DVC T &C Personal Use - Only Thread to Discuss.

[AstroBlasters]

I own 100 BW , 100 Poly, and 250 RIV direct -

Much much less than most of you on this forum. In fact I am frequently, (and currently) in a borrowed and out of points situation as I go to WDW 2- 3 weeks in a year, then take a year off to maximize my AP.

And yet I have had to rent my points - once for a late cancel as I mentioned, And this year I am renting 25 borrowed points since I forgot that the borrowed poly points would screw me if the waitlist came through (but who though a 7 day BC studio would open up for a week in May)

I just blew a hole in your theory that only people who are commercial renters care about this- It turns out that many of us think beyond themselves are are genuinely concerned for the DVC product as a member. I think that the availability to rent is a positive for the DVC product. Many members have bad years at jobs , change jobs and have no vacation to use the points , have partners get sick and need to stay home... the list goes on. What I don't want is people who are butthurt that they did not get the rare room class ( that is a 1/50 shot on a good day ) mucking up the program.

Narcissist’s don’t care about anyone else. They only care about themselves and will disregard, dismiss, or diminish anything that doesn’t align with their pre-determined narrative.

 

[AstroBlasters]

Yes. I saw and posted a comment after that my excitement got the best of me and my analysis was a leap!

I did add a note to my initial post that it wasn’t new and maybe I jumped the gun.

Didn’t delete it though since it sparked conversation.

I’ve mentioned that I trust that posters legal analysis so definitely her take would be the correct one!!

Didn’t mean to seem like a troll!!! lol

I read it as you accusing people who walk reservations of committing “fraudulent or misleading activities”…. that’s a pretty big statement from a moderator….

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

It turns out that many of us think beyond themselves are are genuinely concerned for the DVC product as a member. I think that the availability to rent is a positive for the DVC product.

Well, this is a bit of a disingenuous and self righteous take. Your opinion is that not curbing the rental problem is better for the product because what about if you need to rent every point you have for years on end at sometime in the future, while others believe that this toxic environment that has gone unchecked is damaging the current product for everyone. Neither is technically wrong. You’re thinking about what problems future you might fall into so want free rein to rent, others are thinking about what problems members are currently dealing with. It hasn’t been a problem for you, so leave it. That’s the opposite of thinking about the product or other members.

And anyway, it’s already mucked up, I’d rather them try to address it than leave it to become absolutely untenable. Legally (and something we all understand well, as has been repeated by pretty much by everyone), renting is allowed and cannot be taken away from owners. No one is realistically asking for that level of a change, nor would it be allowed even if someone did. But if you can’t see there’s a major problem negatively effecting the CURRENT product, not the future of the product you’re worried about, then I’m not sure how to come to terms with this as members. Good thing DVC is dealing with it and not us with our limited knowledge and data since they’ve clearly heard enough noise from members (and yes, likely have also noticed the loss of revenue in their own sales and bookings) to realize the problem is real, not just a few butt hurt folks in this tiny corner of the internet.

DVC hasn’t addressed walking or egregious renting yet because it hasn’t been much of a problem until recent years. Everyone continues to ignore the sentiment repeated by many that have said the ability to book rooms in their home resort period that were once easy, are now impossible. It wasn’t always like this. Hmm wonder why?

And so because you’re a small family or can’t afford 1bdrm+ pts you should be punished because commercial renters need to make their money over everything? Renting has become an incredibly lucrative and ubiquitous business and it affects the small, unaware guys first and most. You’re certainly not thinking about them.

Most people use the vast majority of their points for their own vacations and rent precious few, and likely most, if not all of those rentals are considered personal use, too. Like in your case. The bulk of our focus should be on protecting that experience, not those who want to rent to pay their dues. And before you come at me, again, I’m not talking about renting for emergencies or whatever rare reason a person needs to rent once in a while. Before we get lost in those weeds for another 10pgs, no one wants to stop occasional renting for personal use, stop acting like that’s what we’re asking for.

 

[Sandisw]

I read it as you accusing people who walk reservations of committing “fraudulent or misleading activities”…. that’s a pretty big statement from a moderator….

No, it was that the language of misleading…never tied it ever to fraudulent….could be used by DVC as justification to cancel or modify a reservation walked.

We know, and the board admitted that walking violates the spirit of the rule…so, misleading IMO…sort of fits. We all know I am a big one of finding language to back up my opinions, right or wrong, and I initially felt this backed up the position that the contract does prohibit it.

It was pointed out it wasn’t new and not what I initially thought and after her post today, I posted I obviously read to much into it. It was never intended to offend.

 

[Sandisw]

Just a note to everyone....the post I made yesterday regarding walking....I apologize for getting ahead of myself and posting my opinions....which I didn't make clear were that....in tying the language of misleading to walking and DVC using it as a justification to cancel.

Once people pointed out their own opinions. and most importantly, it wasn't new, I tried to soften the stance. My initial thoughts were to leave the post to keep the context, but I have decided to delete it, and all reference to it, especially when @drusba weighed in, so not to cause future confusion or for anyone to think I was calling anyone who did it committing fraud.

I have officially warned myself.

 

[AstroBlasters]

Well, this is a bit of a disingenuous and self righteous take. Your opinion is that not curbing the rental problem is better for the product because what about if you need to rent every point you have for years on end at sometime in the future, while others believe that this toxic environment that has gone unchecked is damaging the current product for everyone. Neither is technically wrong. You’re thinking about what problems future you might fall into so want free rein to rent, others are thinking about what problems members are currently dealing with. It hasn’t been a problem for you, so leave it. That’s the opposite of thinking about the product or other members.

And anyway, it’s already mucked up, I’d rather them try to address it than leave it to become absolutely untenable. Legally (and something we all understand well, as has been repeated by pretty much by everyone), renting is allowed and cannot be taken away from owners. No one is realistically asking for that level of a change, nor would it be allowed even if someone did. But if you can’t see there’s a major problem negatively effecting the CURRENT product, not the future of the product you’re worried about, then I’m not sure how to come to terms with this as members. Good thing DVC is dealing with it and not us with our limited knowledge and data since they’ve clearly heard enough noise from members (and yes, likely have also noticed the loss of revenue in their own sales and bookings) to realize the problem is real, not just a few butt hurt folks in this tiny corner of the internet.

DVC hasn’t addressed walking or egregious renting yet because it hasn’t been much of a problem until recent years. Everyone continues to ignore the sentiment repeated by many that have said the ability to book rooms in their home resort period that were once easy, are now impossible. It wasn’t always like this. Hmm wonder why?

And so because you’re a small family or can’t afford 1bdrm+ pts you should be punished because commercial renters need to make their money over everything? Renting has become an incredibly lucrative and ubiquitous business and it affects the small, unaware guys first and most. You’re certainly not thinking about them.

Most people use the vast majority of their points for their own vacations and rent precious few, and likely most, if not all of those rentals are considered personal use, too. Like in your case. The bulk of our focus should be on protecting that experience, not those who want to rent to pay their dues. And before you come at me, again, I’m not talking about renting for emergencies or whatever rare reason a person needs to rent once in a while. Before we get lost in those weeds for another 10pgs, no one wants to stop occasional renting for personal use, stop acting like that’s what we’re asking for.

But there are people arguing against occasional renting for personal use or emergencies….

I also don’t think this impacts the overwhelming majority of owners. It impacts owners at a few resorts who want studios. This is not some sort of existential crisis for the system.

Now, as someone who wants BW 2 bedrooms…. I see the issue first hand with the SV and BV studios because that also eliminates owners ability to get 2 bedrooms….

I’m hopeful that some enhanced enforcement against true commercial renters, commercial renting groups (FB), and spec renting frees up enough capacity so that disenchanted owners feel they have a fighting chance with the hard to get rooms.

 

[Sandisw]

Well, this is a bit of a disingenuous and self righteous take. Your opinion is that not curbing the rental problem is better for the product because what about if you need to rent every point you have for years on end at sometime in the future, while others believe that this toxic environment that has gone unchecked is damaging the current product for everyone. Neither is technically wrong. You’re thinking about what problems future you might fall into so want free rein to rent, others are thinking about what problems members are currently dealing with. It hasn’t been a problem for you, so leave it. That’s the opposite of thinking about the product or other members.

And anyway, it’s already mucked up, I’d rather them try to address it than leave it to become absolutely untenable. Legally (and something we all understand well, as has been repeated by pretty much by everyone), renting is allowed and cannot be taken away from owners. No one is realistically asking for that level of a change, nor would it be allowed even if someone did. But if you can’t see there’s a major problem negatively effecting the CURRENT product, not the future of the product you’re worried about, then I’m not sure how to come to terms with this as members. Good thing DVC is dealing with it and not us with our limited knowledge and data since they’ve clearly heard enough noise from members (and yes, likely have also noticed the loss of revenue in their own sales and bookings) to realize the problem is real, not just a few butt hurt folks in this tiny corner of the internet.

DVC hasn’t addressed walking or egregious renting yet because it hasn’t been much of a problem until recent years. Everyone continues to ignore the sentiment repeated by many that have said the ability to book rooms in their home resort period that were once easy, are now impossible. It wasn’t always like this. Hmm wonder why?

And so because you’re a small family or can’t afford 1bdrm+ pts you should be punished because commercial renters need to make their money over everything? Renting has become an incredibly lucrative and ubiquitous business and it affects the small, unaware guys first and most. You’re certainly not thinking about them.

Most people use the vast majority of their points for their own vacations and rent precious few, and likely most, if not all of those rentals are considered personal use, too. Like in your case. The bulk of our focus should be on protecting that experience, not those who want to rent to pay their dues. And before you come at me, again, I’m not talking about renting for emergencies or whatever rare reason a person needs to rent once in a while. Before we get lost in those weeds for another 10pgs, no one wants to stop occasional renting for personal use, stop acting like that’s what we’re asking for.

To be fair, though, its comments like "if you don't see there is a major problem" that can bring us out of productive debate.

The hard part about this is that people view the current rental market differently, and what rules are reasonable for DVC to adpot. ...which is the standard owners with pre-RIV contracts are entitled to have, when deciding that someone is doing it for commerical purpose.

It is certainly evident that there are some owners out there, including those who might own resale businesses, who appear to have thousands of points and are renting in numbers that clearly should be seen by DVC as a violation of the "not for commercial purpose clause" And I would say 100% of everyone agrees these people exist and should be dealt with.

However, many of us also believe that the majority of rentals being offered are being offered by owners who are renting at a level that is in line with our right to rent....which, for us, does not mean only in emergencies...

Obviously, only DVC knows what % of members are truly renting at levels that are unacceptable. And, they should enforce the rules against those owners...

But, many of us simply don't want them to make rules so limiting that they are going after owners for renting, for a variety of acceptable reasons, simply because the market has gotten too large.

Its the same with availabilty.....things have gotten more difficult but everyone doesn't have to agree with why....spec renting, demand, DVCs own actions, etc. could all be playing a role.

What we should all want is for DVC to do what they are required to do. Set reasonable thresholds and metrics for renting reservations on our membership and go after those owners who are clearly using their membership commercial purposes and not for the primary purpose of vacations.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

But there are people arguing against occasional renting for personal use or emergencies….

I also don’t think this impacts the overwhelming majority of owners. It impacts owners at a few resorts who want studios. This is not some sort of existential crisis for the system.

Sure, and there have been those who’ve said they don’t care if there is zero limitations on renting in any capacity, that’s ok? Why are we constantly focusing on the outliers in this conversation when the vast majority of us have said never said anything like that. And again, that level of restrictions can’t happen anyway, it’s a moot point.

Also, it’s very much just an opinion that this doesn’t affect the majority of owners and I disagree with it. If studios make of the majority of the rooms in the system and its studios that are the greatest problem, then how doesn’t that affect the majority of owners?? Even if it’s only 5-6 resorts and various seasons, that’s still a lot of rooms and a lot of members being affected. Why does it have to be an existential crisis to be addressed? Especially when most are asking for reasonable changes.

I get why you don’t want the system changed very much, cause you’ve kind of hacked it. Plus you tend to book only villas where the issue isn’t as prevalent. I’ve hacked it too, I know how to take advantage of the system and have done so even though I don’t like it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not messed up and damaging in the long term. Is it not similar to people taking advantage of discounts when they’re not DVCY because the system allows loopholes? Personally I don’t really care if they get the discount, it doesn’t hurt the greater membership in my opinion but if it did, I would also want DVC to enforce that, too.

I hope it’s enough to just go after the most flagrant and obvious of commercial renters to create some positive change, I’d be happy for it to stop there. But also, I’m going to need DVC to actually put some of this to action and not just talk about it gently and in vague terms during 30min quarterly meetings. It’s literally their job to uphold our contracts that are clearly being violated. Maybe those of us frustrated would feel less so if we actually saw DVC attempting to do something, just go after the aforementioned groups.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

To be fair, though, its comments like "if you don't see there is a major problem" that can bring us out of productive debate.

How many times do people have to be told it’s not that big of a deal and only effects a minority of people who are just butt hurt they didn’t get a room to be taken seriously? There are lots of things that shut down productive debate, gaslighting and condescension amongst them, so it should be called out, too.

However, many of us also believe that the majority of rentals being offered are being offered by owners who are renting at a level that is in line with our right to rent....which, for us, does not mean only in emergencies...

I didn’t just say for emergencies. I also said renting for rare reasons, which is to mean infrequent and irregular, which is what DVC has made as their threshold.

Obviously, only DVC knows what % of members are truly renting at levels that are unacceptable. And, they should enforce the rules against those owners...

Exactly, and if DVC would just act on something I think many of us would be assuaged so I’m hopeful these new comments and potential changes they’ve come out with means viable action and not just talk. Let’s be honest, as soon as some gets a warning letter or a reservation gets canceled it’ll be all over FB and Reddit, we’d know immediately and that might just lead to less obvious players who are potential violating the contest to be more cautious. I’m not asking DVC to police everyone. I’m hoping the reverberations of the initial shakedown are strong enough that people start self-policing.

But, many of us simply don't want them to make rules so limiting that they are going after owners for renting, for a variety of acceptable reasons, simply because the market has gotten too large.

I don’t necessarily want this either. But the alternative to do as minimal possible doesn’t seem realistic either. I agree other things are contributing, point charts and point seasons being two, but nothing has been as influential or changed as dramatically in the last 5-8yrs as the rental scene supported by social media exploding, that’s just a fact.

What we should all want is for DVC to do what they are required to do. Set reasonable thresholds and metrics for renting reservations on our membership and go after those owners who are clearly using their membership commercial purposes and not for the primary purpose of vacations.

Agreed, but I’d like to see some action sooner than later, preferably before the 11mo window starts for fall and holiday bookings. I think that would be a big test to see if there is even a slight ease of availability. There might not be and that would prove your point right, but we won’t know until they actually do something.

 

[lowlight]

I own 100 BW , 100 Poly, and 250 RIV direct -

Much much less than most of you on this forum. In fact I am frequently, (and currently) in a borrowed and out of points situation as I go to WDW 2- 3 weeks in a year, then take a year off to maximize my AP.

And yet I have had to rent my points - once for a late cancel as I mentioned, And this year I am renting 25 borrowed points since I forgot that the borrowed poly points would screw me if the waitlist came through (but who though a 7 day BC studio would open up for a week in May)

I just blew a hole in your theory that only people who are commercial renters care about this- It turns out that many of us think beyond themselves are are genuinely concerned for the DVC product as a member. I think that the availability to rent is a positive for the DVC product. Many members have bad years at jobs , change jobs and have no vacation to use the points , have partners get sick and need to stay home... the list goes on. What I don't want is people who are butthurt that they did not get the rare room class ( that is a 1/50 shot on a good day ) mucking up the program.

Well that’s a heck of a response to being caught lying. You didn’t rent out 3 years of all your points, then. Why make it seem that way? I have my own thoughts on that, but…

For the record, I previously had enough points to book a 2BR and never owned at AKV or BWV, so I wasn’t complaining that low point hard to get rooms disappeared. It was an entire category of rooms at an entire resort a few years in a row. Again, never said all renting should go, just said if the choice was all or nothing, nothing is better in my opinion.

 

[matt_in_nh]

I don’t have to. last year with my sister had a death in the family. I was stuck with a two bedroom boardwalk view 20 days before the vacation. I rented it called member service to change the name for the people who rented it and even asked them if it was OK since it was three years worth of points for me as I only have 100 boardwalk points. Zero issues was made about renting nearly 3 years worth of points.

So I have more than rented a year worth of points with full knowledge of DVC.

I don't know this as fact but I do believe it to be true. Someone with 100 points is not the problem Disney is going after here. You cannot possibly make your livelihood renting your 300 points every 3 years. They were pretty clear at the condo meeting that it was people with large numbers of points who appear to be doing it commercially (my read: They rent to random people around the country and globe who are probably not all their best friends) I would venture to say the people with 8000 points or close to it.


Reading about the walking....my thought is if Disney can actually make a dent in stopping commercial renting (spec reservations) then maybe they can impact availability positively for the average person. It depends on some unknown factors though. How many "average" owners walk and how much of the market is commercial renting. I used chatgpt yesterday to try and answer the question, what % of DVC is commercial renting....with data available on the web it estimated ~15%. The analysis included amount of rooms rented on the big websites and knowing the total number of DVC points in the ether. I believe there are commercial entities that target the hard to get room types and dates to maximize profits so if they actually cut that out it will make it easier for the every day folk. However, if enough every day folk are walking it just make give more of them the opportunity to walk....you have to start a walk to walk and even that can be hard from what I have read. If they cut commercial and thereby cut bots it should make things easier. The other factor is enforcement.....how much will Disney enforce this is another unknown.

 

[JOLT]

in my mind I would think anyone renting points where you net profit after paying your total dues would boarder on non personal. If you do that for multiple years I can see Disney trying to crack down on your membership. Disney could take a 3 year average and if you are on that list you get a warning and the next time they take action.

 

[McCrae]

Just when I thought we had hashed out everything under the sun, “what’s this!?” (Asked like Jack Skellington in the song in NBC)

How did we make it this far without anybody pointing out that Disney actually once directly defined their meaning of “personal use” as “for the use of accommodations by the DVC Member, the DVC Member’s family and/or the DVC Member’s friends (collectively, “Personal Use”), and not for commercial purposes” (pasted directly from Sandi’s text above).

It doesn’t 100% prove that is the position DVC or Disney will take now or to what degree they will enforce it, but anybody who thinks Disney could never take steps to stop them from renting to strangers at $25/pt is taking a major risk.

In the past, Disney defined personal use very narrowly but then decided only to enforce over 20 reservations a year…I don’t know that I think they will come after small fry (which I define as renting under 200 points a year) for now, but I think they can if they want to and I think they eventually will if there is a decline in park interest such that going after “big time renters” (let’s say renting over 1000 points a year) doesn’t do enough to fill their own hotel rooms at favorable rates.

Why do you think interest in parks could change because of renting.
If anything people who would like to rent points for a Disney resort will almost certainly go to the parks.

 

[Sandisw]

How many times do people have to be told it’s not that big of a deal and only effects a minority of people who are just butt hurt they didn’t get a room to be taken seriously? There are lots of things that shut down productive debate, gaslighting and condescension amongst them, so it should be called out, too.

I didn’t just say for emergencies. I also said renting for rare reasons, which is to mean infrequent and irregular, which is what DVC has made as their threshold.

Exactly, and if DVC would just act on something I think many of us would be assuaged so I’m hopeful these new comments and potential changes they’ve come out with means viable action and not just talk. Let’s be honest, as soon as some gets a warning letter or a reservation gets canceled it’ll be all over FB and Reddit, we’d know immediately and that might just lead to less obvious players who are potential violating the contest to be more cautious. I’m not asking DVC to police everyone. I’m hoping the reverberations of the initial shakedown are strong enough that people start self-policing.

I don’t necessarily want this either. But the alternative to do as minimal possible doesn’t seem realistic either. I agree other things are contributing, point charts and point seasons being two, but nothing has been as influential or changed as dramatically in the last 5-8yrs as the rental scene supported by social media exploding, that’s just a fact.

Agreed, but I’d like to see some action sooner than later, preferably before the 11mo window starts for fall and holiday bookings. I think that would be a big test to see if there is even a slight ease of availability. There might not be and that would prove your point right, but we won’t know until they actually do something.

When people are saying they don’t care, it means they aren’t bothered by it or as I said, they look at the rental market as two different things.

That is not mean they don’t support the position that DVC should go after those owners who are clearly renting at levels that are a problem.

There is a huge rental market no question but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the bulk of it is being done by indivual owners to the frequency or regularity that is not okay.

Only DVC knows but their comment last year that this was not widespread does give a certain impression in terms of their view.

We definitely will hear notifications have begin and what enforcement looks like.

 

[Brian Noble]

This was visited in Yogman v. Parrott, [...] Anyone who goes against Disney might end up facing them in court.

I'm not sure I would bet the farm that a finding in Oregon would serve as precedent in Florida. And that's before considering what, if any, differences exist between the DVC governing documents and the underlying covenants in the cited case that might give DVC better leverage. This case gives the framework for an argument that a Member might make, and it might be a good argument, but I'm not convinced it will necessarily prevail.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Disney has first-mover advantage, some very favorable language in the governing documents, and very deep pockets. If the Mouse decides to be petty, they are going to turn any court action into a very expensive and protracted fight.

Note that the Mouse has a history of being petty.

And, in this case, I can imagine they will be interested in taking this pretty far. They would not only be fighting the Member(s) in front of them, but all future members for as long as DVC exists. They are going to be very highly motivated to win.

 

[matt_in_nh]

in my mind I would think anyone renting points where you net profit after paying your total dues would boarder on non personal. If you do that for multiple years I can see Disney trying to crack down on your membership. Disney could take a 3 year average and if you are on that list you get a warning and the next time they take action.

Don’t agree. One no one other than you and the person renting knows what you rented for. Two you have to consider to original purchase on some level. I paid $35000 to get in and this year I made $1000 in renting if I just look at dues this year. Still down $34000

 

[mkatsy]

People aren’t going to like this but … The City of Orlando Municipal Code states very clearly that if you are a homeowner that does not live on site, the minimum lease length is 30 days. If you want to rent in shorter intervals you must register with the city and obtain a business tax license and pay the taxes on your profits … if you make a dime off your DVC the government with which your deed is registered considers you a business.

 

[Tatebeck]

Why do you think interest in parks could change because of renting.
If anything people who would like to rent points for a Disney resort will almost certainly go to the parks.

They definitely would be interested in the parks. I think it's because DVC rentals still can mean less people in the parks and less people giving Disney their money for rooms. Example with 2 families, 1 DVC and 1 non-DVC

Scenario 1: Family 1 of DVC members use their points to stay at Disney (and likely go to the parks). Family 2 wants to stay on site so they rent a hotel room or DVC room from Disney. 2 families in the parks, 1 DVC member paying dues, and 1 family renting a room from Disney

Scenario 2: Family 1 of DVC members aren't interested in going to the parks this year. They decide to rent their points out. Family 2 rents points from Family 1 and goes to the parks. So in this case only 1 family goes to the parks and 1 family is paying dues, and no family is renting a room from Disney.

Disney makes much more money in scenario 1, especially if there is a lot of renting goin on. Disney should hopefully try to keep the area and parks interesting for DVC members since they are allowed to rent their points at least some of the time (until they feel it is getting to be a commercial enterprise)

 

[glamdring269]

Former BRV owner here, ended up selling because I just couldn't commit to going every year or every other year anymore. So now we rent points for our short every 2-3 year experience. And from my perspective this just added yet another layer of concern to our upcoming vacation. Have to plan for dinners, LLs, etc. already and now we get to be somewhat concerned about a res being pulled out from under us within the next 3-4 months.

On the bright side we don't have to make park reservations this year!

 

[Sandisw]

I don't know this as fact but I do believe it to be true. Someone with 100 points is not the problem Disney is going after here. You cannot possibly make your livelihood renting your 300 points every 3 years. They were pretty clear at the condo meeting that it was people with large numbers of points who appear to be doing it commercially (my read: They rent to random people around the country and globe who are probably not all their best friends) I would venture to say the people with 8000 points or close to it.


Reading about the walking....my thought is if Disney can actually make a dent in stopping commercial renting (spec reservations) then maybe they can impact availability positively for the average person. It depends on some unknown factors though. How many "average" owners walk and how much of the market is commercial renting. I used chatgpt yesterday to try and answer the question, what % of DVC is commercial renting....with data available on the web it estimated ~15%. The analysis included amount of rooms rented on the big websites and knowing the total number of DVC points in the ether. I believe there are commercial entities that target the hard to get room types and dates to maximize profits so if they actually cut that out it will make it easier for the every day folk. However, if enough every day folk are walking it just make give more of them the opportunity to walk....you have to start a walk to walk and even that can be hard from what I have read. If they cut commercial and thereby cut bots it should make things easier. The other factor is enforcement.....how much will Disney enforce this is another unknown.

Remember, spec renting has never been identified by DVC as commercial renting.

It’s certainly possible DVC will and it could be in the works.

So far, the only thing they chose to add to the updated terms is frequently and regularly

Wide range of opinions on how DVC should define that.

They did say last year that walking was not widespread so we shall see what, if any, action they take.