DVC Point Charts for 2011 - Post chart release discussion begins on Pg 14

[kdzgon]

Having thought about it further, bookwormde has convinced me he is right. Assuming his numbers are correct and the only way the point realocation could be "point nuetral" is if 42 2brm units and 2 GV's were reclasified fron savanna view to standard view, then It does appear DVD did actually "create points" at AKV (using the definition of that term bookwormde provided earlier.) They did not do it the exact way I described in my last post, (link on the arrow in the quote above) but the effect was the same. If that was indead done it may have been technically legal (I am sure DVD ha some pretty good lawyers), but I think I have the same definition of "fair" as bookwormde, and it does not seem fair.
Whether the initial "overclassification" of some rooms was premeditated or an honest mistake is something we can never know, but since the resort is not yet sold out, DVD could have taken the "hit" rather than the members who have already purchased.

While some will argue that the total points did not change, if the downgraded rooms needed to be downgraded because they were below member expectations for their original classification, and the points were "balanced" by raising the points for the other rooms, unless those other rooms previously exceeded member expectations, then increasing the points for those rooms was not "fair".

Note: this discussion is a lot different than most of what is being discussed in this thread, so maybe it should have had its own thread. For those who are interested in this topic, the history is in posts 371, 397, 579, 596, 604, 611, 633, 681, 692, 694, 695 714 and this post.

I would also be interested to know if the same thing might have occured at BLT, but I will leave that for another post.

IMO, the AKV CL rooms were a pretty good deal, as were AKV value rooms. However, I think the value rooms went down (after going up last year) and the number of CL rooms are pretty limited. So, perhaps the increase in CL rooms was a "fair" balancing too.

On another note, reclassifying the views could turn out to be a hornet's nest, considering all the view-related posts re: BLT.

 

[LisaS]

Having thought about it further, bookwormde has convinced me he is right. Assuming his numbers are correct and the only way the point realocation could be "point nuetral" is if 42 2brm units and 2 GV's were reclasified fron savanna view to standard view, then It does appear DVD did actually "create points" at AKV (using the definition of that term bookwormde provided earlier.) They did not do it the exact way I described in my last post, (link on the arrow in the quote above) but the effect was the same. If that was indead done it may have been technically legal (I am sure DVD ha some pretty good lawyers), but I think I have the same definition of "fair" as bookwormde, and it does not seem fair.
Whether the initial "overclassification" of some rooms was premeditated or an honest mistake is something we can never know, but since the resort is not yet sold out, DVD could have taken the "hit" rather than the members who have already purchased.

While some will argue that the total points did not change, if the downgraded rooms needed to be downgraded because they were below member expectations for their original classification, and the points were "balanced" by raising the points for the other rooms, unless those other rooms previously exceeded member expectations, then increasing the points for those rooms was not "fair".

Note: this discussion is a lot different than most of what is being discussed in this thread, so maybe it should have had its own thread. For those who are interested in this topic, the history is in posts 371, 397, 579, 596, 604, 611, 633, 681, 692, 694, 695 714 and this post.

I would also be interested to know if the same thing might have occured at BLT, but I will leave that for another post.

I was speaking with a CM at AKV today and it came up in conversation that many rooms in Jambo House (and maybe Kidani?) were recently reclassified from Savanna View to Standard View because they had obstructed views. The ones in Jambo House are scattered throughout the resort, many in corners (perhaps inner corners where the spokes join the horseshoe?) where the savanna view was not the best. It was felt that if you pay for a savanna view, you should get an unobstructed view of the savanna and some rooms originally classified as Savanna View did not provide that.

I had not seen bookwormde's calculations so I did not ask if 42 such rooms had been reclassified. It will be interesting to see where these rooms are located but it does appear that at some point, those who book a Standard View at Jambo House will not be looking at the pool but may have a partially obstructed savanna view instead.

 

[Dean]

IMO, the AKV CL rooms were a pretty good deal, as were AKV value rooms. However, I think the value rooms went down (after going up last year) and the number of CL rooms are pretty limited. So, perhaps the increase in CL rooms was a "fair" balancing too.

On another note, reclassifying the views could turn out to be a hornet's nest, considering all the view-related posts re: BLT.

Lowering the total points for the resort for the year is always a good thing overall though it will mean slighly higher fees, it will mean even lower costs overall.

 

[doconeill]

I was speaking with a CM at AKV today and it came up in conversation that many rooms in Jambo House (and maybe Kidani?) were recently reclassified from Savanna View to Standard View because they had obstructed views. The ones in Jambo House are scattered throughout the resort, many in corners (perhaps inner corners where the spokes join the horseshoe?) where the savanna view was not the best. It was felt that if you pay for a savanna view, you should get an unobstructed view of the savanna and some rooms originally classified as Savanna View did not provide that.

Hmmm...I had this exact problem last April with our "Savanna View" 1BR. The room we ended up with was a "Sunset" SV room...if you are looking with the "bowl" upright, it was the first offshoot building to the left, and the room was the last one on the left. Kudzu Trail 3 I think it is called.

The problem with that room was that it saw VERY LITTLE of the Savanna. A good portion of that area is fenced off for some sort of maintenance use. And immediately to the right of the room was an external stairwell which blocked any view towards the right. Trees obstructed most of the rest. We saw two animals the entire week. We had far better views from the hallway.

I had a long conversation with MS about the room, along with the fact that we were told it was an Arusha view (according to our request, and asking at check-in that if we had to wait for a room could we not wait for an Arusha view, which the CM agreed to, but then placed us in the wrong room - even after I questioned her about the location!), that a room with such a limited view should be equal to those of far more expansive views. Especially since while I was standing there, a gentleman checking in for a lodge room got a room with the same view, but was charged for a standard view room "because of the construction of Kidani"...

I guess they listened. My fault, sorry for all the confusion it caused.

 

[tjkraz]

Admittedly I haven't been following the AKV discussion too closely but I guess I don't understand how DVC could be held to the original point projections when not all of the units have been declared.

I understand that the declarations are based upon square footage with no consideration given to the view or class of the specific unit. But those figures would be calculated YEARS before the resort even opens and it seems like some adjustments could be necessary.

If DVC determined that some units should be reduced from Savanna to Standard view, the total points in the resort would go down. But it seems they can accomplish this pretty easily by reducing the points in a future unit declaration.

Am I following? If so, why is this a bad thing?

 

[Dean]

Admittedly I haven't been following the AKV discussion too closely but I guess I don't understand how DVC could be held to the original point projections when not all of the units have been declared.

I understand that the declarations are based upon square footage with no consideration given to the view or class of the specific unit. But those figures would be calculated YEARS before the resort even opens and it seems like some adjustments could be necessary.

If DVC determined that some units should be reduced from Savanna to Standard view, the total points in the resort would go down. But it seems they can accomplish this pretty easily by reducing the points in a future unit declaration.

Am I following? If so, why is this a bad thing?

Tim, some apparently feel it's a bad thing for some reason, I can't see that any decrease is bad even if it means a fractional increase in dues. As you hint at, we all sign that we understand that future sections may not occur when we buy in. They could increase or decrease the totals depending on specifics, down is good and up is bad unless they give us some value in return for the increase, like more concierge options.

 

[kdzgon]

Lowering the total points for the resort for the year is always a good thing overall though it will mean slighly higher fees, it will mean even lower costs overall.

I'm a little confused by your response, Dean. I certainly respect your knowledge regarding timeshares, so I suspect you are right with your statement. However, I was responding to a statement that if the savanna views were over-valued, something else theoretically should have been under-valued. I think maybe that was actually true, as IMO both CL and values at AKV were pretty good deals relative to other DVC rooms. This may or may not mean lower overall points, but I honestly wasn't commenting on that either way as I didn't really even consider that aspect.

My "hornet's nest" comment referred to the possible outcry by members that if they did it at AKV, they certainly should [reclassify rooms] at BLT, too. Based on comments on the various boards, there are a number of people unhappy with the views there (mostly MK), while many have mentioned what wonderful views can be had in the standard rooms.

 

[dismedvc]

Admittedly I haven't been following the AKV discussion too closely but I guess I don't understand how DVC could be held to the original point projections when not all of the units have been declared.

I understand that the declarations are based upon square footage with no consideration given to the view or class of the specific unit. But those figures would be calculated YEARS before the resort even opens and it seems like some adjustments could be necessary.

If DVC determined that some units should be reduced from Savanna to Standard view, the total points in the resort would go down. But it seems they can accomplish this pretty easily by reducing the points in a future unit declaration.

Am I following? If so, why is this a bad thing?

Tim and Dean, THEORETICALLY THEY COULD "CREATE POINTS", and that would be a bad (unfair) thing. That could happen if they did not reduce the the total points in the resort when they reduced some units in the new section from Savanna to Standard view, but instead, increased the points in the existing units (which had previously been "fairly" valued) to make up the points they lost due to having to reclassify the new units which they had initially "overclassified".

Not sure I explained that very well, but does that explaination make sense to you?

 

[tjkraz]

Tim and Dean, THEORETICALLY THEY COULD "CREATE POINTS", and that would be a bad (unfair) thing. That could happen if they did not reduce the the total points in the resort when they reduced some units from Savanna to Standard view, but instead, increased the points in the existing units (which had previously been "fairly" valued) to make up the points they lost due to having to reclassify the new units which they had initially "overclassified".

Not sure I explained that very well, but does that explaination make sense to you?

That makes sense but I'm not quite sure that would be wrong either.

Most people would agree that The Carousel section of SSR is the least desirable location to be in. Right now the entire resort is priced identically.

From time to time there has been discussion on the forums as to whether DVC should create a separate category for The Carousel with lower point costs than villas in other areas of the resort. To do so they would have to increase costs elsewhere. The increases for other villas would be small since there are only two buildings in The Carousel vs 16 in the rest of the resort.

Isn't that pretty much the same scenario?

It seems like an unscrupulous developer MIGHT be able to use these rights to their advantage, but I can't quite wrap my head around a specific aspect that would make it illegal.

 

[dismedvc]

That makes sense but I'm not quite sure that would be wrong either.

It seems like an unscrupulous developer MIGHT be able to use these rights to their advantage, but I can't quite wrap my head around a specific aspect that would make it illegal.

Not illegal, especially if it was a "honest mistake" (see my post #880). In the case of a sold out resort, there would be nothing that could be done. However, in the case of a resort that is not yet sold out, DVD could reduce the points on future declarations, and they would take the "hit" rather than the members who had previously purchased. As bookwormde, and I have stated several times, this is purely theoretical, and the inpact on any individual member is probably trivial, but it is always fun to speculate on conspiricy theories.

 

[Dean]

I'm a little confused by your response, Dean. I certainly respect your knowledge regarding timeshares, so I suspect you are right with your statement. However, I was responding to a statement that if the savanna views were over-valued, something else theoretically should have been under-valued. I think maybe that was actually true, as IMO both CL and values at AKV were pretty good deals relative to other DVC rooms. This may or may not mean lower overall points, but I honestly wasn't commenting on that either way as I didn't really even consider that aspect.

My "hornet's nest" comment referred to the possible outcry by members that if they did it at AKV, they certainly should [reclassify rooms] at BLT, too. Based on comments on the various boards, there are a number of people unhappy with the views there (mostly MK), while many have mentioned what wonderful views can be had in the standard rooms.

I don't disagree with these statements. I was stating that if they decreased the total points for the resort as represented by reclassifying some rooms, that would be GOOD. If they simply balance the resort, that may also be good but in different ways, the ways we've been discussing for 60 pages PLUS it may better represent the rooms as a whole (like BW view at BWV. As to the value of a room, I think you may be trying to look at it too closely. Certainly if one room is less desirable OVERALL than another, it's fair that they should be different points accordingly. But you've got to look at the big picture. You don't want to micromanage each and every room with the way rooms are utilized and can be reserved. Works on a cruise or for fixed weeks but not with a points system like DVC. I guess what I'm saying is that room A may be reasonable to be a value because it has a poor view, room B may be a Savannah View but only have a SLIGHTLY better view than room A. In my mind and possibly yours room A may be a much better value than room B.

Tim and Dean, THEORETICALLY THEY COULD "CREATE POINTS", and that would be a bad (unfair) thing. That could happen if they did not reduce the the total points in the resort when they reduced some units in the new section from Savanna to Standard view, but instead, increased the points in the existing units (which had previously been "fairly" valued) to make up the points they lost due to having to reclassify the new units which they had initially "overclassified".

Not sure I explained that very well, but does that explaination make sense to you?

IF I'm reading you correctly, the answer is yes and no. I think what you're doing is assuming that their points calculations of per unit can increase in new sections and that the increase would cross over the total points allotted for the rooms at the resort and the answer is a fat NO, and be legal. They could not create points in the "same resort" for the same views and points table. What they could do would be to make it a separate component as they legally can and have a totally separate points table OR they could crease other amenities and classify additional room types like additional Concierge or "deluxe" units. Ultimately they can't sell more points than it takes to reserve the resort for the year assuming no lockoff's are broken down. They could take the parts of Kidani not declared and classify them as a new different resort if they wanted or even not part of DVC. Normally DVC sells all but 2-4% which is mostly used for maint though at 4%, they'll have some to market for rentals likely.

I went back to your post #880 and I'm not 100% sure what you're saying. Are you saying that because of the change from savannah to standard (lower points) in parts already sold out and assuming that the parts not yet sold are more on the Savannah view side (higher points) and thus IF they stopped now they'd be over the limit? If so it's theoretically possible but I doubt it. First, they are always ahead of sales with declared "units", second, they have very smart legal people and bean counters workign there. IF they made such a mistake, it's a potential legal risk for them. Ultimately it won't matter as long as the entire resort ends up being sold.

However, in principle it does represent an increase in total points if they just rebalance to account for the reclassification. What they should do, is what they did at BWV in this situation, simply sell less points to accommodate the reclassification. That would be a point to complain about to DVC for those that owned at AKV if they so choose. Of course they could have reclassified to make the rebalancing workable instead.

 

[Dean]

Not illegal, especially if it was a "honest mistake" (see my post #880). In the case of a sold out resort, there would be nothing that could be done. However, in the case of a resort that is not yet sold out, DVD could reduce the points on future declarations, and they would take the "hit" rather than the members who had previously purchased. As bookwormde, and I have stated several times, this is purely theoretical, and the inpact on any individual member is probably trivial, but it is always fun to speculate on conspiricy theories.

I'll simply point out it could be honest and illegal, the two are not exclusive of each other in this situation.

 

[dizfanz]

I cannot convey how frustrated I am at the amount the points were changed in certain categories. The adventure season 1 bedrooms are really jumping. If this goes up again, I will now longer be able to "afford" my annual trip and and I will be damned if I am going to buy more points for the vacation I was supposedly paying for in advance. I know, I know...they can do this and it says so. DVC, by changing this, has almost made my affordable vacation, unaffordable. I expect that this category will go up again and I am really tweeked.

 

[wdrl]

What they should do, is what they did at BWV in this situation, simply sell less points to accommodate the reclassification.

Can someone, please, cite specific examples of specific BWV units in which the allotted points are different for comparably sized Units?

 

[Dean]

Can someone, please, cite specific examples of specific BWV units in which the allotted points are different for comparably sized Units?

I was referring to the original sales situation where they originally released on points table for the entire resort then quickly after it opened, they revised it so that about 20% of the resort was standard view (cheaper points) and left the rest the same. They then sold less points than they had originally intended to compensate. That's what should happen at AKV if they reclassify some units rather than raising the rest to compensate. The problem is they can't once they get the resort all declared but they can use the unsold points to compensate somewhat.

 

[hellerjw]

However, in principle it does represent an increase in total points if they just rebalance to account for the reclassification. What they should do, is what they did at BWV in this situation, simply sell less points to accommodate the reclassification. That would be a point to complain about to DVC for those that owned at AKV if they so choose. Of course they could have reclassified to make the rebalancing workable instead.

Does this assume they haven't declared and/or sold ownership interests in the units that are being reclassified? Otherwise, I don't understand how they could do it with units that already had owners associated with them without affecting their interests. Just trying to wrap my head around all this.

 

[dismedvc]

I went back to your post #880 and I'm not 100% sure what you're saying.

The long version is in my post #681, where I originally felt it could not be done.

Followed by Bookwormde's response in post 692, which changed my mind.

In my post 714 I explained how it could theoretically be done, but did not conceed it actually occured. Now I think there is a strong likelyhood that it did actually occur.

I think part of my problem in explaining is the term "create points". What they effectively did was to have more points to sell than they would have had if they had not "overclassified" the rooms initially. (Create points might be a poor choice of words to describe that process). However, once the mistake became apparent, they had two choices

1. Since the resort is not sold out they could still correct that initial mistake by reducing the total number of points to be sold.

2. Keep the same total number of points that they arrived at using their mistaken classification, and balance by raising the points on the original rooms and lowering the points on the new rooms that were originally overclassified. (Note: the rooms would be in different booking categories)

 

[Dean]

Does this assume they haven't declared and/or sold ownership interests in the units that are being reclassified? Otherwise, I don't understand how they could do it with units that already had owners associated with them without affecting their interests. Just trying to wrap my head around all this.

It really doesn't matter what's been declared, what matters is if all has been declared or not. If not all has been declared, and I don't know at this point, they can adjust with the remaining "units".

The long version is in my post #681, where I originally felt it could not be done.

Followed by Bookwormde's response in post 692, which changed my mind.

In my post 714 I explained how it could theoretically be done, but did not conceed it actually occured. Now I think there is a strong likelyhood that it did actually occur.

I think part of my problem in explaining is the term "create points". What they effectively did was to have more points to sell than they would have had if they had not "overclassified" the rooms initially. (Create points might be a poor choice of words to describe that process). However, once the mistake became apparent, they had two choices

1. Since the resort is not sold out they could still correct that initial mistake by reducing the total number of points to be sold.

2. Keep the same total number of points that they arrived at using their mistaken classification, and balance by raising the points on the original rooms and lowering the points on the new rooms that were originally overclassified. (Note: the rooms would be in different booking categories)

It would be their choice to do it either way. Technically they'd have the right to sell less points OR to just raise some and lower others. I think the reasonable thing to do depends on the reason they reclassified. If they reclassified because the units are not truly up to view, they should sell less points. OTOH, if they changed them simply to make it easier to balance, either would be OK. The other issue is points themselves are not a legal entity but a means to a reservation system. The point we haven't discussed that I recall is say I own X amount of a unit that was previously Savannah and now it's standard, does that give me more points? The answer is actually no. It should be interesting asking DVC management about this issue. I also wonder if anyone will challenge it legally.

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

Is it possible that DVC lowered the points requirements on some of the rooms because of slow sales.

By doing this...DVC could close out active sales sooner.

 

[Robo-Daddy 3000]

2. Keep the same total number of points that they arrived at using their mistaken classification, and balance by raising the points on the original rooms and lowering the points on the new rooms that were originally overclassified. (Note: the rooms would be in different booking categories)

Don't the total number of points have to stay the same? That's what the guides tell everyone, isn't it?