Ft. Wilderness Cabins becoming DVC?

[AstroBlasters]

The days of sitting at dinner or the pool w older members telling you it was the best investment of their lives are quickly coming to an end.

Disney is really working to erode the value of DVC. Likely to make up for all the money the rest of the company is losing.

For me, the investment is in time with the family at places where we make lifetime memories…. Disneyland, Aulani, and occasionally Disneyworld… I don’t see that changing….

 

[MICKIMINI]

The days of sitting at dinner or the pool w older members telling you it was the best investment of their lives are quickly coming to an end.

Disney is really working to erode the value of DVC. Likely to make up for all the money the rest of the company is losing.

That *might* have been me? Circa 1996...

 

[Cfabar1]

Because the PVB POS…and I assume all others…has the clause…which I posted above…thst gives DVD the right to do that. They can add new phases and units to any assocation under a different vacation ownership plan.

If it’s a different plan, then I am going to assume it can have different rules for booking.

I"m still not sure I understand though.

If they add a different plan in the PVB, then how can they also add those same points into a plan in the trust? Wouldn't the same points have to be in one place only?

 

[BeachClub2014]

I"m still not sure I understand though.

If they add a different plan in the PVB, then how can they also add those same points into a plan in the trust? Wouldn't the same points have to be in one place only?

In this scenario, the Tower units would be declared into the Trust and sold through that mechanism. The units never get declared into the underlying PVB Association for sale in the legacy fashion. IF DVD does this, it would be consistent with Yvonne Chang's very clumsy response at the Association Annual Meeting, hence all the speculation. Mine included.

 

[BeachClub2014]

In this scenario, the Tower units would be declared into the Trust and sold through that mechanism. The units never get declared into the underlying PVB Association for sale in the legacy fashion. IF DVD does this, it would be consistent with Yvonne Chang's very clumsy response at the Association Annual Meeting, hence all the speculation. Mine included.

I'd also add that DVD could seemingly, and potentially, do the same for any other undeclared inventory, like RIV, VDH, Aulani.

 

[Sandisw]

I"m still not sure I understand though.

If they add a different plan in the PVB, then how can they also add those same points into a plan in the trust? Wouldn't the same points have to be in one place only?

If you read the clause, it says that new phases and units can be added to the same association but under a different vacation ownership plan…that new vacation plan would then be a RTU plan that is governed by a trust.

Basically it appears that what they can do is have two sets of inventory part of the PVB assocation run differently. That is what I think would allow them to set up rules differently.

For example, this is how they could add restrictions to the contracts sold for the tower as RTU without having to have them on the ones that were sold as deeded interests.

Of course, this is all speculation, but having read what I did, I think it could mean the “the plan right now” aspect of Changs statement may have meant more than some believe it did,

If, they decided to add it as a new vacation plan and sell it as RTU, then I think it is entirely possible that it can set up the DVC membership agreement that treats each differently.

It’s not the same as taking inventory from VGF or BWV or any other unit because those have already been declared and added as part of the current vacation ownership plan.

These would be brand new…again, we don’t know if this is their plan, but I think having the documents we do for CFW, and knowing the trust idea is happening, it does bring up the question that maybe the plans for Poly tower could be sold this way as well

 

[tidefan]

In this scenario, the Tower units would be declared into the Trust and sold through that mechanism. The units never get declared into the underlying PVB Association for sale in the legacy fashion. IF DVD does this, it would be consistent with Yvonne Chang's very clumsy response at the Association Annual Meeting, hence all the speculation. Mine included.

So, it would then be a new association.

 

[BeachClub2014]

So, it would then be a new association.

I don't believe so. Same association, different ownership plan.

 

[Cfabar1]

If you read the clause, it says that new phases and units can be added to the same association but under a different vacation ownership plan…that new vacation plan would then be a RTU plan that is governed by a trust.

Basically it appears that what they can do is have two sets of inventory part of the PVB assocation run differently. That is what I think would allow them to set up rules differently.

For example, this is how they could add restrictions to the contracts sold for the tower as RTU without having to have them on the ones that were sold as deeded interests.

Of course, this is all speculation, but having read what I did, I think it could mean the “the plan right now” aspect of Changs statement may have meant more than some believe it did,

If, they decided to add it as a new vacation plan and sell it as RTU, then I think it is entirely possible that it can set up the DVC membership agreement that treats each differently.

It’s not the same as taking inventory from VGF or BWV or any other unit because those have already been declared and added as part of the current vacation ownership plan.

These would be brand new…again, we don’t know if this is their plan, but I think having the documents we do for CFW, and knowing the trust idea is happening, it does bring up the question that maybe the plans for Poly tower could be sold this way as well

So the way this would work is:

Poly 2 has a new vacation plan within the Poly Association
The vacation plan there say these points are Right to Use, and not deeded points, and these are held in trust by the Palmetto Trust?

Am I understanding the thinking correctly?

On a separate note, when should we start contacting our guides to voice opposition to this? Or is there somebody better to reach out to for sharing our concerns/needs for clarifications?

 

[tidefan]

I don't believe so. Same association, different ownership plan.

But ownership and availability are two different items. The units in the tower could be purchased under a trust, but still be part of the same association. Based on what we’ve been seeing with studio availability at VGF, I think that they will want to give purchasers at the tower access to the longhouses.

(Full disclosure: as a PVB1 owner, I am not so sure now that I would want tower purchasers to have access to the longhouses at 11 months)

Also, if you were going to jump through all these hoops to separate out bookable inventory, why not just make it a separate association in the first place…

ETA: Of course, one thing to consider is that they parcel some units of the tower as deeded and some as trust…

 

[Sandisw]

So the way this would work is:

Poly 2 has a new vacation plan within the Poly Association
The vacation plan there say these points are Right to Use, and not deeded points, and these are held in trust by the Palmetto Trust?

Am I understanding the thinking correctly?

On a separate note, when should we start contacting our guides to voice opposition to this? Or is there somebody better to reach out to for sharing our concerns/needs for clarifications?

Yes, that is what I think is legally possible IF they are thinking about moving to a full RTU trust plan for all future sales.

Well, I’d say this is a done deal for CFW…it’s been filed and this is DVDs plan for at least the initial phase of this project…but certainly contact your guide with thoughts if you have them, but DVD is a developer so I’d probably try to send my thoughts to them instead.

I personally have no issues with the trust idea unless they attempt to move units already declared as part of the current vacation plan into the trust…but, I don’t see them trying that any longer.

 

[BeachClub2014]

But ownership and availability are two different items. The units in the tower could be purchased under a trust, but still be part of the same association. Based on what we’ve been seeing with studio availability at VGF, I think that they will want to give purchasers at the tower access to the longhouses.

(Full disclosure: as a PVB1 owner, I am not so sure now that I would want tower purchasers to have access to the longhouses at 11 months)

Also, if you were going to jump through all these hoops to separate out bookable inventory, why not just make it a separate association in the first place…

Ownership and reservation rules are tied together. Having said that, the reservation rules, and the interaction between Trust ownership and legacy ownership, all remain to be seen. That's what much of the speculation is about.

In my mind, it becomes an issue of restrictions to resale points. DVD added them to VDH and now CFW, as we know for certain. That shows that DVD is doubling down on the restriction environment as a distinction between direct and resale purchases, presumably to drive direct sales. Given that, it seems logical that they would want to do the same with that brand-new shiny tower. Doesn't it? The easiest way for that to happen is to declare the new units into the Trust and sell them that way.

But again, that's just me sharing my opinion out loud.

 

[Sandisw]

But ownership and availability are two different items. The units in the tower could be purchased under a trust, but still be part of the same association. Based on what we’ve been seeing with studio availability at VGF, I think that they will want to give purchasers at the tower access to the longhouses.

(Full disclosure: as a PVB1 owner, I am not so sure now that I would want tower purchasers to have access to the longhouses at 11 months)

Also, if you were going to jump through all these hoops to separate out bookable inventory, why not just make it a separate association in the first place…

ETA: Of course, one thing to consider is that they parcel some units of the tower as deeded and some as trust…

I agree that it makes sense to just go with the trust to begin with, but my speculation revolves around the Chang comment and the assumption that being part of PVB meant it all had to stay the same.

Again, even as a RTU plan, they could give current PVB owners with direct points and resale prior to 2019 the same access, but I’d bet if they did do a RTU plan, theyd make the tower rooms restricted from resale points, even potentially those at PVB purchased 2019 and beyond.

However, if it is a new vacation plan, they can write it up and amend the DVC membership agreement in any way that they want, as long as it follows the law when it is created.

That is why I think when the documents get filed for the tower, we will have a much clearer picture of their thinking about this as a long term strategy…or if it was just for CFW.

The fact it gave CFW restrictions still gives me pause as to why they would not get them on the Poly tower if they have a way to do it.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I agree that it makes sense to just go with the trust to begin with, but my speculation revolves around the Changs comment that being part of PVB meant it all had to stay the same.

Again, even as a RTU plan, they could give current PVB owners with direct points and resale prior to 2019 the same access, but I’d bet if they did do a RTU plan, it will make the tower rooms restricted from resale points, even potentially those at PVB.

However, if it is a new vacation plan, they can write it up and amend the DVC membership agreement in any way that they want, as long as it follows the law when it is created.

That is why I think when the documents get filed for the tower, we will have a much clearer picture of their thinking about this as a long term strategy…or if it was just for CFW.

The fact it gave CFW restrictions still gives me pause as to why they would not get them on the Poly tower if they have a way to do it.

This

 

[tidefan]

I agree that it makes sense to just go with the trust to begin with, but my speculation revolves around the Chang comment and the assumption that being part of PVB meant it all had to stay the same.

Again, even as a RTU plan, they could give current PVB owners with direct points and resale prior to 2019 the same access, but I’d bet if they did do a RTU plan, theyd make the tower rooms restricted from resale points, even potentially those at PVB purchased 2019 and beyond.

However, if it is a new vacation plan, they can write it up and amend the DVC membership agreement in any way that they want, as long as it follows the law when it is created.

That is why I think when the documents get filed for the tower, we will have a much clearer picture of their thinking about this as a long term strategy…or if it was just for CFW.

The fact it gave CFW restrictions still gives me pause as to why they would not get them on the Poly tower if they have a way to do it.

So, correct me if I am wrong… This would be something along the lines of direct PVB1 owners would have 11 month access to PVB2, and direct trust would have 11 month access to PVB1, but essentially resale at either (unless it was grandfathered) would be shut out of the other side of the property?

 

[Jlo85]

I agree that it makes sense to just go with the trust to begin with, but my speculation revolves around the Chang comment and the assumption that being part of PVB meant it all had to stay the same.

Again, even as a RTU plan, they could give current PVB owners with direct points and resale prior to 2019 the same access, but I’d bet if they did do a RTU plan, theyd make the tower rooms restricted from resale points, even potentially those at PVB purchased 2019 and beyond.

However, if it is a new vacation plan, they can write it up and amend the DVC membership agreement in any way that they want, as long as it follows the law when it is created.

That is why I think when the documents get filed for the tower, we will have a much clearer picture of their thinking about this as a long term strategy…or if it was just for CFW.

The fact it gave CFW restrictions still gives me pause as to why they would not get them on the Poly tower if they have a way to do it.

I don't see them restricting PVB owners from the tower after Chang's comment. Also, not even sure they legally could if it's the "same association." But I could see them putting resale restrictions on Trust points / beneficial interests specifically.

Resale owners would only have access to points declared into PVB. Poly2 points would be available only to direct owners.

 

[BeachClub2014]

So, correct me if I am wrong… This would be something along the lines of direct PVB1 owners would have 11 month access to PVB2, and direct trust would have 11 month access to PVB1, but essentially resale at either (unless it was grandfathered) would be shut out of the other side of the property?

I think if you change "would" to "could" then it's a possibility. I think what is just as likely though, if (and it's still a big IF) DVD puts the Tower into the Trust, then it would have reservation rules similar to CFW to keep the Trust cleaner and easier, and more attraction. If they took that route, then PVB owners could access the Tower rooms at 7 months, like everyone else.

The POS allows for different rules within the association.

 

[Sandisw]

So, correct me if I am wrong… This would be something along the lines of direct PVB1 owners would have 11 month access to PVB2, and direct trust would have 11 month access to PVB1, but essentially resale at either (unless it was grandfathered) would be shut out of the other side of the property?

Yes, I think that is technically possible. But, now that @drusba found the language that DVD could add more properties to the trust under other trust plans, and all trust beneficiaries could have 11 month rights at all, I am going to say that if Poly tower went into the trust, that PVB owners, no matter what, might not get home resort advantage to those units because being in the trust, makes them not PVB declared inventory, even if the vacation plan is part of PVB..

 

[Sandisw]

I don't see them restricting PVB owners from the tower after Chang's comment. Also, not even sure they legally could if it's the "same association." But I could see them putting resale restrictions on Trust points / beneficial interests specifically.

Resale owners would only have access to points declared into PVB. Poly2 points would be available only to direct owners.

I posted the contract language from PVB. They can add new units to the same assocation under a different vacation plan…so any booking rights would not be guaranteed to any PVB owners since their rights to book units only apply to those declared as part of the original ownership plan.

And, all Chang said was “the plan right now is it would be part of PVB…she never said that it would be sold the same way, or sold with the same rules.

I know some have thought that “right now” language was meaningless,,,,I am not convinced it was.

 

[tidefan]

I think if you change "would" to "could" then it's a possibility. I think what is just as likely though, if (and it's still a big IF) DVD puts the Tower into the Trust, then it would have reservation rules similar to CFW to keep the Trust cleaner and easier, and more attraction. If they took that route, then PVB owners could access the Tower rooms at 7 months, like everyone else.

The POS allows for different rules within the association.

So again, if that’s the case, why not just make it a separate association?

I am starting to believe that it leaves an out to get current PVB owners to potentially add-on whereas if it were two separate booking avenues, it would make no sense for a PVB1 owner to buy points.

Maybe they are trying to have their cake and eat it too?