DVC plans to target commercial renters

[xdan0920]

Once again, literally no one has suggested that renting should be eliminated.

I’m getting there

 

[Cyberc1978]

ShaneDJ, it is still my position that the amount of people that want to preserve walking and renting is limited to those that actively walk and rent commercially. They could eliminate all renting tomorrow and the fraction of people that would be bothered by it would be minuscule and almost wholly contained in the thumbs up of your posts.

That’s one opinion.

I could argue maybe only 500 members are complaining and why should DVC change anything just because of so few members if 250.000 other members are satisfied? Instead they use it as an excuse because renting is hurting Disney bottom line.

As well as you are I’m guessing. None of us knows.

I rent and sometimes I walk, I don’t care if they removed the ability to walk - unless it made it even more difficult to use my membership. If they removed it but in return made it more easy to book I’m all in. I guess that will be very subjective if a change made it easier or more difficult.

All in all I want a membership that is easy to use but also enjoy the flexibility of renting however I see fit (not as an enterprise). Renting, however is also an easy use of your membership.

 

[Chuck S]

Remember that ONE reason for walking could have been fixed ages ago, the lack of Grand Villas at OKW that can even have a wheelchair or scooter get in the front door. There are only 3, 2 of them are in an elevator building, and one has a ground floor entrance. So even if a wheelchair user doesn't need a fully modified handicap unit, they have no other choice. They could have slowly been adding lifts or elevators to the older buildings, even one per year, would have helped. Until then, I will continue to walk those reservations whenever I need an accessible GV.

And as I stated earlier, not having allowed smaller contracts of 100 to 150 points, would cut down some on the necessity to walk those hard to get studios. In many ways, DVC created the problem, if you consider walking to be a problem. Since everyone has the opportunity to walk, I don't personally consider it a major problem, but it could delay a booking untill the walker gets past your dates.

 

[Cyberc1978]

How do you know that?

Please provide your source.

As of April 2024 there were or are 18,771 BWV owners.

Unfortunately I don’t have the multi site POS for previous years to compare.

ETA. Found one for 2022, back then there were 18,885 owners.

2019, 18,274 owners.

 

[lowlight]

That’s one opinion.

I could argue maybe only 500 members are complaining and why should DVC change anything just because of so few members if 250.000 other members are satisfied? Instead they use it as an excuse because renting is hurting Disney bottom line.

As well as you are I’m guessing. None of us knows.

I rent and sometimes I walk, I don’t care if they removed the ability to walk - unless it made it even more difficult to use my membership. If they removed it but in return made it more easy to book I’m all in. I guess that will be very subjective if a change made it easier or more difficult.

All in all I want a membership that is easy to use but also enjoy the flexibility of renting however I see fit (not as an enterprise). Renting, however is also an easy use of your membership.

Oh it’s definitely only an opinion, and maybe it’s not the right one. It’s based on the fact that there are likely hundreds of thousands of DVC memberships and if you take the aggregate of all rental sites, FB groups, forums, and renters who don’t even advertise and only rent to familiars, it probably doesn’t even touch 10% of that number. Renting is a very small number of overall reservations, but likely a disproportionately high number of hard to get spec rentals.

I think the average DVC member doesn’t rent, know to rent, or care about renting. Disboards is filled with the more knowledgeable members, so take what is said here with a grain of salt. For walking, that 10% drops to probably half that number or less, but again, concentrated on the hardest to get rooms and resorts and weeks. If everyone rented and walked you’d have sold your membership years ago I’d wager. It works because of ignorance by general membership. Let’s put it to a whole of membership vote then? All or nothing.

 

[nalababybear]

Shutting down those rentals full time won't make scarce studios available.

eliminating ability walk may slow it down more than shutting down commercial business activity.
Like @Sandisw pointed out over again ...The phenomenon of easy ability to rent/sell things on the internet has changed things. People routinely buy one for self, sell two on ebay to finance purchase. DVC is no different right now.

A few hundred loud members are not going to move Disney to chabge action. Disney revamped their DAS despite a huge outcry from a very public visble and loud community so they can improve LLMP and roll out LLPP


If Disney wants to break the pattern and addictive behavior of buying more to rent to finance Disney purchases , they have the ability. I doubt they will do so unless renting is directly hurting their operations.

 

[Sandisw]

That wasn't the point of my comment. None of us know about the number of BWV owners over time, but I doubt it has doubled, as you've suggested.

The one constant is the number of points available to secure the rooms.

Just to add, though, the context behind that post, at least from the way I understood it, was that the reason that the competition for those rooms has increased is simply because of renting and walking, and not to do with a change in the owners.

In that light, demand is demand and that while the points in the system may be the same, the number of owners who are competing for them may have changed, or the size of the contracts may have...and given that DVD has lowered the minimum several times, allowing people to buy in with as little as 50 to 75 points, it has likely played a role.....

IIRC, when they added the restriction for membership extras in 2016, and you could stay qualified as an owner with as little as 25 points, there were a lot of resale owners who were buying direct points at places like BWV, etc. to stay eligible...that put a lot more smaller contracts out there than had previously existed.

 

[Sandisw]

Oh it’s definitely only an opinion, and maybe it’s not the right one. It’s based on the fact that there are likely hundreds of thousands of DVC memberships and if you take the aggregate of all rental sites, FB groups, forums, and renters who don’t even advertise and only rent to familiars, it probably doesn’t even touch 10% of that number. Renting is a very small number of overall reservations, but likely a disproportionately high number of hard to get spec rentals.

I think the average DVC member doesn’t rent, know to rent, or care about renting. Disboards is filled with the more knowledgeable members, so take what is said here with a grain of salt. For walking, that 10% drops to probably half that number or less, but again, concentrated on the hardest to get rooms and resorts and weeks. If everyone rented and walked you’d have sold your membership years ago I’d wager. It works because of ignorance by general membership. Let’s put it to a whole of membership vote then? All or nothing.

I think that your post supports that there are really two different things going on and that some want both fixed. Yes, there are owners out there who have seemingly found a way around the rules DVC had in place to prevent renting in a way that they deemed to be commercial.....

There has also been an exploding rental market at the same time with more and more owners renting casually because it is easy to do.
The problem is that one is expressly prohibited and the other is not. DVD is responsible for setting up rules and enforcement that support the first and not the second.

I still contend that what is being rented shouldn't be the issue when it comes to identifying what actions an owner is doing to make them have shifted from personal use renter to one who has turned it into a commercial enterprise. The AKV owners grabbing all the value rooms to rent should not be seen as different than the SSR owners who might grab all the preferred view rooms to rent....

As I said above, all the defintiions of commerical can apply to every single rental that is done. And, we all know that doesn't apply to renting in the world of DVC.

DVC can absolutely set rules in place for renting that it deems to support an owner who has crossed the line, but they are still expected to create them in line with what they put into the contract to limit....commmercial activity. Without a vote from owners, they don't get to go back unilaterly and add further limiations to the concept of renting outside of commercial.

**And yes, I know that DVC can do whathever they want and owners would have an uphill battle to fight them....but I am going with the fact I believe that they will implement policies that don't blantantly go against the contract.

ETA: I'll even go as far to say that this could be why they language in the trust that CFW is part of was written the way it was....so they have more control over renting in general....

The actions that some have suggested seem to indicate they want to see DVC begin to limit an owners right to rent, even when it doesn't fit into a commerical aspect....like stopping owners from renting certain room types, or forcing owners to wait until a certain date to rent, etc.

In terms of walking, again, if they feel that it is impactful to the system as a whole, then they should update the rules and regulations...which, as @drusba mentioned....would be easy to do....just go back to booking check out day....stops walking, but will require owners who want those hard to get rooms to book daily....will that be seen as better or worse? Only an owner can decide.

So, we get back to what should DVC be doing to prevent those large point owners who have found a way around the last known threhold we have...20 reservations per membership in a rolling 12 month period....

 

[lowlight]

I think that your post supports that there are really two different things going on and that some want both fixed. Yes, there are owners out there who have seemingly found a way around the rules DVC had in place to prevent renting in a way that they deemed to be commercial.....

Three things going on, IMO.

1) Large scale commercial renters using LLC's to overcome point limits and renting out 100% of their points.
2) Medium scale owners who have a few thousand points and use the strategy of renting many of their points to cover the cost of their dues, their own personal trip, and a good bit of profit at the end.
3) The owner who rents occasionally because of sickness, busy year, emergencies, etc.

Most everyone agrees #1 needs to be fixed. You and I disagree on #2. My contention is it's likely the majority of people, besides those doing it themselves or those unaware of the issue completely, who want #2 to be fixed. Most on Dis agree #3 is not an issue, is working as designed, and don't want it changed. My point with #3 is that if you polled the entire membership, not just here on Disboards, I think most owners have never rented, will never rent, and would be indifferent towards renting being eliminated or not. Again, I'm not asking it to be shut down, I just think support for it is skewed on Disboards versus reality.

I still contend that what is being rented shouldn't be the issue when it comes to identifying what actions an owner is doing to make them have shifted from personal use renter to one who has turned it into a commercial enterprise. The AKV owners grabbing all the value rooms to rent should not be seen as different than the SSR owners who might grab all the preferred view rooms to rent....

I agree, but you are skewing the options. AKV owners grabbing all value rooms to rent IS no different than SSR owners grabbing all preferred rooms to rent, but it IS different than AKV owners grabbing all the value rooms to use themselves for their own personal reservations. Owning DVC should be the surest way to get hard to get rooms. It's not. To do so, you have to 1) own, 2) have resort priority and 3) walk these rooms for weeks to months. If I rent points from someone, they do all this for me ahead of time, and I just give them money at a rate which has remained relatively unchanged for many years compared to inflation and rack rate increases. It's better to be a renter in this situation than an owner, which means DVC has failed in protecting its product from outside forces.

DVC can absolutely set rules in place for renting that it deems to support an owner who has crossed the line, but they are still expected to create them in line with what they put into the contract to limit....commmercial activity. Without a vote from owners, they don't get to go back unilaterly and add further limiations to the concept of renting outside of commercial.

That's what I'm saying. The board should open it up to a vote then, and let's see where the chips fall. If you are so certain the majority of owners really don't care about #2 and #3 renters, there is nothing to lose on your side of the argument.

 

[tom1944]

I am surprised someone has not posted a thread with a poll asking those questions.

 

[xdan0920]

Shutting down those rentals full time won't make scarce studios available.

eliminating ability walk may slow it down more than shutting down commercial business activity.
Like @Sandisw pointed out over again ...The phenomenon of easy ability to rent/sell things on the internet has changed things. People routinely buy one for self, sell two on ebay to finance purchase. DVC is no different right now.

A few hundred loud members are not going to move Disney to chabge action. Disney revamped their DAS despite a huge outcry from a very public visble and loud community so they can improve LLMP and roll out LLPP


If Disney wants to break the pattern and addictive behavior of buying more to rent to finance Disney purchases , they have the ability. I doubt they will do so unless renting is directly hurting their operations.

You keep stating your opinions as facts.

 

[xdan0920]

I am surprised someone has not posted a thread with a poll asking those questions.

It would be heavily skewed. Go check out the renters sub forum.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

Three things going on, IMO.

1) Large scale commercial renters using LLC's to overcome point limits and renting out 100% of their points.
2) Medium scale owners who have a few thousand points and use the strategy of renting many of their points to cover the cost of their dues, their own personal trip, and a good bit of profit at the end.
3) The owner who rents occasionally because of sickness, busy year, emergencies, etc.

I love that you call a “medium scale owner” someone with a few thousand points. That’s like saying that 6 Owner’s Lockers is totally reasonable. #somethingToAspireTo

 

[lowlight]

It would be heavily skewed. Go check out the renters sub forum.

I mean the Condo board. Disboards would be heavily pro renting.

I love that you call a “medium scale owner” someone with a few thousand points. That’s like saying that 6 Owner’s Lockers is totally reasonable. #somethingToAspireTo

Yes, that should probably read "medium scale renter". There are many, many, many of these renters in the rental section of Disboards.

 

[tx911]

Three things going on, IMO.

1) Large scale commercial renters using LLC's to overcome point limits and renting out 100% of their points.
2) Medium scale owners who have a few thousand points and use the strategy of renting many of their points to cover the cost of their dues, their own personal trip, and a good bit of profit at the end.
3) The owner who rents occasionally because of sickness, busy year, emergencies, etc.

Most everyone agrees #1 needs to be fixed. You and I disagree on #2. My contention is it's likely the majority of people, besides those doing it themselves or those unaware of the issue completely, who want #2 to be fixed. Most on Dis agree #3 is not an issue, is working as designed, and don't want it changed. My point with #3 is that if you polled the entire membership, not just here on Disboards, I think most owners have never rented, will never rent, and would be indifferent towards renting being eliminated or not. Again, I'm not asking it to be shut down, I just think support for it is skewed on Disboards versus reality.




I agree, but you are skewing the options. AKV owners grabbing all value rooms to rent IS no different than SSR owners grabbing all preferred rooms to rent, but it IS different than AKV owners grabbing all the value rooms to use themselves for their own personal reservations. Owning DVC should be the surest way to get hard to get rooms. It's not. To do so, you have to 1) own, 2) have resort priority and 3) walk these rooms for weeks to months. If I rent points from someone, they do all this for me ahead of time, and I just give them money at a rate which has remained relatively unchanged for many years compared to inflation and rack rate increases. It's better to be a renter in this situation than an owner, which means DVC has failed in protecting its product from outside forces.



That's what I'm saying. The board should open it up to a vote then, and let's see where the chips fall. If you are so certain the majority of owners really don't care about #2 and #3 renters, there is nothing to lose on your side of the argument.

I do agree that category 2 renting is not consistent with the intent of the membership. As many others have said, there are better ways to make money than DVC.

The separate question that I can’t answer is whether category 2 behavior is really effecting other members in a negative way. If it’s not, one could argue just let it be. Even more so if the fix does have negative effects.

I view excessive renting and walking as two sides of the same coin. It’s just taking advantage of a very flexible system, thereby risking losing some of that flexibility.

 

[tx911]

I love that you call a “medium scale owner” someone with a few thousand points. That’s like saying that 6 Owner’s Lockers is totally reasonable. #somethingToAspireTo

I’m definitely chopped liver if that’s medium scale

 

[lowlight]

The separate question that I can’t answer is whether category 2 behavior is really effecting other members in a negative way. If it’s not, one could argue just let it be. Even more so if the fix does have negative effects.

I guess we will never know until something is done about it, but I hypothesize it is. I don't think there are a ton of type #1 renters, maybe a few dozen. I think there are thousands of type #2 renters. It's six of one, half dozen of another scenario. Are 10 type #1 renters with a total of 200k points as bad as 100 type #2 renters with a total of 200k points? Would you rather fight 100 duck sized bears, or 5 bear sized ducks?

 

[tx911]

Would you rather fight 100 duck sized bears, or 5 bear sized ducks?

I’m legit having a hard time with this question

Someone brought up patterns of use earlier, I think @Sandisw.
I think that might be the key. It shouldn’t be hard to recognize the big players, and the rest may largely vanish if they go after those.

 

[Sandisw]

Three things going on, IMO.

1) Large scale commercial renters using LLC's to overcome point limits and renting out 100% of their points.
2) Medium scale owners who have a few thousand points and use the strategy of renting many of their points to cover the cost of their dues, their own personal trip, and a good bit of profit at the end.
3) The owner who rents occasionally because of sickness, busy year, emergencies, etc.

Most everyone agrees #1 needs to be fixed. You and I disagree on #2. My contention is it's likely the majority of people, besides those doing it themselves or those unaware of the issue completely, who want #2 to be fixed. Most on Dis agree #3 is not an issue, is working as designed, and don't want it changed. My point with #3 is that if you polled the entire membership, not just here on Disboards, I think most owners have never rented, will never rent, and would be indifferent towards renting being eliminated or not. Again, I'm not asking it to be shut down, I just think support for it is skewed on Disboards versus reality.




I agree, but you are skewing the options. AKV owners grabbing all value rooms to rent IS no different than SSR owners grabbing all preferred rooms to rent, but it IS different than AKV owners grabbing all the value rooms to use themselves for their own personal reservations. Owning DVC should be the surest way to get hard to get rooms. It's not. To do so, you have to 1) own, 2) have resort priority and 3) walk these rooms for weeks to months. If I rent points from someone, they do all this for me ahead of time, and I just give them money at a rate which has remained relatively unchanged for many years compared to inflation and rack rate increases. It's better to be a renter in this situation than an owner, which means DVC has failed in protecting its product from outside forces.



That's what I'm saying. The board should open it up to a vote then, and let's see where the chips fall. If you are so certain the majority of owners really don't care about #2 and #3 renters, there is nothing to lose on your side of the argument.

You don’t give up rights you have easily. I, for one, do not want to open up the contract to change what it means for renting for personal use to make it include the second group where you and I disagree.

Regardless as was posted, even if rules for renting are changed to apply beyond commercial, owners don’t have to abide by that based on the FL statue that was listed.

Th flip side of that is that if owners who believe the that #2 is a big issue for majority of owners, then they would see the board asking for owners to vote.

If I understand it correctly, we, as owners, can’t force a vote…only DVC could attempt to thst.

And while yes, the impact to AKv owners may be greater than other resorts, it doesn’t change the rules of what renting is and is not allowed.

So, I for one, would never vote or want a vote to change the product in a way that limits owners rights. Not sure why anyone would want that.

 

[AstroBlasters]

I have a New Years Resolution to walk more this year…..