I have no doubt that what they are doing they are doing on purposes.
What I don't understand. is this what they promised on the meeting in December that they would do, so we wouldn't have the same conversation on the next annual meeting? - Everyone knows that doing something, without actually doing anything at all is the same as wetting your pants - it feels warm for like 5 seconds and then the reality hits you.
We all signed away our voting rights away to DVC, this means whatever DVC do they need to do for the better of the membership as a whole. Maybe far fetched, but could it be that by getting just some members to not rent anymore with this new wording starting June 1st, DVC could implement new rental restrictions? Restrictions require a vote, since we gave all of that power away to DVC, they get to vote for us. By getting fewer owners to rent, any new restrictions would impact less members and would therefore be seen as "better as a whole for the membership" - at least in the eyes of DVC.
If only 1%-5% of the members were renting prior to June 1st, then by lowering that number they could claim that what they are doing are for the greater good.
Just a thought.
All they promised at the meeting was that they would be going after owners who were renting commercially and the example of who those owners were were large point owners and it was a frequent occurrence.
They didn’t say rule or policy changes were coming.
For all we know, there are owners out there who had above 20 reservations in a rolling 12 month period and no longer do.
I know people had hoped they would stop certain things when updating the commercial purpose policy and rules.
That is what is difficult in all of this because if one still sees XYZ happening and they think that should be part of the policy as to what constitutes commerucsl purpose, and DVC has decided it doesn’t…then people are going to be frustrated.
I know I have mentioned it but I think there are more legal hurdles than some think there are given the current policy they have and the 2021 FL 718.111 statute.
But, to clarify, DVC always had the power to define what it means to act in a way that can be seen as a commercial enterprise, purpose or practice.
And we know they did define that in 2008 and reaffirming it in 2011.
What would require a vote of owner is a material change to the declaration and contract.
But, you are correct in that we dont get a right to vote on day to day things. Only if they want to change the terms of the contract
When it comes to rental rights, it would be any change that could be seen as further limiting our rights based on that new statute that would require the vote.
And remember, even if new rules were voted in, those owners who don’t agree don’t have to abide by them. It only applies to new owners moving forward.
The real question, though, at this point, is why didn’t they simply update the commercial use policy? Was it because they feel that the 20 reservations rule is a reasonable way to define it?
Or, was it because legally making it stricter was an issue, given that policy or the new statute?
It’s not just the contract at play either. It is the condo and timeshare laws in FL too. Anything they do has comply with that.
I do think at some point…and it will be interesting to see how they address this at the December meeting as I am sure it will be brought up…that the board may recognize that the right of owners to rent can’t be limited in the way some want it limited.
ETA: I have continued to monitor for document updates and so far, have not found any.
