DVC plans to target commercial renters

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

The more 20 reservations rule was more of a trigger that your membership would be reviewed.

If you could support that all those were not rentals, then it was fine. If they were, then they said they would cancel any over 20.

So, I do think in the cases of having more for something like a wedding would be easy to explain

Because it was mentioned at the meetings I was at how social media has changed the landscape, my speculation is that they need to redefine commercial because owners figured out how to get around the current rules.

20 always struck me as a ridiculously high number. To be clear 20+ reservations total is not problematic (imo), but 20 reservations in other people’s names seems incredibly high and may have actually (unintentionally) encouraged some owners to develop a strategy of buying 1.75x as many points as they needed to “cover their dues” or “have the membership pay for itself”— which, from a pure legal definition, *is* commercial use (even if DVC specifically defines it differently in a more arbitrary and ambiguous way).

In any event, to me, it makes no sense to pick a hard number and instead it should be a ratio of total points to points rented (over a 2-4 year period, assuming that all owners may have occasional years they can’t use at all) and/or trying to figure out which owners are always booking rooms designed for maximum probability as opposed to other categories.

 

[tx911]

20 always struck me as a ridiculously high number. To be clear 20+ reservations total is not problematic (imo), but 20 reservations in other people’s names seems incredibly high and may have actually (unintentionally) encouraged some owners to develop a strategy of buying 1.75x as many points as they needed to “cover their dues” or “have the membership pay for itself”— which, from a pure legal definition, *is* commercial use (even if DVC specifically defines it differently in a more arbitrary and ambiguous way).

In any event, to me, it makes no sense to pick a hard number and instead it should be a ratio of total points to points rented (over a 2-4 year period, assuming that all owners may have occasional years they can’t use at all) and/or trying to figure out which owners are always booking rooms designed for maximum probability as opposed to other categories.

 

[Chuck S]

Here's another scenario. A couple of years ago I advertised 100 points for rental (of the 345 I have) here on the DIS. Some of the inquiries were from other members who already had reservations looking for a night or two to fill out their trips. Those hundred points were spread over 6 reservations. So I could easily see someone renting 350 points out of their 1000 if they own that many, to 20 reservations for one night reservations at the request of several renters.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Your proposed example did exactly that with 12 a year with appeals process.

It was a hypothetical. I figured that part was obvious. That’s how you move a conversation forward, rather than simply coming up with more and more extreme “what if” scenarios that are likely to come around less often then Haley’s Comet. I also thought when I said “as long as their name is on the reservation” that it was also obvious that I meant to exclude reservations made for and used by the contract owner. Same goes with a handful of more perceivable but still “one-off” scenarios like a wedding.

 

[DonMacGregor]

There will of course be grey areas, but differentiating people who take trips with large groups and share their points with those they know from people who make many reservations for many different people who aren't traveling with them should be feasible.

If you’re to believe these threads, literally every board member who makes more than one reservation per year lives in that grey area.

 

[Cfabar1]

I still think DVC created some of this problem when they allowed small add-on contracts. The original point charts were designed for owners to have at least 230 points. Instead of allowing free standing add on contracts, they should have some how rolled them into the original contracts for the same home resort, or been diligent about exercising ROFR on small contracts. The sheer niumber of small contract owners also creates increased demand for the low point (standard view and value) studios that seem to be the target reservations for commercial renters to prebook.

I don't disagree with you... however, as the points charts have become worse, and the buy in price has become higher... smaller contracts became more and more necessary to support the growth...

To your point, those 230 points at OKW are basically the equivalent of 375-400 points at VGF or Poly2.... DVC realized they needed to become a "studio heavy" product...

The initial buy in was 230 when it debuted in 1992…and by 1996 was down to 150.

And this is the whole thing.... 230 points is a lot of points... was then and certainly is now from a cost standpoint... DVC became a system that was a way to "prepay" for hotel rooms for a large percentage of owners...

 

[Sandisw]

I don't disagree with you... however, as the points charts have become worse, and the buy in price has become higher... smaller contracts became more and more necessary to support the growth...

To your point, those 230 points at OKW are basically the equivalent of 375-400 points at VGF or Poly2.... DVC realized they needed to become a "studio heavy" product...

And this is the whole thing.... 230 points is a lot of points... was then and certainly is now from a cost standpoint... DVC became a system that was a way to "prepay" for hotel rooms for a large percentage of owners...

I think the small point buy ins went as low as 50 to 75…

That has had an impact on the demands for cheap rooms…and the more demand, the harder it is.

We had no problem getting SV rooms at BWV when we first joined for our typical 3 day fall weekend.

But then we did, along with our late May trip and it become one of the reasons we sold…along with falling in love with RIV!

 

[Sandisw]

20 always struck me as a ridiculously high number. To be clear 20+ reservations total is not problematic (imo), but 20 reservations in other people’s names seems incredibly high and may have actually (unintentionally) encouraged some owners to develop a strategy of buying 1.75x as many points as they needed to “cover their dues” or “have the membership pay for itself”— which, from a pure legal definition, *is* commercial use (even if DVC specifically defines it differently in a more arbitrary and ambiguous way).

In any event, to me, it makes no sense to pick a hard number and instead it should be a ratio of total points to points rented (over a 2-4 year period, assuming that all owners may have occasional years they can’t use at all) and/or trying to figure out which owners are always booking rooms designed for maximum probability as opposed to other categories.

I think that is why the comment regarding social media came up…before we had all these easy ways to rent, my guess is rhe % of owners renting was small.

Now, with how easy it is, I think more and more owners do it regularly to offset other trips.

So, not only do you have some owners who have crossed the line, I think you have a lot more owners renting regularly than before.

I even have to wonder if that is playing a role too?

 

[BeachClub2014]

Now, with how easy it is, I think more and more owners do it regularly to offset other trips.

Agreed. I've only rented a few times, and just in the last two years, and have done so with a rental broker as the middle because they make it easy to do so. Never rented the first 20 years we've owned.

 

[Nabas]

They may be able to lock the account in someway. That’s a good question for someone with actual contract law experience.

How about this...

Limit DVC members identified as "commercial" to book only by calling after 9 AM.

Let's face it; this is mostly about those high-demand rooms: AKV-Value, AKV-Club, BWV-Standard, etc. In normal times, these rooms go right at 8 AM. If commercial renters have to wait until 9 AM to book, then it's highly unlikely that they will be able to get the high-demand rooms. This greatly reduces the appeal of commercial renting.

 

[Sandisw]

How about this...

Limit DVC members identified as "commercial" to book only by calling after 9 AM.

Let's face it; this is mostly about those high-demand rooms: AKV-Value, AKV-Club, BWV-Standard, etc. In normal times, these rooms go right at 8 AM. If commercial renters have to wait until 9 AM to book, then it's highly unlikely that they will be able to get the high-demand rooms. This greatly reduces the appeal of commercial renting.

That, they can not do..,the home resort rules have to be the same for everyone so as long as they are an owner, booking rules have to be consistent with all other owners.

That’s why they could never give different rules to resale vs direct when it comes to home resort.

Other than canceling rooms they believe have o
Put the membership in violation, I’m not sure what other steps they could take.

Maybe suspending use for a certain amount of time under the “in good standing” clause?

If you have been found in violation you are considered not in good standing and then get locked out for x amount of time? No idea if that is legal though.

 

[nalababybear]

That, they can not do..,the home resort rules have to be the same for everyone so as long as they are an owner, booking rules have to be consistent with all other owners.

That’s why they could never give different rules to resale vs direct when it comes to home resort.

Other than canceling rooms they believe have o
Put the membership in violation, I’m not sure what other steps they could take.

Maybe suspending use for a certain amount of time under the “in good standing” clause?

If you have been found in violation you are considered not in good standing and then get locked out for x amount of time? No idea if that is legal though.

That's the primary issue -- define commercial usage. There's a chasm of grey right now and yes the ability to list and communicate online these days because of ebay/FB/DISboards/X/Amazon all make life a little bit easier and gives us options beyond the newspaper classifieds.

Secondary issue -- how to enact enforcement once commercial usage is deemed broken the rules.

There's annoyances for sure. eg I've given up on club AKV even though we own there. That's fine as I can rent from others rather easily and reliably and likewise rent out my own points rather easily when I don't use it. --- it's an easy and transactionable system that's quite fungible.

Nothing is easy. I just ask that DVC do reasonable for both and not wreck the system that exists today and kill their goose and mass exodus of DVC owners.

 

[Tatebeck]

Yeah, I would love to try club level at AKV but haven't been able to yet. I wish there were more club level dvc rooms. Maybe once they do more hotel conversions?

Honestly at AKV if I were in charge I would try to kill 2 birds with one stone. With the value rooms just being 1 floor below club level rooms I would try to get rid of the value rooms all together, give those rooms access to the 6th floor club level amenities and make them club level. It would get rid of the "cheapest" rooms that there are far too few of, and add a few more to the club level rooms, at least making those unique rooms more attainable. The point shift would be pretty minor since there are so few value rooms, but they could either make the club level slightly cheaper (unlikely, since they book so fast) or make one of the other view categories just ever so slightly cheaper.

Or if that isn't doable, just make them the same cost as standard rooms.

 

[Brian Noble]

Sure, but if you set rules you also have to define them very clearly.

I'm not sure about that. In particular, none of the other timeshare developers define things clearly. And that is because:

Exactly. Define the guardrails. Let people play by the rules and not an arbitrary line in the sand.

This is exactly what they don't want the commercial outfits to do. And candidly, if they scare a few garden variety owners away from renting, that's not a bad thing in the eyes of the developer.

I do not think Disney would get into that level of legal battle to ban people from the park for potential DVC contract violations

There is no legal battle. As @DonMacGregor pointed out, they are a private business. As long as they are not banning people based on being members of a protected class, they can trespass anyone they like, for any reason.

 

[Sandisw]

Yeah, I would love to try club level at AKV but haven't been able to yet. I wish there were more club level dvc rooms. Maybe once they do more hotel conversions?

Honestly at AKV if I were in charge I would try to kill 2 birds with one stone. With the value rooms just being 1 floor below club level rooms I would try to get rid of the value rooms all together, give those rooms access to the 6th floor club level amenities and make them club level. It would get rid of the "cheapest" rooms that there are far too few of, and add a few more to the club level rooms, at least making those unique rooms more attainable. The point shift would be pretty minor since there are so few value rooms, but they could either make the club level slightly cheaper (unlikely, since they book so fast) or make one of the other view categories just ever so slightly cheaper.

Or if that isn't doable, just make them the same cost as standard rooms.

I can’t remember the specific language but the contract discusses where the points would go if CL rooms were removed.

So, that gives some insight where they’d need to take them from if they wanted to try to turn value into CL…

 

[Nabas]

That, they can not do..,the home resort rules have to be the same for everyone so as long as they are an owner, booking rules have to be consistent with all other owners.

That’s why they could never give different rules to resale vs direct when it comes to home resort.

Other than canceling rooms they believe have o
Put the membership in violation, I’m not sure what other steps they could take.

Maybe suspending use for a certain amount of time under the “in good standing” clause?

If you have been found in violation you are considered not in good standing and then get locked out for x amount of time? No idea if that is legal though.

The starting assumption is that Disney has identified someone who is a commercial renter in violation of the contract that the individual signed.

Forget the corner cases. Let’s say Disney identifies one person or organization that is renting out 1000 reservations per year. Can anyone seriously argue that this is not a commercial renter?

If the renter has been found to be in violation of the contract, then presumably Disney has many possible remedies at its disposal.

Presumably, the first step is to notify that DVC member that they are in violation and to issue a cease and desist.

If the commercial renter continues to rent their points, then what’s next?

Some have suggested that Disney could simply start canceling that commercial renter’s reservations. The issue here is that the commercial renter could possibly countersue. The commercial renters dues are paid in full and yet Disney is preventing them from being used.

As a less severe remedy, I’m suggesting that Disney could limit that commercial renter’s booking options.

 

[crisi]

The starting assumption is that Disney has identified someone who is a commercial renter in violation of the contract that the individual signed.

Forget the corner cases. Let’s say Disney identifies one person or organization that is renting out 1000 reservations per year. Can anyone seriously argue that this is not a commercial renter?

If the renter has been found to be in violation of the contract, then presumably Disney has many possible remedies at its disposal.

Presumably, the first step is to notify that DVC member that they are in violation and to issue a cease and desist.

If the commercial renter continues to rent their points, then what’s next?

Some have suggested that Disney could simply start canceling that commercial renter’s reservations. The issue here is that the commercial renter could possibly countersue. The commercial renters dues are paid in full and yet Disney is preventing them from being used.

As a less severe remedy, I’m suggesting that Disney could limit that commercial renter’s booking options.

They could countersue. They wouldn't have a lot of luck as the contract specifically prohibits commercial renting. And the contract remedy is that you can't use your points.

 

[Leight19]

Yeah, I would love to try club level at AKV but haven't been able to yet. I wish there were more club level dvc rooms. Maybe once they do more hotel conversions?

Honestly at AKV if I were in charge I would try to kill 2 birds with one stone. With the value rooms just being 1 floor below club level rooms I would try to get rid of the value rooms all together, give those rooms access to the 6th floor club level amenities and make them club level. It would get rid of the "cheapest" rooms that there are far too few of, and add a few more to the club level rooms, at least making those unique rooms more attainable. The point shift would be pretty minor since there are so few value rooms, but they could either make the club level slightly cheaper (unlikely, since they book so fast) or make one of the other view categories just ever so slightly cheaper.

Or if that isn't doable, just make them the same cost as standard rooms.

As others have said it’s not clear to me that dvc can change points across room types given how the rooms are declared as units upon sale. Someone would have dig up the specifics of the rooms under discussion but it’s not clear dvc could do it.

Regardless if they could do it I don’t see any reason why they should. I own at bwv and akv. I own at those specially because they had room categories that are generally impossible to get at 7months. I’ve been able to get both as owner and when I can’t I have no problem booking the more expensive rooms (though more likely to switch at 7mo).

I honestly don’t know what problem people are trying to fix here? The rooms are popular and a reason to own there so let’s change points so they aren’t popular and remove main value of being owner there?

 

[patm95]

Serious question. Could someone explain to me what the problem is with commercial renting? My one concern is how they would define commercial renting? Could they define a place like dvc rental as commercial renting? If it wasn’t for renting points I would have never became a dvc member because I would have never seen the value in it.

 

[Tatebeck]

As others have said it’s not clear to me that dvc can change points across room types given how the rooms are declared as units upon sale. Someone would have dig up the specifics of the rooms under discussion but it’s not clear dvc could do it.

Regardless if they could do it I don’t see any reason why they should. I own at bwv and akv. I own at those specially because they had room categories that are generally impossible to get at 7months. I’ve been able to get both as owner and when I can’t I have no problem booking the more expensive rooms (though more likely to switch at 7mo).

I honestly don’t know what problem people are trying to fix here? The rooms are popular and a reason to own there so let’s change points so they aren’t popular and remove main value of being owner there?

What most believe they cannot do is move points between UNITS, because that would change the percentage of the ownership interests that we have been sold. But they can change them between room types and seasons, as long as the total points in each unit remains the same.

With how few Value rooms there are, I believe it would be doable, as they are likely only in 1 or 2 units and it would only require a very small change in a different view type(s) to make up for changing ALL of the value rooms