Attack of the Lakeshore Lodge

[mkatsy]

Yeah, and I suppose a Favorite Week is the only way to inoculate against that potential future inflation?

If the place turns out to be absolutely stunning, and someone really wants it FW seems to be the way to go.

 

[zavandor]

@DonkeyHoTay
It's their fault they over categorized views. Views that wasn't there in the first place.

What's preventing them from declaring the whole building as Theme Park view. Then as people complain reduce them to perfer and resort view. Only to move those points?

Instead those points should never been declared and removed.

It actually has happened, just with some rooms instead of the whole building, it's not less infuriating (and if I owned Poly I would be talking with a lawyer).

 

[zavandor]

I know that they are able to add more inventory at any time, even if it is added at a higher point rate per cabin or per room than previous inventory.

But after that inventory is added, (unless they are going to add a new booking or view category) then at the second step, when they go to make all the older existing rooms a slightly higher rate to make all of the cabins the same cost per night, then they are specifically reallocating points withing the RTU.

And according to their own documents they can ONLY reallocate due to member demand. If there is a huge change in existing rooms and if the members all got together and said that the changes were in no way related to demand, DVC could be made to prove in court that it followed the contracts as written and made the changes according to member demand. It would be a long shot of course, but it clearly doesn't say that they can reallocate across the entire RTU just because. The POS documents say that it has to be based on member demand specifically.

So small increases would be normal, but a huge addition that spiked all existing rooms average point cost by a large amount could still cross the line the way I read it

ETA: So it makes it more flexible for DVC than it has been in the past, but there are still rules they must follow, and there isn't unlimited flexibility is my point

But what if LSL is added to the trust, the Aframes cabins have obscenely high point charts and after a couple of years they are reallocated to the cabins?
Not science fiction, it happened with the (rolled back) 2020 point charts at Poly and CCV. And this year with the Poly (slightly different, but still). Problem is at the Poly it's illegal (and if challenged I think owners would win), at CFW it would be allowed.
Do not trust the trust.

 

[Tatebeck]

But what if LSL is added to the trust, the Aframes cabins have obscenely high point charts and after a couple of years they are reallocated to the cabins?
Not science fiction, it happened with the (rolled back) 2020 point charts at Poly and CCV. And this year with the Poly (slightly different, but still). Problem is at the Poly it's illegal (and if challenged I think owners would win), at CFW it would be allowed.
Do not trust the trust.

They very well could overprice them point wise and then adjust it later and it would be allowed. But the amount they would have to overprice them to make a substantial difference on every other room would be astronomical.

With my quick math they could overprice them by 100 points per night, and the rest of the rooms in LSL DVC section or CFW would go up around 1-2ish points per night (depending on if they were combined or not and if the points were moved into just 1 or both)

So the amount of overpricing they would have to do to heavily change (50% increase, doubling the cost, etc) of all the other rooms in LSL or CFW is a crazy high amount. High enough to where it would be obvious and would cause sales to most likely screech to a halt and may come with a lawsuit. If I see a room comparable to CC Cabins or a GV that is going to cost 1000 points a night?? Then I'm out, and most others would be too lol.

Everyone with their doomsday scenarios for these things are just being unreasonable and hyperbolic. I would expect maybe a couple point per night adjustment up or down over time for an average room, and that's it.

 

[mkatsy]

What if they did something like add Caribbean Beach resort to the trust? They already cannibalized a piece of it for Riviera. It’s on the skyliner, the pool is decent, the restaurant seems to be well liked, and it ain’t getting any younger (1988). Then what? … it’s not hideous, but it’s not deluxe.

 

[Tatebeck]

What if they did something like add Caribbean Beach resort to the trust? They already cannibalized a piece of it for Riviera. It’s on the skyliner, the pool is decent, the restaurant seems to be well liked, and it ain’t getting any younger (1988). Then what? … it’s not hideous, but it’s not deluxe.

I mean they could if they wanted to. CFW wasn't "deluxe" until it joined DVC either. They would just have to price them cheaply.

And hopefully expand deluxe benefits if they keep expanding the formerly non-deluxe hotels into "deluxe" DVC categories. Moonlight magic and extended evening hours can only hold so many dang people at once

 

[mkatsy]

I mean they could if they wanted to. CFW wasn't "deluxe" until it joined DVC either. They would just have to price them cheaply.

And hopefully expand deluxe benefits if they keep expanding the formerly non-deluxe hotels into "deluxe" DVC categories. Moonlight magic and extended evening hours can only hold so many dang people at once

But if it shared an RTU with another property, wouldn’t that recreate the BPK situation. Essentially adding 1,500 studios that put a burden on the bigger room inventory of the other site, that never saw it coming.

 

[Tatebeck]

But if it shared an RTU with another property, wouldn’t that recreate the BPK situation. Essentially adding 1,500 studios that put a burden on the bigger room inventory of the other site, that never saw it coming.

Yeah, it could if they added into a RTU with another site. It could also add needed studio options if it is added to an RTU that has too few compared to the demand.

As you have already noted with the BPK VGF addition, the same problem could arise from the original resorts if new rooms were added under the same condo association. It is not something unique to the trust

 

[maui22]

The cabins first followed by LSL also matches closer to what happened with PVB. 360 studios and 20 bungalows. Years later add Island Tower with more accommodations.

VGF was the opposite approach where BPK was all hotel rooms.

 

[Brian Noble]

Not science fiction, it happened with the (rolled back) 2020 point charts at Poly and CCV. And this year with the Poly (slightly different, but still).

Take a look at the AKV charts, comparing 2026 with 2027. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more sturm und drang about that, because the Value rooms went up quite a bit. As someone who does not own there, I am not upset by this, because the Savanna rooms went down in response. But if I owned there because of the Value rooms, I'd be very unhappy. I haven't read AKV's POS carefully, but I would be surprised if it was permissive enough to make this clearly okay.

 

[Tatebeck]

Take a look at the AKV charts, comparing 2026 with 2027. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more sturm und drang about that, because the Value rooms went up quite a bit. As someone who does not own there, I am not upset by this, because the Savanna rooms went down in response. But if I owned there because of the Value rooms, I'd be very unhappy. I haven't read AKV's POS carefully, but I would be surprised if it was permissive enough to make this clearly okay.

I've looked a little bit. It uses the same language as some of the others before RIV and the Trust (like BWV and Poly). So murky wording at best. I think that DVC themselves believe that they are able to do this according to the contracts, though others would disagree

I'm not overly upset by it as an owner. They needed to increase the value rooms IMO anyway. They are still cheaper than standard/resort view so I see no problem with it. I am more likely to be affected by the increase in club level as I would choose that if available almost every time. But those are so hard to get I understand why they increased them too.

 

[Sandisw]

I know that they are able to add more inventory at any time, even if it is added at a higher point rate per cabin or per room than previous inventory.

But after that inventory is added, (unless they are going to add a new booking or view category) then at the second step, when they go to make all the older existing rooms a slightly higher rate to make all of the cabins the same cost per night, then they are specifically reallocating points withing the RTU.

And according to their own documents they can ONLY reallocate due to member demand. If there is a huge change in existing rooms and if the members all got together and said that the changes were in no way related to demand, DVC could be made to prove in court that it followed the contracts as written and made the changes according to member demand. It would be a long shot of course, but it clearly doesn't say that they can reallocate across the entire RTU just because. The POS documents say that it has to be based on member demand specifically.

So small increases would be normal, but a huge addition that spiked all existing rooms average point cost by a large amount could still cross the line the way I read it

ETA: So it makes it more flexible for DVC than it has been in the past, but there are still rules they must follow, and there isn't unlimited flexibility is my point

Once more inventory is added, the point charts get redone with all the new inventory.

Thst has nothing to do with demand. The demand situation is like it is now…then can adjust up or down within the chart stating at the 20% rule for the current inventory that is there.

So, right now, the have 63 cabins and the adjustment in charts is fixed and based on demand with the approximately 475k points that is there.

In that sense, they adjust by demand. However, when new rooms are added, then the entire RTU plan can be rebalanced to account for NEW inventory.

That is the difference. Once thst new inventory is added and point charts determined, then they can go up or down to balance across all.

They are not stuck with the initial charts unless they add no more inventory. And, because they are not selling ownership interests, they don’t have to keep the number of points to use the same room type for a year the same every time new ones are added.


I didn’t say that any shift would be crazy, but noting prevents them from adding the cabins slowly at higher point values so in 5 years, instead of being 21 points a night, they are now 25 or 26…and it’s because of the way they added the inventory for higher point costs…which is allowed.

I just don’t agree that owners who buy would have a case because it’s clear that they can add more inventory and it can be elsewhere and they can reallocate across all.

 

[Sandisw]

But if it shared an RTU with another property, wouldn’t that recreate the BPK situation. Essentially adding 1,500 studios that put a burden on the bigger room inventory of the other site, that never saw it coming.

Yes, it would. That is the big difference I see wihh th a trust model than a leasehold resort model that is one component site.

But, RiV is not RTU so if they want to add any of CBR to RIV, they’d need to sell it like RIV was sold.

I don’t see that because I believe that this trust model is the way forward.

 

[Sandisw]

They very well could overprice them point wise and then adjust it later and it would be allowed. But the amount they would have to overprice them to make a substantial difference on every other room would be astronomical.

With my quick math they could overprice them by 100 points per night, and the rest of the rooms in LSL DVC section or CFW would go up around 1-2ish points per night (depending on if they were combined or not and if the points were moved into just 1 or both)

So the amount of overpricing they would have to do to heavily change (50% increase, doubling the cost, etc) of all the other rooms in LSL or CFW is a crazy high amount. High enough to where it would be obvious and would cause sales to most likely screech to a halt and may come with a lawsuit. If I see a room comparable to CC Cabins or a GV that is going to cost 1000 points a night?? Then I'm out, and most others would be too lol.

Everyone with their doomsday scenarios for these things are just being unreasonable and hyperbolic. I would expect maybe a couple point per night adjustment up or down over time for an average room, and that's it.

I think the piece you could be missing is that they don’t have to add them at the same cost.

Assume for a minute that LSL is its own RTU plan…and don’t involve CFW

For example, they could start out adding the 2 bedrooms at LSL to cost an average of 50 points a night.

Then, on a subsequent allocation, they could decide to add them with an average of 55 points a night.

And the next time it’s 60 points a night. So that over time, instead of being stuck at the 50, which was the initial average, it’s now higher …which adds points to the charts without having to go down somewhere else.

Thats the difference. They don’t have to predetermine the total points for a resort with this model from the start. They decide at the time they activate them into the RTU plan.

Points don’t stay attached to any specific room like they do with a leasehold where it has to be determined so they know what % of that units is being sold.

Again, it may not ever seem like a huge deal, but people should know that this product, assuming this the way of the future, doesn’t provide a cap if points in a RTU plan…it can grow and grow.

 

[Tatebeck]

Once more inventory is added, the point charts get redone with all the new inventory.

Thst has nothing to do with demand. The demand situation is like it is now…then can adjust up or down within the chart stating at the 20% rule for the current inventory that is there.

So, right now, the have 63 cabins and the adjustment in charts is fixed and based on demand with the approximately 475k points that is there.

In that sense, they adjust by demand. However, when new rooms are added, then the entire RTU plan can be rebalanced to account for NEW inventory.

That is the difference. Once thst new inventory is added and point charts determined, then they can go up or down to balance across all.

They are not stuck with the initial charts unless they add no more inventory. And, because they are not selling ownership interests, they don’t have to keep the number of points to use the same room type for a year the same every time new ones are added.


I didn’t say that any shift would be crazy, but noting prevents them from adding the cabins slowly at higher point values so in 5 years, instead of being 21 points a night, they are now 25 or 26…and it’s because of the way they added the inventory for higher point costs…which is allowed.

I just don’t agree that owners who buy would have a case because it’s clear that they can add more inventory and it can be elsewhere and they can reallocate across all.

I think the piece you could be missing is that they don’t have to add them at the same cost.

For example, they could start out adding the 2 bedrooms at LSL to cost an average of 50 points a night.

Then, on a subsequent allocation, they could decide to add then with an average of 55 points a night.

And the next time it’s 60 points a night. So that over time, instead of being stuck at the 50, which was the initial average, it’s now higher …which adds points to the charts without having to go down somewhere else.

No, I know they can add them at a different cost. And then either it would create a new booking category (some at the old cost and some at the new cost) if they don't do any reallocation, or they would average them all out like you are saying, but that would require reallocation.

And because I do not see anything in the POS documents that says that they can reallocate the entire point chart each time inventory is added, I am not sure this is allowed Rules As Written.

Can you please post the part of the POS document that allows this for reallocations? The only thing I can find is:

"The Common Expense, Common Surplus and Resort Property ownership reallocation caused by the addition of any proposed phase or the inclusion of any additional Vacation Homes within the Common Areas shall be in accordance with the Declaration"

and the declaration says that there will be slight variances due to holidays and how the calendar works, but then says that "The right to reallocate Home Resort Vacation Points is reserved by DVCM solely for adjusting the Home Resort Reservation Component to account for Club Member demand"

So the way I read it is that new allocations additions still have to follow the reallocation rules in the declaration, and they do not get a free blanket "redistribute" whatever they want" when they add new inventory.

Your scenario could work within the rules, but they would still have to follow some guidelines and it has to be small enough of a change to be believable as member demand specifically in order to reallocate per their own POS

 

[Sandisw]

Here is the clause that allocations will be based on total number of points in a given year and allocated for the vacation homes that exist within the RTU plan.

As the number of points within the plan rise, then the point charts will reflect that rise when they decide on the allocation They do not have to create new categories.

I think the key here is that the word used is “allocation” and not “reallocation”

It does say additionally, they can adjust based on demand as well…and specifically use the word “reallocation” but I read that to mean in a year where no new points and inventory have been added because they don’t have to make a new chart if there are no new points.

I’m attaching a second clause I think is important. So, if the decide to sell LSL this way, whether it has its own RTU plan or not, it certainly appears to allow for point charts to go up over time as more inventory is added.

I still don’t think that means they are going to move away from allocation in. common sense way,,,but if they decide to move in a direction where there is more than one component site in the same RTU plan, then owners need to be aware of that is a possibility.

 

[Tatebeck]

Here is the clause that allocations will be based on total number of points in a given year and allocated for the vacation homes that exist within the RTU plan.

As the number of points within the plan rise, then the point charts will reflect that rise when they reallocate. They do not have to create new categories

It does say additionally, they can adjust based on demand as well…but I read that to mean in a year where no new points and inventory have been added.

I’m attaching a second clause I think is important. So, if the decide to sell LSL this way, whether it has its own RTU plan or not, it certainly appears to allow for point charts to go up over time as more inventory is added.

I still don’t think that means they are going to do things in a common sense way,,,but if they decide to move in a direction where there is more than one component site in the same RTU plan, then owners need to be aware of that is a possibility.

Hmm I don't think that is what the first link says at all.

Allocation = when points are first attributed to a cabin/Vacation Home. This part happens when each home is added. You allocate once.
Reallocation = later changing the already attributed points of a cabin/Vacation Home. Any change to a the Points needed to fully book a specific cabin/Vacation Home for an entire year would be Reallocations.

If you have 50 cabins already allocated points, then add 50 new cabins with a higher point value, if you make those rooms all cost the same, you are specifically allocating the new 50 cabins and Reallocating the older 50 cabins.

You are saying that they get to put new allocations for every cabin or vacation home in the RTU every time they add new inventory. But I don't think that is correct.

Once something has already been allocated, if you are changing the allocation, it is by definition a reallocation. So it must follow the more strict reallocation rules.

When you add new inventory, they can choose a new allocation for all of the newly added unallocated rooms. But all of the rooms that already existed, if you are going to change them, would now fall under reallocation, which again follows the different rules.

I do agree that the way it is written does allow the point charts to go up over time, but not in an unlimited way, as reallocation is required for the entire inventory in the RTU to go up, and they have said in their own POS document that they are limited both in the reasons and the amount in each year that they can reallocate already allocated rooms.

ETA examples:
So they could add more cabins with slightly higher point costs like they have and then reallocate the old ones to match even if it results in an increase across the board to the average night cost, if let's say they realized that they may have made the point chart too low and enticing for 7 month swaps and the maintenance fees to high so they aren't getting members interested in actually buying. That could reasonably be seen as due to member demand and clearly within the rules.

Now they can't just make the last 5 cabins they declare cost 1 billion points per night, and reallocate the rest to match something that crazy, leaving all the members who already bought holding the bag. It would clearly break the rules and no member would say that they would have demanded that that happen.

 

[Sandisw]

Well, we simply read it differently and why there is no figure for the maximum reallocation because that number is not fixed.

ETA: I did say that when they add points and set new charts each year, they still have the 20% rule to consider for current inventory which would prevent them from adding 1 billion points.

But, if the third declaration of cabins has a yearly total slightly more than the first or second …then I think it might be a clue.

 

[Tatebeck]

Well, we simply read it differently and why there is no figure for the maximum reallocation because that number is not fixed.

ETA: I did say that when they add points and set new charts each year, they still have the 20% rule to consider for current inventory which would prevent them from adding 1 billion points.

But, if the third declaration of cabins has a yearly total slightly more than the first or second …then I think it might be a clue.

Right, but they could still add the last rooms at a billion points in a separate category, then they would just be increasing every other room by 20% every year perpetually to try and even them out when no members would conceivably want that. Your interpretation would still allow that. (Also the 20% limit is only on reallocation, not initial allocation, so it seems you do agree after all that changing the rooms already assigned would fall under reallocation rules )

In the end, I just think that while the trust gives them more power and flexibility, it doesn't just let them do whatever they want, that's all. They can strictly reallocate if member demand indicates it is needed and up to 20% per year. Adding new inventory at a higher valuation just gives them a few more points to pull from if they wish and a way to correct if they over/under price rooms. Something they probably wish they had in the past.

They can of course declare a 3rd round like you say with more expensive rooms, reallocate them all and still follow the rules fairly easily. They aren't selling well so members may very well have demonstrated they want a change that would bring something like lower dues. And a point chart increase would do that.

 

[Sandisw]

Right, but they could still add the last rooms at a billion points in a separate category, then they would just be increasing every other room by 20% every year perpetually to try and even them out when no members would conceivably want that. Your interpretation would still allow that. (Also the 20% limit is only on reallocation, not initial allocation, so it seems you do agree after all that changing the rooms already assigned would fall under reallocation rules )

And I just think that while the trust gives them more power and flexibility, it doesn't just let them do whatever they want. They can strictly reallocate if member demand indicates it is needed and up to 20% per year. Adding new inventory at a higher valuation just gives them a few more points to pull from if they wish and a way to correct if they over/under price rooms. Something they probably wish they had in the past.

They can of course declare a 3rd round like you say with more expensive rooms, reallocate them all and still follow the rules fairly easily. They aren't selling well so members may very well have demonstrated they want a change that would bring something like lower dues. And a point chart increase would do that.

Your example at the end is what I am talking about.

If they want to add the next set of cabins for more points and then redo the charts so that there is an increase across the board, with no decrease, so it lowers dues, they can do that.

If they add LSL to the same RTU plan, they can use the CfW points already there, along with the new points to crease a new chart for both the new rooms ar LSL and the cabins.

The only thing they can’t do is change the cabin points more than 20% up or down for any given use day…since that chart exists.,,

Of course, they could very easily say that the change was demand related, even when new points are there.

The biggest difference I see is that if you have both LSL and CFW together and demand is higher at LSL, they get to take CFW points and move them right over there, and raise LSL with the offset coming from CFW, instead of other LSL rooms.

With this model, all the charts attached to the inventory in a RTU plan can be used to balance supply and demand.

Basically as long as they keep adding new inventory to a RTU plan, point charts that are in existence can go up…and do not have to go down…since they get to allocate based on total points.

Again, great discussion but we will have to wait to see some of DVDs move in the future to get more insight.