Commercial renting website

[Chuck S]

Someone on another thread reported that, as of Jan. 1, MS will require all names of room occupants at time the reservation is made and MS will not allow changes. If this is true (should know starting today) then this rule could be aimed at halting the commercial renters from pre-booking weeks for future rental. It would also make it really rough on some of us who never rent but whose family members have health issues that sometimes make last minute changes/substitutions necessary.

It has also been reported that a similar change goes into effect for cash ressies through CRO, if that is the case it has nothing to do with "commercial renting" or DVC. I suspect it is a change to the WDW reservation system for a few reasons.

1) To better define the ages nd requirements for the DDP

2) To allow other folks in the room to make their DME arrangements, perhaps they are going to a central DME system that ca access CRO and DVC ressies?

3) Recommendations of Homeland Security...you know they are a little over the top on some things.

 

[dumbo71]

Curious....what "changes" aimed at curtailing commercial rentals do you feel are hurting everyday members?

Changes that will hurt the membership include the one transfer rule. Lets say you want to do a big family gathering to WDW. You already have a significant number of points to use with borrowing but you fall a little short. You need only a handful of points to complete the reservation. All you need is a member willing to transfer the points to you. With the new rule it will be very hard to find a member willing to burn their one transfer a year for a small point amount. Even if you find someone they will rightfully charge a premium for that service. This hurts John Dow owner more frequently than it will hurt the commercial renter. Also what if you have already done the one transfer and find yourself NEEDING more points. Your Grandma who lives near Orlando is very sick and you want to go stay there for a while to be close in case she needs you. Would be nice to have the option of transferring in some points but no, you have already used your one transfer per year.

DVC had the flexibility thing going for it. I can already see that flexibility slipping away and this devalues our membership. In an effort to catch the big fish they are scooping up the minnows with them.

Addding names and addresses to the ressie. This is just a slight pain, not a big deal but still a change adding more leg work to the ressie process. Should it be that much work??? It is vacation after all.

Thank you for your candid answers on this controversial subject.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Thank you for your candid answers on this controversial subject.

My pleasure.

I can see where there could be circumstances where limiting members to one transfer could present a problem. Yes, if some innocent members get caught in the dragnet it will be unfortunate. What would also be unfortunate is if the change is in response to members who chose not to live within the rules, engaging in activities which DVC tried to prohibit from the beginning. The question becomes whether the level of system abuses was great enough to justfy the potential harm to innocent members in eliminating those abuses. I don't know the answer to that one...........

I haven't followed the transfer rules. Were members allowed to make unlimited transfers in the past? I also wonder how much discretion MS will have in waiving the one transfer rule. Somehow I suspect if the circumstances you threw out there were explained they might be able to find a way. There are exceptions out there for other things, no?

 

[Deb & Bill]

Changes that will hurt the membership include the one transfer rule. ....

What change? There wasn't no stinkin' change. That's always been the rule on my POS.

 

[DisneyKidds]

What change? There wasn't no stinkin' change. That's always been the rule on my POS.

I was wondering about that myself....................wasn't quite positive there really was a change.

 

[3DisneyKids]

As to whether Renting hurts anyone is very much a grey area not truly clear cut. There are parts of it that do hurt the total picture and some that don't.

DVC was never meant to be a commecial business for anyone. Certainly a member that does not use their personal points and wants to rent them to friends and family is no different than the member using them for their own personal use. For one then they are renting the points, not renting reservations for peak times, there is huge difference in that. Renting only peak times, with prebooked reservations messes with the natural balance of bookings. The system was not designed to support commercial renting, it was set up to support personal use by individual members.

However when you have someone that purchases large amounts of points, never with the intention of personally using all of them and makes a business out of it, then yes it changes the situation.

For one, if you live in a residential neighborhood and suddenly one by one the homes become rental, it does affect the neighborhood. Renters, and before anyone jumps on this, not everyone is going to be the same, but generally people who rent do not have any ownership pride in the property. Why should they, they have invested nothing in the community. Disney knows this too. If rental comprises a large portion of the bookings at Disney, do you think they truly care about those guests over Members staying there or cash guests. What is in it for them? Nothing. Sure a few will become members by renting, but people who are booking prime times at bargain prices are only looking for bargains they are not looking to buy.

Renters are not going to be concerned with contacting maintenance to get things that are minor repaired during their stay as a member would. Same with the changes to Olivia's. Long time members do not like the changes, they liked it the way it was, most renters will not even notice.

I think it would be wrong to say renting hurts everyone but also wrong to say it has no effect what so ever. Everything in some way effects something else. Sometimes it is positive and sometimes not.

I agree with this.

Unfortunately, this is truly a non-tangible issue in that we cannot "prove" this in anyway and thus post stats, etc.

However, I feel as Sammie does that renters are less likely to maintain and care for the property as DVC owners do. We know that those of us here on the DIS are vigilant about towels (and not using pool towels, etc.), resort mugs, maint. issues, and just taking better care of the villas in general. Are we representative of all DVCers? No way to know for sure.

Are renters, by definition, harder on the property than are owners? Again, this is impossible to prove, but my hunch is that yes, they are less respectful of the property. Before you flame me, no, I am not saying that those who rent are having wild keg parties and burning their mattresses, etc. But I do think that those who rent may not be conscious of the "little things" that we members are acutely aware of because we pay the dues for these "little things."

Here is a personal example...DH and I are respectful people in general (of other people and of property). However, whenever we travel with our young children and stay in a regular hotel, our kids LOVE to jump on the beds (they are not allowed to jump on their beds at home). In a regular hotel we let them jump for about one minute (just to get it out of their system...go ahead and flame me if you must). However, when we stay at DVC...NO WAY! They know that they will not be jumping on the beds there. DH amd I both agree that we both feel this way (would never even consider letting the kids jump) because we have an ownership interest in the property.

How many other DVC owners feel the same way? No way of knowing. But I posted my personal example here as just that...an example of how owning makes a difference from renting.

 

[3DisneyKids]

The one-transfer rule is not a change, it has always been there. The change is that MS just started enforcing it...hopefully to curtail point morphing.

That, at least, seems to be the one thing that we all agree on...point morphing must be stopped!

 

[dumbo71]

The one-transfer rule is not a change, it has always been there. The change is that MS just started enforcing it...hopefully to curtail point morphing.

That, at least, seems to be the one thing that we all agree on...point morphing must be stopped!

Agreed. I still call it a change because it was NEVER enforced up until this point to my knowledge. The language was there but what good is language or a rule if not enforced? Rule might as well not even exist.

We have a "rule" that only 4 in a one bedroom also. If they decide to start enforcing this (which I believe and hope they will) many would consider that a change as they had always done 5 in a one bedroom and even 5 in a studio.
( Sorry for the occupancy example but that is what pooped to mind, enough of that)

Please see my thread where I ask for a definiton of "comercial renting". I'm sure many who have posted here would like to define that in their own words.

 

[dumbo71]

Are renters, by definition, harder on the property than are owners? Again, this is impossible to prove, but my hunch is that yes, they are less respectful of the property. Before you flame me, no, I am not saying that those who rent are having wild keg parties and burning their mattresses, etc. But I do think that those who rent may not be conscious of the "little things" that we members are acutely aware of because we pay the dues for these "little things."

I certainly can't agree that renters are tougher on the rooms. I hope Dean adds to this because I've seen posts where he clearly disputes this based on conversations he has had with people working in management positions at Timeshare resorts. According to him there is no corelation between renters and owners when it comes to how they treat the unit.

I tend to agree with Dean and DVC is also different than some Timeshares. How often are you placed in the same unit twice? This isn't a Timeshare where you stay in the same unit each and every year. If that was the case, I might buy your point that the owner of that specific unit might take more care to protect it for future trips. DVC owners may never stay in that room again. I've never stayed in the same room with DVC in over 30+ stays.

Your example of the kids jumping in the hotel room? Well, I don't let my son do things differently just because we are on vacation. That includes bedtime. We just try to parent consistently tro avoid confusion of our rules. Nothing wrong with the way you are doing things just different.

I believe people treat rooms and property certain ways based on there values and beliefs. I don't buy for a second that it has anything to do with ownership. Others likely disagree. I treat things with respect always and maybe more so when it isn't mine.

Thanks for posting.

 

[OneMoreTry]

I .... How often are you placed in the same unit twice? This isn't a Timeshare where you stay in the same unit each and every year. If that was the case, I might buy your point that the owner of that specific unit might take more care to protect it for future trips. DVC owners may never stay in that room again. I've never stayed in the same room with DVC in over 30+ stays.

...
Thanks for posting.

I don't know whether renters are more destructive, and I doubt whether housekeeping knows either. They probably don't even know which tenants are renters vs members -- and even if they did their "opinions" would be unblinded and subject to preconceived ideas passed around in the break rooms. So their opinions are as suspect as mine.

HOWEVER, I also know your argument above is worthless, BECAUSE although owners may not see the same unit twice we definitely see the bill for maintenance every single January.

 

[OneMoreTry]

Disagree Dumbo.

Commercial renters screw over DVC Members. How? They book premier times of the year (Christmas, New Years, easter, etc) with the sole intention of renting it out for a profit.

.....
EDIT: I should have read the whole thread before responding, others seem to have the same thoughts as I do on the subject.

First, I think commercial renting stinks.

But I don't agree your argument is very good. You're assuming that those commercially rented points would have otherwise been purchased by someone who is NOT going to book premier weeks 11 months in advance. BUT in fact, those people who want points to reserve peak times 11 months in advance are still going to be there. If they can't RENT them, they may just buy them -- either way you can't get the room.

You may argue that if they can't RENT the points they won't use them because they can't afford to buy them. To that I would say that if fewer people are buying then the price of points will go down and more people will buy again. -- Or DVC won't build new resorts because they're not selling points.

You could also argue that DVC guides stink because they keep persuading more people to buy -- which keeps you from getting your ressie.


I don't disagree with your conclusion. Just trying to sharpen the argument for our cause.

 

[CarolA]

I haven't read all of this, but as a Disney stockholder in addition to a DVC member I have emailed both WDW and DVC. Sorry, but while I don't consider my DVC an investment I do consider my Disney Stock and investment and I would rather have these "guest" paying Disney room rates if they don't own. (Not that I think this impacts EPS, but it sounded good in the email LOL!)

 

[Chuck S]

First, I think commercial renting stinks.

But I don't agree your argument is very good. You're assuming that those commercially rented points would have otherwise been purchased by someone who is NOT going to book premier weeks 11 months in advance. BUT in fact, those people who want points to reserve peak times 11 months in advance are still going to be there. If they can't RENT them, they may just buy them -- either way you can't get the room.

You may argue that if they can't RENT the points they won't use them because they can't afford to buy them. To that I would say that if fewer people are buying then the price of points will go down and more people will buy again. -- Or DVC won't build new resorts because they're not selling points.

You could also argue that DVC guides stink because they keep persuading more people to buy -- which keeps you from getting your ressie.


I don't disagree with your conclusion. Just trying to sharpen the argument for our cause.

This is only true for resorts that are not sold out. BCV, & BWV for example, are fully sold resorts...the only way to buy is resale, and if current owners aren't selling the folks that want these prime weeks can't buy. So, thus, the OWNERS of sold out resorts who engage in booking prime weeks for rental later ARE causing a problem. At the 7 month window, it is all up for grabs.

 

[rinkwide]

...the OWNERS of sold out resorts who engage in booking prime weeks for rental later ARE causing a problem...

That's one perspective. Non-members who are tired of paying exorbitant rack rates see them as providing a solution.

 

[tor]

That's one perspective. Non-members who are tired of paying exorbitant rack rates see them as providing a solution.

The opinion of non members in this situation is unimportant and would make about as much sense as asking our enemies how to best defend our country

 

[Sammie]

Anyone who has bought or sold real estate knows that owners take better care of their property and have every incentive to do so.

Realtors also prefer a Rent-to-Own sales plan because it has been proven that someone renting-to own will take better care of the property than a transient renter would.

Certainly there are expections to everything and some renters will treat the property with the same regard. That however is not the norm.

People have known for a long time that individuals take better care of things they own. Aristotle wrote, "What belongs in common to the most people is accorded the least care: they take thought for their own things above all, and less about things common, or only so much as falls to each individually."

And we all observe that homeowners take better care of their houses than renters do. That’s not because renters are bad people; it’s just that you’re more attentive to details when you stand to profit from your house’s rising value or to suffer if it deteriorates.

 

[OneMoreTry]

This is only true for resorts that are not sold out. BCV, & BWV for example, are fully sold resorts...the only way to buy is resale, and if current owners aren't selling the folks that want these prime weeks can't buy. So, thus, the OWNERS of sold out resorts who engage in booking prime weeks for rental later ARE causing a problem. At the 7 month window, it is all up for grabs.

But there WAS a time when these resorts WERE up for grabs, and those points were just as likely to have been purchased by someone who wants to personally use the weeks current owners want.

And do you think that all these commercial renters bought their points fresh out of the package from Disney? Don't you suspect some were resale -- maybe sold by someone who was using a week no one wanted?

Today's new resorts are tomorrow's sold out resorts. Hopefully.

Again, I'm trying to figure this out. I sense commercial renting is a bad thing, but I want to pin it down with more evidence than what you're stating here.

Maybe the point is that a commercial renter is more likely to book at 11 months than an owner. Click -- light goes on!! This makes it easy for a non-owner to get those dates by renting. Hey yeah!! Is there any evidence for that? I think that was a big probelm with reservations for Cinderella's restaurant at the MK. Joe Schmo with a job wasn't able to compete on the phone with someone who sits around in a bathrobe, holding a glass of champagne and has five lines with speed dial -- 1-800-xxx-xxxx. How did Disney deal with that problem? Is there an analogous way to deal with this one?

 

[drakethib]

First, I think commercial renting stinks.

But I don't agree your argument is very good. You're assuming that those commercially rented points would have otherwise been purchased by someone who is NOT going to book premier weeks 11 months in advance. BUT in fact, those people who want points to reserve peak times 11 months in advance are still going to be there. If they can't RENT them, they may just buy them -- either way you can't get the room.

You may argue that if they can't RENT the points they won't use them because they can't afford to buy them. To that I would say that if fewer people are buying then the price of points will go down and more people will buy again. -- Or DVC won't build new resorts because they're not selling points.

You could also argue that DVC guides stink because they keep persuading more people to buy -- which keeps you from getting your ressie.


I don't disagree with your conclusion. Just trying to sharpen the argument for our cause.

I have no problem with a DVC member getting the room during a premier week, It just chaps my hide when someone books that room with the sole intention of renting it to someone else.

I have no problem with DVC guides selling points either, as long as people aren't booking premier weeks with the sole intent of renting them.

I think you see what irks me

 

[Longhairbear]

Some like to argue the point that renters don't affect anyone by getting rooms at prime dates as the rooms would be occupied by someone using points, either their own or using someone elses. The arguement being that owner's points used at the 11 month window have every right over all the rest. Not a very fair way to play the game, especially if that owner is spreading points over many units during the same dates. Other than Grand Gatherings type of vacations, one owner with alot of points should not be blocking other members from their right to book rooms, and that is essentially what happens.

 

[bluslag]

When we bought our first vacation points at BWV we never even thought about renting our points. I don't think we even knew that you could. We even bought at BCV because that is the only way we thought we could get more points. Did not know about buying from The Timeshare STore or even renting points. We never got the idea when we bought that it was accepted to rent your points. We probably never ask the right questions. Just saying this because it always surprises me when people figure out how to use these situations to benefit themselves. It probably started out by just renting out those extra points and then someone realized how easy this was and so they bought more points to just rent. Then they figured out how they could buy more distressed points at a really good price and realized they became good dates again and became their home resort. Someone will always find the loopholes. Saying all this I certainly don't agree with point morphing or commercial renting. I think DVC could at least make sure when points are transferred they remain at the same use year and resort. Also when DVC members rent their points there could be a new month window for rentees.
Maybe 11 month for resort owners, 7 month for non resort owners, and 5 month for rentees. I don't think it is to much for us to ask for DVC to update their software to make all this possible. At my business we have to actually buy new equipment because it is changing so fast.