make money and simultaneously not harm existing ownership, they’ve proven they can and will. That isn’t an opinion.

 

[walt34]

That isn’t the only question. The more pertinent (to this discussion) question is, were any existing VGF owners materially harmed by the addition of BPK? The answer is yes. We will never know what percentage, but there are certainly owners who have no interest in staying in the first DVC villa without a kitchenette or a damn fridge even, that feel they are now competing with millions of more points for their existing villas. This wasn’t just a benign capitalism event, it had impacts on existing owners and that was my point. I don’t trust DVC to make money and simultaneously not harm existing ownership, they’ve proven they can and will. That isn’t an opinion.

Whether the addition of BPK has been a net positive or negative for existing owners will differ from owner to owner. If you have no interest in studios or reject anything without a full fridge, then yes, the change is negative (although I'm pretty sure that full fridges could be added, if the demand for this is really there). Others do benefit from an increased inventory and quite beautiful studios in a great location. I'm personally mostly interested in studios while I'm at WDW.

But things will never stay the same and most changes will have some negative consequences. When Poly2 opens, whether it joins the existing association or not, it will probably get significantly harder to get on the monorail from GF to MK. I guess people owning at BLT were annoyed when VGF opened and there were more people on the monorail going to the TTC.

I really don't see the addition of BPK as this dramatic change. I'm sure, that DVC owners had other things to complain about before that.

 

[davidhr]

While I’m not bothered at all, I understand the sentiment. What I don’t get is why worry so much about speculation. At this point we don’t know anything about the trust to be honest. As far as we know, it can be there just for the cabins. I believe they’ll use it for more things, but we don’t know. So why worry about something we don’t have the details?

I also understand there’s a lot of language in the trust to change things. There’s also a lot of things in our current contracts that have never been used or used in specific cases. That’s the reason I don’t worry too much.

And if the trust changes things in a way I don’t like, I would not buy the trust. I don’t see The trust changing what I already purchased. And if it does, I can sell.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

That isn’t the only question. The more pertinent (to this discussion) question is, were any existing VGF owners materially harmed by the addition of BPK? The answer is yes. We will never know what percentage, but there are certainly owners who have no interest in staying in the first DVC villa without a kitchenette or a damn fridge even, that feel they are now competing with millions of more points for their existing villas. This wasn’t just a benign capitalism event, it had impacts on existing owners and that was my point. I don’t trust DVC to make money and simultaneously not harm existing ownership, they’ve proven they can and will. That isn’t an opinion.

lol I don’t think they’re going out of their way during their meetings and being like “well let’s see, how badly we can screw over our most loyal fans and members”. There has always been a demand for studios (aka cheaper point rooms) and so they delivered. Did it have the ultimate outcome they hoped for? Yes. Did it also come with some unwanted consequences? Also yes. But for as many existing owners that felt they got screwed by the addition of BPK, I'm sure there were plenty who were excited for the prospect of beautiful studios that sleep 5, the most desired room types in all of DVC.

This is what I was talking about in my last post. It’s the focus in all the negative when there are positives as well. DVD is a company whose first goal is to make money and second to appeal to the most people. They will change to expand for the newer generations. I saw a thread on here recently that has images of the DVC rooms when they first opened, or close to it, and man did I hate them. For all the complaints of loss of charm and whimsy, I was thinking thank goodness we’ve upgraded since then. Do I wish there was a middle ground? Definitely, but they’ll move the needle back towards more detail and charm during the next round of refurbishments. And at least DVD listens and reverses decisions that are clearly mistakes and they have these 7/14 year style changes and upgrades. I think that’s a positive thing even if for a cycle or two I don’t love the look.

 

[GGGT]

"......................What bothers me is RIV started restrictions not that long ago. Now we have the trust changing everything again. For a product with roughly a 50
year purchase lifespan, does Disney really plan to change it dramatically every 5 years? ..................."

This sums up my feelings perfectly. We've been DVC since day one and now own 1000's of points at multiple resorts. We understand modifications with DVD sales/restrictions can be necessary at times, but what seems to be constant change is what bothers me.

We have always been a "go with the flow" family and enjoy the immersive WDW Experience every trip. However, we are planners and I like to be able to research and make decisions based on reasonable expectations. This is becoming more and more difficult. Anyway, just my 2 cents.

 

[RivShore]

Now we have the trust changing everything again.

I have not been following the trust issue closely, has anything been officially announced by Disney yet or is everything speculation at this point?

 

[DVC Doctor]

As a 20+ year member, I have seen lots of ups and downs and my opinion is that DVC is still a great product (especially vs the other timeshares) and the impressions that you have are probably more to do with Disney legal team and having to worry about saying something or doing something that will result in lawsuits.

The reality is DVC has always, and continues to deliver wonderful value vs paying directly for rooms.

 

[smileyanna]

First, I’ll echo what others have said: the speculative discussions on these boards should be used more as hobby than information.
Second, I view the potential changes (and the confusion/legally required reticence/obfuscation of DVC) as uncertainties for the future.
This is why discounting the value of future points, or including “time value of money” into your considerations is useful. It’s not (just) about the opportunity cost of the DVC buy-in or a fun way to critique other’s back-of-the-envelope calculations! It’s recognizing that the value 100 CCV points in 2055 is much more uncertain (and therefore lower!) than the value of 100 CCV points in 2025.
Who knows what availability will be like during my preferred time of travel? Who knows if I will realistically be able to vary my resort choice at all to other legacy DVC resorts? Who knows what transportation will be like for the Wilderness Lodge if more resorts are built next door? And of course, who knows how I will value a few nights at Disney in 30 years?
We take our educated guesses, we talk it out on these boards with knowledgeable members. But the increase in uncertainty translates into an increase in how I discount future DVC years - a lot!

 

[tjkraz]

This is the doubled-edged sword of diving head first into rumor and speculation. A lot of the discussions that have been had lately are based almost entirely on conjecture, and may be wildly inaccurate.

 

[tidefan]

Whether the addition of BPK has been a net positive or negative for existing owners will differ from owner to owner. If you have no interest in studios or reject anything without a full fridge, then yes, the change is negative (although I'm pretty sure that full fridges could be added, if the demand for this is really there). Others do benefit from an increased inventory and quite beautiful studios in a great location. I'm personally mostly interested in studios while I'm at WDW.

But things will never stay the same and most changes will have some negative consequences. When Poly2 opens, whether it joins the existing association or not, it will probably get significantly harder to get on the monorail from GF to MK. I guess people owning at BLT were annoyed when VGF opened and there were more people on the monorail going to the TTC.

I really don't see the addition of BPK as this dramatic change. I'm sure, that DVC owners had other things to complain about before that.

I’ve been outspoken as a VGF1 owner that the addition of the hotel rooms has severely impacted my VGF ownership, almost to the point where we are seriously considering selling our VGF contract.

We very much enjoy the Deluxe Studios and with the addition of so many more points in the association, they have become very hard to get, even in the 11 month period. We have no desire to stay in the hotel rooms over at BPK as the second bed setup is a waste of space to us. ( If they had some foresight and made some of those with a King bed, I may have felt different.)

I think that the point made earlier is that DVD severely changed an existing association when most existing members were perfectly happy with the way it was. I agree that it has really made me question the direction of DVC.

Why would I buy a new property if they can just willy-nilly change it a few years down the road?

As I’ve said before, wait until they bulldoze Aruba at CBR and add Uber-point “Mediterranean Villas” to RIV, selling people that they can use those points to stay in the original RIV property. Can’t imaging many RIV owners would be too happy about that, but DVD could certainly do it, and I wouldn’t put it past them…

 

[lowlight]

This is the doubled-edged sword of diving head first into rumor and speculation. A lot of the discussions that have been had lately are based almost entirely on conjecture, and may be wildly inaccurate.

Except that the language is not speculation. It’s there in the filings. How they use it is speculation, but people are rightly concerned about the language. Add to that the survey and it isn’t just unfounded rumors, it’s gossip that originated from the horses mouth.

 

[walt34]

Except that the language is not speculation. It’s there in the filings.

Yes, the question is whether the provisions in the filings are connected to immediate plans or flexibility for things to come. There are a lot of provisions in the existing DVC contracts that have not been used or at least not used recently (e.g. length of the home resort period).
What we can see in the filings could be the result of big plans or just diligent preparation for future eventualities (2042, if selling CFW doesn't work as planned,...). We won't know until they tell us (or more documents are filed)

 

[walt34]

As I’ve said before, wait until they bulldoze Aruba at CBR and add Uber-point “Mediterranean Villas” to RIV, selling people that they can use those points to stay in the original RIV property. Can’t imaging many RIV owners would be too happy about that, but DVD could certainly do it, and I wouldn’t put it past them…

You mean like adding the treehouse villas to SSR? This is not a new phenomenon.

 

[RivShore]

You mean like adding the treehouse villas to SSR? This is not a new phenomenon.

Or the Poly Bungalows...

 

[tjkraz]

Except that the language is not speculation. It’s there in the filings. How they use it is speculation, but people are rightly concerned about the language.

If we're looking back 6 months from now and the trust is nothing more than a vehicle for the cabins, then 99% of this was much ado about nothing. If I were considering buying, yes I would wait for greater clarity. But I don't see this as contributing to a "climate of evasiveness."

Could DVC provide complete transparency now? Perhaps. But I suspect there are legal (and marketing) reasons for not doing that which online angst isn't going to change.

My point is simply this: I think it's healthy to distance oneself from the rumor mill. The DIS can be a great source for DVC information. But it's worth noting that some view it more as a playground for wild hypotheses, cynicism and even sarcasm. Unless reading carefully, it can be easy to get worked-up about things that aren't real.

DVC has certainly made changes which some people disagree with. I'm not trying to discount that. But many discussions are highly speculative, involving things that have never materialized. To this point, any discussion of a trust extending beyond CFW falls into that category. (And If the trust is more substantial than that, it will be much easier to have an informed discussion when more is known.)

Add to that the survey and it isn’t just unfounded rumors, it’s gossip that originated from the horses mouth.

DVC has also surveyed members about resorts in Lake Tahoe and Vegas, and putting workout equipment in villas.

 

[Mai Ku Tiki]

When your words carry legal ramifications you try to be as clear as you can while leaving room for the uncertainty that can occur before everything is finalized. That’s all it is.

The entire room expected the question about PolyTower to be raised.
Somehow it wasn't until end of meeting.
To your point, the best answer from Chang would have been..."Yes! We here at DVD are VERY excited about that project, and we know you are too! We'll be sure to announce further developments as soon as we can. Stay tuned."

 

[Sandisw]

Where I am now is taking everything with a grain of caution until we have it official..in either press release or filed documents.

The one thing I know is the way they have treated this project at Poly is different than any other ones out there

They have been vague, they have given words of caution that hasn’t happened before. BPK was done deal from the start. Whatever potential issues could happen legally with Poly tower would have been a factor for that project as well.

I think the new trust aspect is something none of us would have predicted and while it might be just for the cabins, it seems like a lot for that one project.

I am more confident that they may want to shift the way they sell DVC, even if it is a long term vs short term strategy.

Nothing will surprise me going forward. So, while I agree they are not forthcoming, I also don’t think they need to be until sales start for a project and they are clear then.

I am still happy with being a DVC owner and there isn’t much that could change that since I own a restricted resort, know I can always book at the ones I own, and everything else is a bonus.

 

[tidefan]

You mean like adding the treehouse villas to SSR? This is not a new phenomenon.

Exactly. And the reallocation of points from them to other units probably wasn’t allowed either, but it wasn’t as much of a point drain and didn’t have a lot of blowback at the time.

Or the Poly Bungalows...

No, the bungalows were included in the original PVB1 offering, so if you bought in then, you knew what you were getting…