Attack of the Lakeshore Lodge

[smileyanna]

I hope CCV resale drops big time!!

I don’t know what Reflections will do to CCV prices. But I’m mostly bullish on what Reflections does to the value of my CCV resale contract. Walking paths, more dining options, a pseudo-Crescent Lake neighborhood feel. Maybe more dedicated busses/better transportation. Reflections, with its amazing pool and fantastic villas, will pull the resort-centric crowds, while WL guests happily return home to our lobby, moderate points chart and inferior amenities.

[The bearish case: more crowds, Disney goes full tower for Reflections and the neighborhood feels more Vegas than wilderness, gobs of people, overcrowded buses with three stops (FW/WL/Reflections), tougher to book CCV/BRV during peak times]

 

[bama_ed]

Disney built that big rectangular parking lot this spring that is across the road from the new TCD Horse Barn that got moved because of R**********. Coincidently, its size and shape is similar to the parking lot in the stalled resort design (phase 1 of parking lot) that was being built behind Pioneer Hall. Funny, that...



This Google Earth photo is from February 2024 but it's been finished.

They didn't build that lot so the TCD CM's could have more space to park.

So it (or something) is definitely coming.

ED

 

[BrianLo]

We may have the answer on why Wilderness Lodge permit is so long. Hat tip DCBaker at WDW Magic.

Starting August 5, 2024, Disney’s Wilderness Lodge will undergo exterior refurbishment work. During this time, Guests may see and hear construction work during daytime hours

 

[jolynne28]

We may have the answer on why Wilderness Lodge permit is so long. Hat tip DCBaker at WDW Magic.

Starting August 5, 2024, Disney’s Wilderness Lodge will undergo exterior refurbishment work. During this time, Guests may see and hear construction work during daytime hours

This has been going on, albeit at BRV. We were there end of June for one night and they had scaffolding and heavy equipment right outside our room.

 

[Economouse]

I was 100% convinced Reflections was back on the table this past winter, and these new permits only confirm it for me. We'll see Reflections rolled into the trust with the Cabins at Fort Wilderness. That will be it for the trust as no further DVC resorts will be rolled into it. The trust lives and dies with the Cabins at Fort Wilderness and Reflections.

I hope you are right, but I doubt it. Why would Disney ever go through the trouble of setting up the trust if not to start building a moat around direct sales going forward and looking toward 2042? Once a corporation gains an advantage they will do everything they can to protect it.

The Trust is so hard for me to get past as a consumer and that's why I'm avoiding RIV and Cabins like the plague. Honestly, I would rather buy a vacation home in Orlando, where I would at least have homeowner protection and rights, than "invest" in something where Dis has all the marbles.

 

[CraigInPA]

Disney built that big rectangular parking lot this spring that is across the road from the new TCD Horse Barn that got moved because of R**********. Coincidently, its size and shape is similar to the parking lot in the stalled resort design (phase 1 of parking lot) that was being built behind Pioneer Hall. Funny, that...

View attachment 883792

This Google Earth photo is from February 2024 but it's been finished.

They didn't build that lot so the TCD CM's could have more space to park.

So it (or something) is definitely coming.

ED

Might it be that they need temporary storage for the cabins? The cabins aren't going to arrive one at a time, since they're being built off site and then trucked in. Because of the oversize permits and complexity of moving oversize loads, they'd transport them in groups. They're not going to park these things on the roads of FW until they are ready for each one. Hence, the need for a big parking lot...

 

[davidhr]

I hope you are right, but I doubt it. Why would Disney ever go through the trouble of setting up the trust if not to start building a moat around direct sales going forward and looking toward 2042? Once a corporation gains an advantage they will do everything they can to protect it.

The Trust is so hard for me to get past as a consumer and that's why I'm avoiding RIV and Cabins like the plague. Honestly, I would rather buy a vacation home in Orlando, where I would at least have homeowner protection and rights, than "invest" in something where Dis has all the marbles.

I get the trust part, but why are you avoiding Riviera because of the trust when it has nothing to do with it?

 

[Economouse]

I get the trust part, but why are you avoiding Riviera because of the trust when it has nothing to do with it?

I should have been clear, I'm avoiding Riv because of the resale restrictions currently in place. I expect more restrictions and red tape for owners under the Palmetto Trust going forward when it comes to resale or your rights as a timeshare owner.

Deeds issued will declare that buyers have a “Right to Use” the accommodations declared into the trust and part of the plan. And the board of trustees, which happens to be the same as the board of DVC, has the right to change the trust whenever and however they please. My understanding (I'm not a lawyer) is that legally the trust doesn't fall under the same laws that govern housing, and that's a bad deal for owners any way you frame it.

 

[AstroBlasters]

I should have been clear, I'm avoiding Riv because of the resale restrictions currently in place. I expect more restrictions and red tape for owners under the Palmetto Trust going forward when it comes to resale or your rights as a timeshare owner.

Deeds issued will declare that buyers have a “Right to Use” the accommodations declared into the trust and part of the plan. And the board of trustees, which happens to be the same as the board of DVC, has the right to change the trust whenever and however they please. My understanding (I'm not a lawyer) is that legally the trust doesn't fall under the same laws that govern housing, and that's a bad deal for owners any way you frame it.

So what you’re saying is….. all systems go for PolyT?

 

[ocdb8r1]

Deeds issued will declare that buyers have a “Right to Use” the accommodations declared into the trust and part of the plan. And the board of trustees, which happens to be the same as the board of DVC, has the right to change the trust whenever and however they please. My understanding (I'm not a lawyer) is that legally the trust doesn't fall under the same laws that govern housing, and that's a bad deal for owners any way you frame it.

Totally agree with you, but that ship has sailed. The existing DVC "deeds" don't offer you any more protections against what you've described above. Just because you have a deeded interest in a specific unit means nothing when you simultaneously cede all usage rights associated with that deed to the DVC program. For both "products" Disney holds all the cards and as such I don't think the "trust" is any worse a deal for owners than the existing product.

....and the resale restrictions at RIV could easily (and legally) be put into place for all existing resorts. Nothing guarantees you right to trade into the other resorts. The only thing holding back DVC is the existing owner outcry that would ensure. Much easier for them to creep restrictions on each new resort (whether that be a trust or deeded product).

 

[davidhr]

I should have been clear, I'm avoiding Riv because of the resale restrictions currently in place. I expect more restrictions and red tape for owners under the Palmetto Trust going forward when it comes to resale or your rights as a timeshare owner.

Deeds issued will declare that buyers have a “Right to Use” the accommodations declared into the trust and part of the plan. And the board of trustees, which happens to be the same as the board of DVC, has the right to change the trust whenever and however they please. My understanding (I'm not a lawyer) is that legally the trust doesn't fall under the same laws that govern housing, and that's a bad deal for owners any way you frame it.

That’s fair and totally understandable. But to be honest, it’s not too different with the other properties. DVC controls their product tightly.

 

[tidefan]

Totally agree with you, but that ship has sailed. The existing DVC "deeds" don't offer you any more protections against what you've described above. Just because you have a deeded interest in a specific unit means nothing when you simultaneously cede all usage rights associated with that deed to the DVC program. For both "products" Disney holds all the cards and as such I don't think the "trust" is any worse a deal for owners than the existing product.

....and the resale restrictions at RIV could easily (and legally) be put into place for all existing resorts. Nothing guarantees you right to trade into the other resorts. The only thing holding back DVC is the existing owner outcry that would ensure. Much easier for them to creep restrictions on each new resort (whether that be a trust or deeded product).

Mostly, but doesn't the trust include explicit language that reallocation of points can be spread across units? In other words, they can add additional properties and just change the point charts as they wish.

I know that they did this when the reallocated the SSR Treehouses, and that didn't get a lot of blowback, but the issue came up again during the 2019/2020 lock-off point chart fiasco that DVC backed off of the changes on as there was a scrutiny on the language about whether DVC could actually change points across units as it would actually be changing the percentage ownership that owners have listed in the deed.

If I understood the excellent analysis by @Sandisw of the CFW trust POS, they now explicitly reserve the right to add to the trust and reallocate as seen fit at that time. To me, that says that while a Cabins may have X number of points now, they can add a new property, inflate the points in those declarations, then add more points to what the cabins will cost over time. Not sure if this is making sense, but this is what I think is occurring here and why I would not get near the trust (that and restrictions, I will not purchase a restricted property...)

 

[Economouse]

So what you’re saying is….. all systems go for PolyT?

We'll see

 

[hockeydad21]

I hope you are right, but I doubt it. Why would Disney ever go through the trouble of setting up the trust if not to start building a moat around direct sales going forward and looking toward 2042? Once a corporation gains an advantage they will do everything they can to protect it.

The Trust is so hard for me to get past as a consumer and that's why I'm avoiding RIV and Cabins like the plague. Honestly, I would rather buy a vacation home in Orlando, where I would at least have homeowner protection and rights, than "invest" in something where Dis has all the marbles.

I’m sure some have seen me say this before, but I think the need for a trust at CFW all goes back to the cabins needing to be replaced roughly every 20 years (which has been the case historically for the cabins at FW). However, you can’t replace them if it’s a standard timeshare deed because owner’s contracts would be tied to those specific cabins DVD would be looking to replace/swap out. If they went the standard DVC timeshare deed, then they'd need to keep these new cabins for the entirety of the 50 years, and could only refurbish them instead of replace them.

Throw in some of the other language included in the trust, and I think its pretty clear they'll be tying another resort(s) to the trust in the future (wink wink Reflections). Factor in how CFW is very clearly the ugly duckling of the DVC properties in its lack of many basic deluxe property amenities, and it seems pretty clear the intention is for the addition of Reflections to help bring those traditional deluxe amenities to the Fort Wilderness DVC offering. Then examine some of the recent history of new DVC properties - Riviera, VDH, and the new PVB tower - all of these would have been perfect candidates for the trust, but they didn't go this route. Why? Because a blanketed trust across all future DVC properties is not their intention in my opinion.

 

[Sandisw]

Mostly, but doesn't the trust include explicit language that reallocation of points can be spread across units? In other words, they can add additional properties and just change the point charts as they wish.

I know that they did this when the reallocated the SSR Treehouses, and that didn't get a lot of blowback, but the issue came up again during the 2019/2020 lock-off point chart fiasco that DVC backed off of the changes on as there was a scrutiny on the language about whether DVC could actually change points across units as it would actually be changing the percentage ownership that owners have listed in the deed.

If I understood the excellent analysis by @Sandisw of the CFW trust POS, they now explicitly reserve the right to add to the trust and reallocate as seen fit at that time. To me, that says that while a Cabins may have X number of points now, they can add a new property, inflate the points in those declarations, then add more points to what the cabins will cost over time. Not sure if this is making sense, but this is what I think is occurring here and why I would not get near the trust (that and restrictions, I will not purchase a restricted property...)

Property is added to the trust and then activated into a RTU plan. So, yes, they can add units from more than one component site to the same vacation plan and if they are all under that, the points can be reallocated across all units.

Because what is sold is RTU and not a deeded interest to a leashold condo, one is simply buying access to what is the in RTU plan in which one is deeded.

Right now, all we have is the CFW Resort Use Plan...and only units are cabins...but, theorectically, they could add units to a new project...say Reflections...to this same plan and then all the units count as one "resort".

They also have the ability to add units under different vacation plans, and in those cases, it would be different....but, what is no longer required in this trust...at least from my in-depth reading, but IANAL brain...is that all units need to be located at the same component site because DVC remains owner of all of them, and is simply selling the right to use their units.

I still believe that the trust is the future and future projects that are new resorts will be sold this way, but not necessarily as one big resort use plan....I think they will have different plans within them and a possiblity...this is just my own wild speculation here...is we might even see some tiering of resorts down the road....but, until the next new project comes along that is not a new phase ot existing associations...like BPK and PVB tower are...we just don't know.

The big piece, though, reallocation aside, they still have to balance the points against all the units that are added to a specific resort plan....

 

[tidefan]

Property is added to the trust and then activated into a RTU plan. So, yes, they can add units from more than one component site to the same vacation plan and if they are all under that, the points can be reallocated across all units.

Because what is sold is RTU and not a deeded interest to a leashold condo, one is simply buying access to what is the in RTU plan in which one is deeded.

Right now, all we have is the CFW Resort Use Plan...and only units are cabins...but, theorectically, they could add units to a new project...say Reflections...to this same plan and then all the units count as one "resort".

They also have the ability to add units under different vacation plans, and in those cases, it would be different....but, what is no longer required in this trust...at least from my in-depth reading, but IANAL brain...is that all units need to be located at the same component site because DVC remains owner of all of them, and is simply selling the right to use their units.

I still believe that the trust is the future and future projects that are new resorts will be sold this way, but not necessarily as one big resort use plan....I think they will have different plans within them and a possiblity...this is just my own wild speculation here...is we might even see some tiering of resorts down the road....but, until the next new project comes along that is not a new phase ot existing associations...like BPK and PVB tower are...we just don't know.

The big piece, though, reallocation aside, they still have to balance the points against all the units that are added to a specific resort plan....

So, theoretically, would Reflections/River Country Lodge, if added to the trust be a separate resort plan?

My worry is that they could say add 5,000,000 to declare for Ref/RCL, then add them to the trust. Then, immediately reallocate where Ref/RCL only has 4,000,000 points and the other 1,000,000 are added to the existing cabins (or something like that).

 

[Sandisw]

So, theoretically, would Reflections/River Country Lodge, if added to the trust be a separate resort plan?

My worry is that they could say add 5,000,000 to declare for Ref/RCL, then add them to the trust. Then, immediately reallocate where Ref/RCL only has 4,000,000 points and the other 1,000,000 are added to the existing cabins (or something like that).

Remember, it’s about units and not points per se. It’s about where they are activated for sale.

So, the trust is set up to hold RTU plans and the units activate under a specific plan for use. It has its own POS.

They could decide to add something like a Reflections to the trust and then activate all those units under their own plan, activate them under the current CFW plan, or activate some units as one plan and some in a diffeeent plan…though it’s hard to imagine that.

The key difference is really the ability to have different component sites under the same RTU plan.

Once units are activated into a plan, those points become what is sold. As long as those units exist within the plan, all owners of RTU contracts within that plan get use of the units.

And that is what is sold. So, if they add units worth 5 million points to a plan, and sell all 5 million points to that plan, then that plan remains at 5 million points. However, if that plan has multiple component sites…ie: Reflections and CFW cabins..then yes, they can move around those points between both.

Just like current resorts, units can be added to the trust but not yet activated under a plan…like current CFW cabins. All exist as part of the trust but only 60 ish are activated for use in the CFW plan.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[tidefan]

Remember, it’s about units and not points per se. It’s about where they are activated for sale.

So, the trust is set up to hold RTU plans and the units activate under a specific plan for use. It has its own POS.

They could decide to add something like a Reflections to the trust and then activate all those units under their own plan, activate them under the current CFW plan, or activate some units as one plan and some in a diffeeent plan…though it’s hard to imagine that.

The key difference is really the ability to have different component sites under the same RTU plan.

Once units are activated into a plan, those points become what is sold. As long as those units exist within the plan, all owners of RTU contracts within that plan get use of the units.

And that is what is sold. So, if they add units worth 5 million points to a plan, and sell all 5 million points to that plan, then that plan remains at 5 million points. However, if that plan has multiple component sites…ie: Reflections and CFW cabins..then yes, they can move around those points between both.

Just like current resorts, units can be added to the trust but not yet activated under a plan…like current CFW cabins. All exist as part of the trust but only 60 ish are activated for use in the CFW plan.

Hope this makes sense.

It does, but with the trust setup, they won't run into the percentage ownership of a unit that they have to abide by on the deeded properties is my guess.

 

[Sandisw]

It does, but with the trust setup, they won't run into the percentage ownership of a unit that they have to abide by on the deeded properties is my guess.

DVD retains 100% ownership of all the units within the trust.

If you look at the deeds that are written for CFW, you see how different they are worded because you don’t buy an attachment to any specific unit.

It’s just you buy the ability to use x points at the units that are part of the plan.

Best way to think of it, IMO, is that you are a long term renter of the points.

 

[ocdb8r1]

It does, but with the trust setup, they won't run into the percentage ownership of a unit that they have to abide by on the deeded properties is my guess.

I have no doubt the trust offers some additional layer of flexibility for DVC, but I still think it's likely very minor given the completely control the HOA's and trading program for the more traditionally deeded resorts. I think the trust likely gives them a lot more prospective flexibility rather than retrospective flexibility (i.e. I don't think they went this route to make it easier to change things after the fact, I think it allows them more flexibility for each new resort/unit/product they want to launch).

As regards the "percentage of ownership" I think they have effectively the same restrictions. The points in the trust are created by assigning a specific point value to each unit they put into the trust. They can't just up and change that value for an already contributed unit (which means, for already contributed units they are still restricted in re-allocations such that over the year they have to still total to the value of the unit as contributed.

Now, as @Sandisw pointed out, they could set up a whole separate plan and contribute units to that plan at a new value. They could do this for a new tower like reflections, but I don't think there's anything stopping them from doing this at CFW....the could designate each "loop" as a separate plan and ascribe different values if they wanted to (up until they actually contribute units into the trust). But again, this is more about prospective flexibility and less about being able to change the rules after something is already contributed and/or sold (in my view).

I actually don't think the trust is a bad thing generally for the overall health of DVC as a "program". I think it will help smooth some of the "end of life" transitions for the individual resorts. I think DVC has seen that "ending" the 2042 resorts is going to be very messy. Their first attempt to address this with offering "extensions" was a total fiasco. I think a trust gives them more options and flexibility in the future in this regard.