DVC at Disney's Grand Californian Hotel

[rinkwide]

I just think a DVC wing built onto Paradise Pier (or Grand Californian) would be a slam-dunk. Let's say something the size of BCV.

And there's plenty to do in SoCal to warrant a week's stay. Yes, DLR is only good for 3 days but Disney could (and has in the past) cross promote Knott's, Seaworld, Legoland, Universal Hollywood, the beaches, ect.

Then you'd start to see more guest crossover with DLR regulars having an excuse go to WDW and vice-versa. The share holder in me really thinks Disney would do well to get more Disneyland fans to WDW because: a) they'd love it and b) it's as expensive and addictive as a crack habit. (Also, every MK fan should visit the original Disneyland at least once!)

I heard PPH has just undergone a nice pool refurb with the addition of a new slide so maybe...

 

[nuts]

California law won't allow DVC. Seems California law requires actual ownership in timeshares (no expiration date). Technically we don't own DVC, we lease.

 

[SoCalKDG]

I would wager Disney could figure out a way around this. Since you can use points to stay anyways, something could be done.

Example: Build wing, allow DVC members first choice(11 months out, then at 7 months sell to non-dvc), reduce points cost, but don't offer it as a home resort to anyone.

If 1 and 2 bedrooms were available, and the cost weren't too great, you we see a number of DVC members making the flights into So Cal.

 

[JimC]

I expect they had a way to do it because they announced the Newport Beach resort, even had the land, then abandoned it.

http://130.94.75.33/showthread.php?s=&threadid=398678

 

[bicker]

Unless they cancelled it at least in part because they couldn't get approval for the way they wanted to structure the deed.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Originally posted by nuts
California law won't allow DVC. Seems California law requires actual ownership in timeshares (no expiration date). Technically we don't own DVC, we lease.

What is the source of this legal information?

I've seen this "fact" repeated on this board several times over the years, but I've wondered if folks were just repeating what they've read here previously. If someone could actually link to a reliable Web site that cites the applicable California law, I would be interested in seeing it.

There are plenty of timeshares in California, and there are plenty of leaseholds in California (such as the 99-year land leases on which the Irvine Company built homes in the 1960s). I'm not personally aware of any right-to-use (RTU) timeshares in California, but that doesn't mean there aren't any or that it would not be possible for a developer to offer such timeshares.

Even if California law truly does not allow RTU timeshares, it would not prevent Disney Vacation Development from developing and selling DVC resorts in California. They would just have to be deeded differently.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

I just did a Google search. Take a look at "California Department of Real Estate, Timeshares" at http://www.dre.ca.gov/timeshares.htm

If I'm reading it right, I don't see anything that prevents RTU timeshares in California. If I'm missing something, please let me know. (I'm not a real estate expert.)

I don't expect any DVC resorts in California -- or any additional DVC resorts anywhere else outside of WDW, for that matter. But I believe the reason is simply due to Disney business decision by Disney, not due to any California law.

 

[Dean]

I can't speak to the RTU issue but I sincerely doubt DVC would have gotten as far as buying land and announcing a resort without knowing this basic concept. IMO, the reason the plans were scrapped and the land sold was due to the poor sales of the other off site options, namely VB and HH. I'd think the only non WDW option I could even see happening would be something like at DL as being asked about here. I personally think it would sell well on a somewhat small scale, something like BCV or VWL.

Still, there are other points systems in CA so I doubt this was a stumbling block.

 

[JimC]

Originally posted by bicker
Unless they cancelled it at least in part because they couldn't get approval for the way they wanted to structure the deed.

I doubt that Disney's legal team would have missed that. My guess VB and HH were not selling well enough. VB opened in October 1995 and HH in March 1996. Newport Beach was cancelled in February 1997. That timing is consistent with VB and HH sales problems affecting the go ahead.

 

[bicker]

It doesn't have to be a matter of Disney's legal team missing anything. Disney is often very effective at getting waivers and exceptions. They got a host of considerations from California and Anaheim when they improved what I believe became "Magic Way." (I think it was previously "West Street.) If California really does have such a law, and it is the only state that does, perhaps Disney thought they could get a waiver.

 

[Califgirl]

Actually, I think it is going to be at the Grand Calif, rather than Paradise Pier. According to my source, (that I have had since Grand Calif. opened), DVC IS planning a Disneyland DVC resort. It was supposed to break ground about two years ago. From what I hear, the plans are still in place. Yes, DVC did own the property where the Newport Beach Marriott is now. Yes, it is true they couldn't build DVC there because of the RTU. Not all points programs are RTU. Some of them you own forever. With DVC, we don't actually own the points, just the right to use them until 2042, or whatever SSR expiration date is. By building the new DVC in Anaheim, I think Anaheim somehow got around this RTU restriction for DVC.

That being said, they still haven't broken ground. However, as far as I know, the plans are still in the works!

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Originally posted by bicker
If California really does have such a law, and it is the only state that does, perhaps Disney thought they could get a waiver.

Why are we supposed to think that California has such a law, and why are we supposed to assume that no other state does?

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Originally posted by Califgirl
By building the new DVC in Anaheim, I think Anaheim somehow got around this RTU restriction for DVC.

So, there is a California law that prohibits RTU timeshares anywhere in the state, except for Anaheim?

 

[Califgirl]

Actually, I'm not sure what the law is, only that RTU was a stumbling block for having a DVC in Calif. And yes, municipalities can sometimes create their own regulations concerning commerce. It may be one way that Anaheim as a municipality could create the business environment to allow DVC. (What would Newport Beach gain from creating new regulations in order to have a DVC? Disney doesn't give Newport any tax dollars so far as I know.)
Anaheim also has it's own power company, which is why it never had the rotating (rolling) blackouts that were the norm during Calif's power crisis a few years ago.

Anyway, the point is, I have been told that a Disneyland DVC is in the works. If and when it comes to fruition is anybody's guess!

 

[madcoco]

According to my source, (that I have had since Grand Calif. opened), DVC IS planning a Disneyland DVC resort. It was supposed to break ground about two years ago. From what I hear, the plans are still in place.

Funny we heard a similar rumour from a CM friend. With the DCL headed there for a DL 50th ann. tour I hope that is only a start for more exciting things to come.
We stayed at the Newport Beach Resort and it is a shame it didn't end up DVC :-( Used to receive the "carrot dangling in front of nose" ads frequently in the mail for a 2 night stay and finally took them up on the offer. What we didn't like that they had some personal info on us that to this day we still don't know how they got it.

 

[Desperado]

Originally posted by Califgirl
Actually, I think it is going to be at the Grand Calif, rather than Paradise Pier. According to my source, (that I have had since Grand Calif. opened), DVC IS planning a Disneyland DVC resort. It was supposed to break ground about two years ago. From what I hear, the plans are still in place. Yes, DVC did own the property where the Newport Beach Marriott is now. Yes, it is true they couldn't build DVC there because of the RTU. Not all points programs are RTU. Some of them you own forever. With DVC, we don't actually own the points, just the right to use them until 2042, or whatever SSR expiration date is. By building the new DVC in Anaheim, I think Anaheim somehow got around this RTU restriction for DVC.

That being said, they still haven't broken ground. However, as far as I know, the plans are still in the works!

Outstanding news. That certainly makes sense to have one near the west coast parks. Hope it comes true.

 

[rinkwide]

Originally posted by Califgirl
...I think it is going to be at the Grand Calif, rather than Paradise Pier.

That would be very cool. Unlike PP, I just don't see where there is any space at GC to put villas. But who cares, we can dream can't we?

So what's it going to be: Disney's Villas at the Grand Californian or Disney's Grand Californian Villas?

Thanks Califgirl. Let us know if you hear any more info regarding Disney's West Coast DVC plans.

 

[bicker]

Originally posted by Horace Horsecollar
Why are we supposed to think that California has such a law, and why are we supposed to assume that no other state does?

Not really relevant to what I was saying. My point is that Disney is often very good at getting waivers with respect to such restrictions.

 

[LeftCoaster]

Originally posted by rinkwide
That would be very cool. Unlike PP, I just don't see where there is any space at GC to put villas. But who cares, we can dream can't we?

So what's it going to be: Disney's Villas at the Grand Californian or Disney's Grand Californian Villas?

Thanks Califgirl. Let us know if you hear any more info regarding Disney's West Coast DVC plans.

Here's the rumor I heard from a CM friend. They would like to construct a new wing that would cover the open grass area where weddings take place. I can't remember exactly which way the wing would run.... a friend of mine told me but, I am totally blanking out right now.
When I asked my guide about DVC at Disneyland, he also stated they would like to put in DVC at the Grand Californian and one of the current stumbling blocks is setting up a sales force and offices and office support there.
My Disneyland wish list would be DVC at the Grand Californian, then the third theme park at the odl strawberry fields (after fixing DCA of course), and then for Disney to be able to buy the land of the "probably never to be build Gardenwalk Shopping Center" and use that for more shopping, etnertainment another resort, and another DVC resort.

 

[rinkwide]

Originally posted by LeftCoaster
...setting up a sales force...

Hmmm, looks like I may be applying for a part-time job pretty soon.