Attack of the Lakeshore Lodge

I’m just not sure because many new buyers don’t know about the past in the way owners who have been around since all the changes began in 2012.

As I said, I can see how they could make a product with more than one component site as a home resort be a plus for new buyers.

Take this situation. If they do indeed make LSL part of the trust and it goes with CFW, there may be people who will see that as a plus who might not want CFW alone.

It’s like restrictions…in 2019 there weee a lot of people who wrote off RIV, me included, who decided owning there was worth buying inspite of them.

This potential model, should it happen, in 5 years, will simply become the way it is.

Over the years, the changes that DVC have done had always shifted the benefits to buying direct which is why I don’t see them doing something for the sake of doing it but rather because they believe it will enhance the product from their view to spark sales.

At least we should be about a year away from knowing if the trust model was a one and done with CFW or not.
Yes, I guess to me that IS pushing it to the edge, but I’m sure many original owners thought the same thing back in 2012.
 
Even if the own the entire unit…which is nearly impossible because they sell ownership interests in every one…it still can’t just be undeclared from the 2042 resorts.

There are only certain circumstances in which DVD can remove inventory from an association.

At one time, I thought maybe.

If they have declared 100 rooms into an association, then those 100 rooms must be available to the owners if they association regardless of who owns the points, until expiration or one if the qualifying reasons happens that allow them to remove, which is typically a casualty situation.

Basically they can’t make a 2042 resort smaller at any point in time, just because they want to.
Thank you! I had misunderstood that, this is good news for existing owners for sure.
 

Interesting to wonder about how this would play out in practice…
721.552 (3)(a)(2) Deletions - the developer is required to carry casualty insurance and if they elect to not rebuild then they need to buy out the affected owners with the proceeds from the policy. They have 30 days from the event to announce a decision. Same if the property gets taken by a municipality, the proceeds buy out the owner. WDW is so insulated from anything I don’t see how that’s even physically possible 🤷🏼‍♀️ but I don’t know about any of the other DVC resorts.
Edited to add: they are allowed to substitute. If Pago Pago got swallowed up into a sink hole and it’s too costly to stabilize the ground. They could demolish it, keep the insurance settlement for themselves, and substitute another building (ex: Rarotonga) into the timeshare estate.
 
Last edited:
And crazily enough, that’s not even outlandish. The timeshare my in-laws own at had an entire building collapse to a sinkhole over a decade ago. It didn’t affect my in-laws deeded interest (different building & category) but I imagine the deeded owners got bought out (and probably sold on the new units available at the time).

The former sinkhole is now a kids’ playground / ‘adventure park.’
 
I was able to find one instance that specifically addresses imminent domain of a timeshare. That’s “The Oasis of Lakeport” in Lake of the Ozarks Missouri. The city granted the developer the right to forcibly take the Lakewood Timeshare. The developer is building a Marriott hotel as well as an entertainment district. 😮 2,400 owners were displaced. You gotta hand it to Walt Disney, he thought this through. Nobody is encroaching on his Florida land.
 
Last edited:
But I disagree with you when you say that "only make money from annual maintenance fees, direct sales and now the $500 resale fee". DVC is unique from most timeshare programs in that they have an exclusive product - "The Disney Bubble". When most people buy DVC it's to have the convenience and immersion that being inside the bubble gives you. They know that they will make a TON more money in the long run by selling food, merch, tickets and experiences to people if they are housed in close proximity to the parks. The two (in the case of Disney World and DVC) CAN'T be made mutually exclusive. I'm sure DVC gets internal comparisons to "hotel side guests" all the time internally about what hotel VS DVC spend on certain things - and they have rightfully realized that DVCers want "exclusive" access (plus kitchens lol). It's only a destination because of the park.
I just meant in terms of DVC/DVD, of course the mothership makes money when we all buy the $10 popcorn that cost the $0.04. DVC/DVD is essentially its own separate business so they will make decisions in terms of how it impacts that Divisions bottom line.
 
I just meant in terms of DVC/DVD, of course the mothership makes money when we all buy the $10 popcorn that cost the $0.04. DVC/DVD is essentially its own separate business so they will make decisions in terms of how it impacts that Divisions bottom line.
Or the $50 popcorn bucket, that did sell out this weekend 😅
 
I just meant in terms of DVC/DVD, of course the mothership makes money when we all buy the $10 popcorn that cost the $0.04. DVC/DVD is essentially its own separate business so they will make decisions in terms of how it impacts that Divisions bottom line.
Gotcha! Sorry I took you too literally!
I think they do function separately and are in their own silo - but I think Disney considers DVC as part of the larger whole in terms of profitability too.
 











DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom