Attack of the Lakeshore Lodge

[dvc lover 1970]

If they put LSL as part of CFW I would never buy there. But I fear they will combine it, otherwise CFW will never sell. That is the only reason I can see for the landtrust they created with CFW. Also if all dvc going forward is part of the landtrust then that sucks too - what is the advantage to buying your home resort? Also does that then negate the resale restrictions? if the resorts are part of the land trust then you can stay at any resort in the land trust correct?

 

[Mouseforward]

That is the only reason I can see for the landtrust they created with CFW.

It avoids the timeshare falling under the 718 Florida regulations for condos. I think that is the main reason.

 

[juliebee]

It was also speculated that CFW are evaluated as trailers/modular units which is different than condos/timeshares so they had to go about the sale in a unique way so created the trust.

I am potentially interested in purchasing LSL but think combining it with CFW will be saddling LSL with an undesirable product. LSL owners having to bail out CFW does not seem fair and absolutely diminishes my interest.

 

[samsp99]

Bringing it back to LSL, it is definitely possible that they have a plan for CFW, such as combining it with a massive resort like LSL to reduce maintenance fees. It would make me less likely to buy LL though, because that would drive up the dues. But I would still want to swap in to try it at 7 months at some point.

Combining CFW with lakeshore lodge would be rather similar to the cabins at Wilderness Lodge and the TreeHouses at SSR. Combining with the larger resort creates more opportunities for 11mo guests to pick the type of accommodation that they want. It may be that the cabins were always intended to be part of LSL's larger DVC play, and planning for LSL had obviously been going on well before and into the planning/building of the cabins. It could be that timing meant that the cabins came first, and they weren't ready to give the game away for LSL, so that's why the created the trust. It enabled them to start selling the cabins sooner, and once LSL is finished, they can be combined without having to go through a complex legal process that adding a new different property might endure.

The extra maintenance fees of the cabins will be ammortized with the room options at LSL. There appear to be steel A-Frames going up around LSL - I wouldn't be surprised if those where more Poly/Copper Creek style cabins. Having a resort with a range of room options beyond the studio,1,2 3 beds would probably be good, both from a cash guest and DVC perspective.

 

[RuntheMouse]

I am potentially interested in purchasing LSL but think combining it with CFW will be saddling LSL with an undesirable product. LSL owners having to bail out CFW does not seem fair and absolutely diminishes my interest

Same thoughts. I was all in on LSL but after the last conversation with my guide I don’t think it’s going the way I want it to. I felt like it was tell me something without telling me something IYKWIM.

 

[team bradfield]

Only miss with those spacious decks is we need rocking chairs!

We have them at Crockett's, but our view is obstructed by that eyesore LSL

 

[Tatebeck]

Combining CFW with lakeshore lodge would be rather similar to the cabins at Wilderness Lodge and the TreeHouses at SSR. Combining with the larger resort creates more opportunities for 11mo guests to pick the type of accommodation that they want. It may be that the cabins were always intended to be part of LSL's larger DVC play, and planning for LSL had obviously been going on well before and into the planning/building of the cabins. It could be that timing meant that the cabins came first, and they weren't ready to give the game away for LSL, so that's why the created the trust. It enabled them to start selling the cabins sooner, and once LSL is finished, they can be combined without having to go through a complex legal process that adding a new different property might endure.

The extra maintenance fees of the cabins will be ammortized with the room options at LSL. There appear to be steel A-Frames going up around LSL - I wouldn't be surprised if those where more Poly/Copper Creek style cabins. Having a resort with a range of room options beyond the studio,1,2 3 beds would probably be good, both from a cash guest and DVC perspective.

It would actually be kind of the opposite of the Wilderness Lodge, SSR, and Poly unique rooms. The WL Cabins, Treehouses, and Bungalows are higher priced rooms that tend to stay available for booking because they cost substantially more than the other room types. This allowed DVC to sell a larger amount of points, and increase the booking competition for the cheaper, more popular rooms. This arguably did have some benefit, even for members not wanting to stay in the expensive rooms. The high point chart that increased the number of points sold lowered the dues for the average member. So if the average member is good enough at booking/choosing their dates to still get the cheaper rooms, they benefit from savings.

If LSL and CFW are combined it is the opposite. The abnormally low point charts for the CFW may make members want to book there, whether that is at 11 months or 7 months. But the low point charts made the CFW dues skyrocket. And if that is combined into the LSL resort, it punishes any members who are interested in only staying in the LSL portion with higher dues, while benefiting members who only/primarily want to stay in the CFW by effectively lowering their dues.

 

[CarolynFH]

Regarding the trust, let me just point out that Marriott converted from deeded ownerships to a trust model some years ago, and I suspect that DVD is working toward a DVC 2.0 that will be structured as a trust rather than as a collection of condominium associations. From what I’ve read here and elsewhere, it sounds like a timeshare trust is overall easier to administer. So I expect LSL to be added to the trust as well as any new resorts built later, plus the near-park members of the O14 as their respective condominium associations expire. The trust wasn’t created solely for CFW and LSL.

 

[ocdb8r1]

Regarding the trust, let me just point out that Marriott converted from deeded ownerships to a trust model some years ago, and I suspect that DVD is working toward a DVC 2.0 that will be structured as a trust rather than as a collection of condominium associations. From what I’ve read here and elsewhere, it sounds like a timeshare trust is overall easier to administer. So I expect LSL to be added to the trust as well as any new resorts built later, plus the near-park members of the O14 as their respective condominium associations expire. The trust wasn’t created solely for CFW and LSL.

Easier to administer, easier to control and easier to DVC to "recycle" points as it sees fit. I think the main difference from when MVC converted is that MVC didn't already have many of the rights DVC maintains in the O14 deeds. I am baffled by those who find the trust so "suspect" that don't seem to understand DVC already maintains all the rights and control that the trust offers. Case in point, this discussion about whether LSL will be added to the CFW trust has very little to do with the trust structure. If CFW was a traditional deed/HOA set-up like Poly (for example), they could just as easily add LSL to the CFW trust (just as the chose to add the Poly tower to the original Poly HOA....and similar to how they chose to make CCV and BRV separate).

Bottom line for me - you've already ceeded control of nearly every important aspect of "ownership" to DVC in the deeds and governing documents, that there's very little substative change in the move over to a trust.

I am potentially interested in purchasing LSL but think combining it with CFW will be saddling LSL with an undesirable product. LSL owners having to bail out CFW does not seem fair and absolutely diminishes my interest.

I think it's useful to understand what makes the product "undesirable" - my view is that it's solely the higher annual dues. The product itself seems to have plenty demand for what little inventory has been declared. As such, if adding LSL has the effect of lowering the annual dues it helps alleviate that disadvantage. Yes, it's at the cost of LSL owners...but what does that matter if there are none today (i.e. if this is clear before sales, why does it matter?). There are so many components to each existing HOW that one could pick out as a "cost" burden to owners that isn't "fair" or somehow equitable. Some have been mentioned (like the treehouses, CCV lodges, Poly bungalows...etc).

I also think there should be some skepticism that DVC always get's it "right" as regards where annual dues are set. It could be that the CFW dues were artificially inflated for some accouting reason and actual costs will not materialize in the same way (for example, the life of the units may end up being longer than they were officially able to "recognize"). On the flip side, look at VGC - dues there have been very reasonable for a long time, but in exchange they received a very light touch refurbishment much below the expectations of most owners compared to the recent refurbs at WDW properties.

 

[Brian Noble]

egarding the trust, let me just point out that Marriott converted from deeded ownerships to a trust model some years ago

Wyndham followed shortly thereafter, for many of the same reasons. And, there is one thing that DVC has shown itself willing to do: Follow in the footsteps of other timeshare developers. Slowly, but still.

The product itself seems to have plenty demand for what little inventory has been declared.

Plenty of demand for a "once in a while" stay across the Membership as a whole to fill the tens of cabins declared so far. I think there is less demand for "I want that to be my home resort that I return to more often than not."

 

[ocdb8r1]

Plenty of demand for a "once in a while" stay across the Membership as a whole to fill the tens of cabins declared so far. I think there is less demand for "I want that to be my home resort that I return to more often than not."

I disagree. I think if the annual dues were lower, there would be just as much demand as with other resorts. The nightly point requirements are good, the uniqueness of the product appeals to a certain demographic and the dog aspect alone would be sufficient for many to make it a home resort IF it didn't stand out as such an outlier in annual dues. Just my opinion, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the product. I have seen VERY few disappointed reviews of those that have stayed.