Does This Apply To You?

[mowog]

If you do the math these renters are getting better than $14/point. Not too bad and beats the rental board! Is DVC working up to a big ROFR buyback if renters are forced to sell and the market value drops with flooded points?

 

[paults]

Just out of curiosity...how would DVC know if there was money being exchanged? And how would the "for profit" be determined? Many contract owners let family members/friends use their points and there may or may not be cash involved. Also, what if the points are only rented to cover maintenance fees, etc. Another scenario would be someone that does a direct trade for a non-DVC resort (again...no money passing hands)

the OP says it's on e-bay, I believe this is not family and friends. this is a business

 

[rinkwide]

Except that Disney's right to rent those units is specifically allowed as part of the DVC POS.

As is every owner's. It's just that we, the membership, were expected to be at a huge competitive disadvantage.

Well, Disney's advantage didn't really materialize like they wanted and now they're implementing restrictive policies in an attempt to put the members back in their place.

 

[Chuck S]

As is every owner's. It's just that we, the membership, were expected to be at a huge competitive disadvantage.

Well, Disney's advantage didn't really materialize like they wanted and now they're implementing restrictive policies in an attempt to put the members back in their place.

They are not "implementing" policies, they are rules set forth prior to our purchase. It has always been their right to enforce them.

 

[snowbunny]

The amount of time MS would have to spend trolling ebay to figure out which members were renting for profit probably would far surpass that which is now creating the "problem" that supposedly eats up so much of MS' time, ie.,frequent point transfers among members. It's hard to imagine they are going to start canceling reservations right and left.

 

[ChefMickey]

The amount of time MS would have to spend trolling ebay to figure out which members were renting for profit probably would far surpass that which is now creating the "problem" that supposedly eats up so much of MS' time, ie.,frequent point transfers among members. It's hard to imagine they are going to start canceling reservations right and left.

God I hope not.I just returned to school and my travel time is limited but I refuse to sell. I only plan on renting for about 2 yrs.If I don't,I will lose points.

 

[crisi]

The amount of time MS would have to spend trolling ebay to figure out which members were renting for profit probably would far surpass that which is now creating the "problem" that supposedly eats up so much of MS' time, ie.,frequent point transfers among members. It's hard to imagine they are going to start canceling reservations right and left.

Nah. You write a little webcrawler that logs listings. Peice o' cake. My husband has one watching eBay right now for people defrauding his company with a similar deal (they don't sell to resellers, so when they get one, they shut them down). When you see a pattern on eBay, you send them a cease and disist with your policy of not allowing (in his case resales, in this case) rental for profit and eBay folds like a cheap suit and pulls the listing.

 

[Deb & Bill]

Nah. You write a little webcrawler that logs listings. Peice o' cake. My husband has one watching eBay right now for people defrauding his company with a similar deal (they don't sell to resellers, so when they get one, they shut them down). When you see a pattern on eBay, you send them a cease and disist with your policy of not allowing (in his case resales, in this case) rental for profit and eBay folds like a cheap suit and pulls the listing.

 

[LisaS]

Well, DVC would have to bid on the auction to find out the person whom is selling on eBay. Which would make them part of the problem or at least coersion.

Assuming that this person has already reserved those dates, it would easy enough for MS to figure out which member it is. It's unlikely that more than one member has all those exact dates currently reserved. Find the member associated with those reservations and they have found the eBay'er. Reservations are stored in a database. Someone who knows how to write database queries could get the answer in less than 5 minutes.

 

[rinkwide]

...write a little webcrawler that logs listings. Peice o' cake....When you see a pattern on eBay, you send them a cease and disist with your policy of not allowing (in his case resales, in this case) rental for profit and eBay folds like a cheap suit and pulls the listing.

So simple a high school computer science student could do it. But instead, we get these "rightfully" increased restrictions placed on our DVC memberships.

Doesn't it make you wonder why?

 

[crisi]

So simple a high school computer science student could do it. But instead, we get these "rightfully" increased restrictions placed on our DVC memberships.

Doesn't it make you wonder why?

Because Disney wants to have its policies in writing to start closing what they see as abusive and commercial use. If times get bad (and if gas goes to $6 an hour, times will get bad for Disney), they want to be the ones selling hotel rooms, not be in competition with DVC members for onsite accomodations at a cheap price. All of these policies make it more difficult for a DVC owner to compete with Disney in providing onsite accomodations.

 

[mikesmom]

Sorry, I can't agree with the motives you assign to Disney. Competition? These folks have how many rooms up for sale? Five? ten? Fifty? That's a drop in the bucket to Disney and isn't even close to affecting their margin. I'm not sure what the motive is (although I suspect it has something to do with members complaints and the balance getting out of whack), but I don't think it's competition from members.

 

[crisi]

Sorry, I can't agree with the motives you assign to Disney. Competition? These folks have how many rooms up for sale? Five? ten? Fifty? That's a drop in the bucket to Disney and isn't even close to affecting their margin. I'm not sure what the motive is (although I suspect it has something to do with members complaints and the balance getting out of whack), but I don't think it's competition from members.

It isn't a drop in the bucket anymore - in aggregate, between eBay, this site and other sites, there is a significant percentage of DVC rooms not being used by owners (but not being turned back to CRO). Any single commercial enterprise is a gnat, but a swarm of gnats is annoying. And, if gas goes up, there will be more as personal use DVC owners rent when they can't afford airfare.

After 9/11 Disney closed down one of the resorts (Port Orleans Riverside?) for "rehab". I'm sure they will do similar if it comes to that, but I would think they'd rather shut down the DVC rental market first. That may be enough guests (and I have a feeling Disney has a pretty good idea of its impact) to keep a resort open they might have to close in a down economy.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Because Disney wants to have its policies in writing to start closing what they see as abusive and commercial use. If times get bad (and if gas goes to $6 an hour, times will get bad for Disney), they want to be the ones selling hotel rooms, not be in competition with DVC members for onsite accomodations at a cheap price. All of these policies make it more difficult for a DVC owner to compete with Disney in providing onsite accomodations.

I do agree with this to a point. I also think it devalues DVC to have folks getting accommodations at a deluxe DVC for value resort prices.

 

[crisi]

I do agree with this to a point. I also think it devalues DVC to have folks getting accommodations at a deluxe DVC for value resort prices.

From Disney's point of view, the problem is that it devalues their other resorts. You can pay $400 a night for a room at the Boardwalk, or rent points and stay there for $150 a night. At that rate, its hard for the Disney moderates to compete.

 

[snowbunny]

Nah. You write a little webcrawler that logs listings. Peice o' cake.

Ok right. Now about the enforcement aspect...who wants to take bets as to whether MS actually will cancel reservations based on patterns or history of rental? And as mentioned, why not just do that instead of penalizing everybody? To answer my own question (put on tinfoil hat first), I think it's because penalizing everybody makes it easier for SSR owners, who were promised they would never have to stay there if they didn't want to [I heard this myself from my guide when he tried to sell me SSR instead of BWV], to get into other resorts.

 

[Chuck S]

Ok right. Now about the enforcement aspect...who wants to take bets as to whether MS actually will cancel reservations based on patterns or history of rental? And as mentioned, why not just do that instead of penalizing everybody? To answer my own question (put on tinfoil hat first), I think it's because penalizing everybody makes it easier for SSR owners, who were promised they would never have to stay there if they didn't want to [I heard this myself from my guide when he tried to sell me SSR instead of BWV], to get into other resorts.

I don't understand what you mean by "penalizing everybody." These rules on transfers have always been in place, and in fact, have little or no impact on the vast majority of members. The no commercial renting rule has also been the documents, and truthfully if they see and obvious pattern, how many members do you think it will impact?

 

[crisi]

Ok right. Now about the enforcement aspect...who wants to take bets as to whether MS actually will cancel reservations based on patterns or history of rental? And as mentioned, why not just do that instead of penalizing everybody? To answer my own question (put on tinfoil hat first), I think it's because penalizing everybody makes it easier for SSR owners, who were promised they would never have to stay there if they didn't want to [I heard this myself from my guide when he tried to sell me SSR instead of BWV], to get into other resorts.

I'm betting they don't cancel reservations. I'm betting that they send eBay (and I wouldn't be surprised if this site gets a few) cease and desist orders to keep the transaction from happening to start with. Cancelling reservations is, I believe, a bluff - or at least a last resort.

I don't think any of these changes are being done for DVC membership - including SSR owners - and I don't think this will suddenly free up a lot of "sat on" commerical reservations - not enough for most of us to notice. That's Disney's spin on this to us, but I think they are looking out for themselves, not us.

 

[rinkwide]

...The no commercial renting rule has also been the documents...

There's a pattern developing here. You're not on their payroll, are you Chuck?

 

[btrim]

Snowbunny
Just maybe people who transfer in points from VB HH, etc. and then make reservations at BCV or BWV (as the ebayer is doing) is the reason owners can't get into these resorts, not the SSR owners that everyone likes to blame for this problem. Some of us who bought at SSR bought there because we really like the resort. I can't understand why this concept is so hard for some people to understand. We don't rent points and this inforcement of the rules will not bother us at all. I personally don't want to use use my points for BCV and I think there are more SSR owners that like their resort than not. If Disney doesn't come up with a way of making sure the transferred points stay in their original use year and home resort, then this seems to be the only way of keeping the points balanced. As it is now, when people transfer points and use them at another resort, it is like over-selling that resort. I truly believe this is the real reason people can't get their chosen resort and dates not the SSR owners.

A satisfied SSR owner!