Ft. Wilderness Cabins becoming DVC?

[Den8uml]

After reading all the posts I’m still not convinced that the Poly tower is even in the new cockroach trust. Why didn’t they file the trust for the VGF expansion and start then? Isn’t the poly tower more apples and apples with VGF compared to the FW cabins? We’ll find out soon enough but there doesnt have to be a line in the sand for all projects after FWC. There’s also no reason to believe that all FW cabins will get declared to the trust. Maybe there plan is to have a portion of units at various resorts declared. But today has been a fun read of speculation!

 

[Jlo85]

I do not think the trust owners can be given 11 month booking at PVB because they are not owners of PVB.

This may be semantics, but if the Trust has a deeded interest in PVB, aren't they owners of PVB? If it's all the PVB association and DVC conveys a deed for all the units in the tower to the Trust, the trust and all the beneficial interests would all technically be owners of PVB? But DVC can put its own rules (and resale restrictions) around the Trust.

 

[BeachClub2014]

After reading all the posts I’m still not convinced that the Poly tower is even in the new cockroach trust. Why didn’t they file the trust for the VGF expansion and start then? Isn’t the poly tower more apples and apples with VGF compared to the FW cabins? We’ll find out soon enough but there doesnt have to be a line in the sand for all projects after FWC. There’s also no reason to believe that all FW cabins will get declared to the trust. Maybe there plan is to have a portion of units at various resorts declared. But today has been a fun read of speculation!

It may be as simple as DVD wasn't ready to strategically move forward with the Trust concept when they took over the hotel rooms and flipped them into DVC units.

 

[Frugal Fairy Tales]

Except there was some data I read years ago that the bulk of sales is to new buyers and not current owners,

And, you are considering only those current owners at PVB who might not buy the tower if it doesn’t give them 11 month booking rights.

But, there are a lot more owners out there who don’t own at PVB and want it and will buy the tower regardless. Plus, you make it part of the trust and someone buying it gets the 11 month booking there and as an added bonus at CFW too?

That is why I keep leaning toward maybe we are in for a surprise for the tower. People have said they didn’t think CFW would sell that great, but if it’s packaged with Poly tower?

Let’s hope we get the answer with filed documents in the next 6 months!

Maybe we will get an answer when CFW goes on sale, which is likely in 3-4 weeks.

 

[Sandisw]

Maybe we will get an answer when CFW goes on sale, which is likely on 3-4 weeks.

We know what will happen with CFW. It’s going to be part of the trust.

But, it would be great if they filed Poly tower paperwork in time for the sales of that resort to start!

I have a feeling we won’t see sales though for at least a few more months.

 

[Sandisw]

This may be semantics, but if the Trust has a deeded interest in PVB, aren't they owners of PVB? If it's all the PVB association and DVC conveys a deed for all the units in the tower to the Trust, the trust and all the beneficial interests would all technically be owners of PVB? But DVC can put its own rules (and resale restrictions) around the Trust.

That’s the thing, I don’t think it being a separate vacation plan means it is a deeded ownership interest to PVB in the same way.

PVB is the legal association, yes, but these two different

I think it would remain a completely different product that could be under the PVB umbrella.

But it goes back to the same thing…I just don’t beleive you can give trust beneficiaries booking rights to PVB declared units. They are not owners…

So, even if the trust is owner of record, it doesn’t get to override the rights of PVB owners to allow non owners the right to book.

Plus, if they are going to go the trust route…which have no idea yet if this will even happen..I can’t see them trying to make it complicated with PVB.

All good questions and things to ponder!

ETA: there is a clause in the trust documents and all the POS documents that actual inventory can’t be offered in two different plans at once.

So, that’s another reason why I lean that the declared units in the current PVB plan could not be added to be part of the trust plan, even for booking purposes and vice versa. But, it’s definitely just a guess that’s what it means.

 

[Sandisw]

If tower is declared into trust but part of PVB, wouldn‘t it likely have same policy of RIV, AUL, and VDH if they declared all undeclared inventory for those resorts as part of trust?

Cant imagine they would want to say you cant stay on upper floors (if that is what hasn’t been declared). Seems it would cause some uncomfortable conversations at the hot tub.

Seems strange Disney would have waited for CFW if they knew this was the plan. Seems they should have done this with RIV prior to December declaration. VDH not selling well after the initial owners sales (based on analysis someone posted earlier).

The documents for the trust already address this…and so do our current POS documents.

Whether units are declared into current resorts or activated into a RTU plan, it doesn’t prevent DVC members from being assigned a stay in them.

The reverse is true as well. Cash guests can be put in declared DVC units.

So, right now, at any resort, there is no difference in who stays in which rokms.

It will be the same with CFW…they have activated 30 cabins as trust resort property. But, when it opens if there are 300 cabins ready to go, DVC owners can be booked to stay in any of those 300

 

[Jlo85]

But it goes back to the same thing…I just don’t beleive you can give trust beneficiaries booking rights to PVB declared units. They are not owners…

I'm sure it's more nuanced and technical than this, but I don't understand why a trust wouldn't be an owner. Owners today put their deeded weeks into trusts all the time. I don't see how it's functionally different if Disney administers the trust. It would be like an association within an association. But I'm sure there are legal issues and that they will need to amend the Poly POS and documents (which they'll need to anyway, I guess).

 

[Sandisw]

I'm sure it's more nuanced and technical than this, but I don't understand why a trust wouldn't be an owner. Owners today put their deeded weeks into trusts all the time. I don't see how it's functionally different if Disney administers the trust. It would be like an association within an association. But I'm sure there are legal issues and that they will need to amend the Poly POS and documents (which they'll need to anyway, I guess).

In order for the trust beneficiaries to have access to PVB current inventory, it has to be activated as a resort property within the trust,

So, they would have to activate the current long houses /bungalows into the trust as resort property in order to make them bookable by trust beneficiaries,,

Except they would have no legal right to activate the long houses or bungalows into the trust as trust property since they do not own those units in total to do that…plus, the current units have been declared as part of its own vacation plan.

If the actual units have to go to the trust in order to be bookable, then how can that happen when DVD doesn’t own a whole unit to put in? If it’s not resort property that has been activated in the trust, then I just don’t see how trust beneficiaries can have access to them, except through the DVC resort agreement that allows it to trade via BVTC.

I do not know how other trusts work, and when they were created….but, in my reading of the DVC one and the current POS, I do believe that only property that is part of the trust is what trust beneficiaries can have access to during the home resort period.

Basically, if they did surprise us and put the tower units at PVB into the PVB condo association as a different vacation plan, then PVB would have two completely different timeshares systems in play, but all with their own rules, guidelines, and inventory. The things that would be common would be the rights to things like the pool, etc. and how to pay for common expenses that they share with the hotel side. But no unit would be part of both vacation plans. For me, that is the key to how they could make the tower part of PVB…which matches what was said at the meeting….but still have it function on its own.

This is the clause I think supports my thinking. It exists in both the new documents for the trust and the current POS of the resorts.

 

[Jlo85]

In order for the trust beneficiaries to have access to PVB current inventory, it has to be activated as a resort property within the trust,

So, they would have to activate the current long houses /bungalows into the trust as resort property in order to make them bookable by trust beneficiaries,,

Except they would have no legal right to activate the long houses or bungalows into the trust as trust property since they do not own those units in total to do that…plus, the current units have been declared as part of its own vacation plan.

If the actual units have to go to the trust in order to be bookable, then how can that happen when DVD doesn’t own a whole unit to put in? If it’s not resort property that has been activated in the trust, then I just don’t see how trust beneficiaries can have access to them, except through the DVC resort agreement that allows it to trade via BVTC.

I do not know how other trusts work, and when they were created….but, in my reading of the DVC one and the current POS, I do believe that only property that is part of the trust is what trust beneficiaries can have access to during the home resort period.

Basically, if they did surprise us and put the tower units at PVB into the PVB condo association as a different vacation plan, then PVB would have two completely different timeshares systems in play, but all with their own rules, guidelines, and inventory. The things that would be common would be the rights to things like the pool, etc. and how to pay for common expenses that they share with the hotel side. But no unit would be part of both vacation plans. For me, that is the key to how they could make the tower part of PVB…which matches what was said at the meeting….but still have it function on its own.

This is the clause I think supports my thinking. It exists in both the new documents for the trust and the current POS of the resorts.

View attachment 823442

Yeah, I read that clause as just a prohibition on 3rd parties creating their own timeshares using DVC property. It specifically exempts DVC or DVC-authorized parties (like the Palmetto Trust) from that clause.

My personal guess is the tower will be declared into PVB, but then the trust will take ownership of all the units, and then those units will be declared separately into the Trust and sold as Trust points.

 

[Sandisw]

Yeah, I read that clause as just a prohibition on 3rd parties creating their own timeshares using DVC property. It specifically exempts DVC or DVC-authorized parties (like the Palmetto Trust) from that clause.

My personal guess is the tower will be declared into PVB, but then the trust will take ownership of all the units, and then those units will be declared separately into the Trust and sold as Trust points.

Thst is what I think too…and that is why I think it will lock PVB owners out until 7 months.

I guess we will know sometimes this year!!

 

[Jlo85]

Thst is what I think too…and that is why I think it will lock PVB owners out until 7 months.

This is the part I don’t understand. It would require DVC to restrict access based on unit ownership, which they haven’t done, and I wouldn’t expect them to do in this case?

I think all of Poly will be available to Poly owners. Just resale owners will be limited to only the 4M points not declared in the trust. So if resale owners hypothetically book up 4M points at Poly at 7 months… then Poly is effectively ‘sold out’ for resale and the rest of Poly is only available to trust/direct owners. At least that’s how I would envision it, if it meets legal muster.

 

[thank_the_phoenicians88]

This sounds really complicated. In my simple head, Disney can’t allow PVB2 owners 12 month priority access to the PVB1 units, but not allow PB1 resale owners the same right to book PVB2 units.

 

[Sandisw]

This is the part I don’t understand. It would require DVC to restrict access based on unit ownership, which they haven’t done, and I wouldn’t expect them to do in this case?

I think all of Poly will be available to Poly owners. Just resale owners will be limited to only the 4M points not declared in the trust. So if resale owners hypothetically book up 4M points at Poly at 7 months… then Poly is effectively ‘sold out’ for resale and the rest of Poly is only available to trust/direct owners. At least that’s how I would envision it, if it meets legal muster.

Except they haven’t had units in a trust before or have any resort that has more than one vacation plan under the same association If this was to be done, it would be the first of its kind for DVC.

Again, in order for PVB owners to access the Poly Tower, if it is all put into the trust as resort property, then I don’t see how that can happen if the current Poly owners are not beneficiaries of the trust.

I guess they could decide to write the DVc membership agreement for the RTU plan to include PVB owners as having access? But then wouldn’t it violate the 1:1 RTU rules?

The restrictions for resale are only possible because of how the rules of trading in BVTC work.

FL timeshare law requires all owners of a specific property to have the same access to units part of their vacation plan no matter how they acquired it. Thst is why resale owners can never be restricted from their home resorts.

If the reason that PVB owners would have access to trust inventory in the tower as a home resort is because that vacation plan is a subset of PVB, then they can’t restrict any points deeded to the current PVB, even if bought resale, from those units.

So, based on that statute, it doesn’t appear the law would allow them to give direct owners/grandfathered resale owners access to Poly tower as a home resort and cut out resale purchased since 2019.

Either all PVB owners will get the access ir none will when it comes to home resort booking periods.

Which is why I said I can see them preventing PVB owners from accessing until 7 months if they want to move forward with this trust thing beyond CFW.

 

[Sandisw]

This sounds really complicated. In my simple head, Disney can’t allow PVB2 owners 12 month priority access to the PVB1 units, but not allow PB1 resale owners the same right to book PVB2 units.

That is what I believe as well. I just posted above but the law requires equal access to any inventory considered part of a home resort no matter how you purchase.

So, either all PvB points will work at the tower during home resort or none will…it can’t be both ways

Restrictions can only happen because it’s a function of exchanging into a non home resort.

Of course, all this is speculation and conjecture. For all we know, they will do the same old things with Poly tower and sell it as a leasehold condominium deeded like they have with everything else! Lol

 

[DonMacGregor]

This all sounds like a Rube Goldberg/Maurits Escher love child. I'll ask yet again: why not simply make the Poly tower its own association, a la Copper Creek, and call it a day? Simple, logical, with precedence, and not requiring 27 steps of legal/timeshare pretzel logic.

It's its own association, and it's 100% in the trust from day one, just like CFW. With all of the arguments/justification for how it could be in the trust while still being in the same association, it literally loses any benefit of actually being in the same association.

 

[Sandisw]

This all sounds like a Rube Goldberg/Maurits Escher love child. I'll ask yet again: why not simply make the Poly tower its own association, a la Copper Creek, and call it a day? Simple, logical, with precedence, and not requiring 27 steps of legal/timeshare pretzel logic.

It's its own association, and it's 100% in the trust from day one, just like CFW. With all of the arguments/justification for how it could be in the trust while still being in the same association, it literally loses any benefit of actually being in the same association.

I personally think it’s going to end up in the trust as part of that association and not end up part of PVB.

But, lots are still focused on on what was said at the meeting…which I can’t seem to get DVC to answer…thst it sparked my interest in whether both could end up true.

DVD wasn’t going to tip its hand at the meeting about the trust so maybe that is why they said what they did?

Maybe they needed to make sure the trust was ready to go and could work?

 

[BeachClub2014]

This all sounds like a Rube Goldberg/Maurits Escher love child. I'll ask yet again: why not simply make the Poly tower its own association, a la Copper Creek, and call it a day? Simple, logical, with precedence, and not requiring 27 steps of legal/timeshare pretzel logic.

It's its own association, and it's 100% in the trust from day one, just like CFW. With all of the arguments/justification for how it could be in the trust while still being in the same association, it literally loses any benefit of actually being in the same association.

That could still happen. We haven't seen anything officially, in written form from DVD about what form the Tower will actually enter the DVC world. Until then, it's all just supposition and speculation. Fun to do, but should be taken for what it's worth.

Having said that, I still think that DVD will slap it into the new Trust with restrictions on resale contracts.

 

[New Mouse]

So I'm curious why DVC (and Disney) continues with this all in a race to the bottom. To my understanding, most traditional timeshares are nowhere near as successful as DVC, so why is DVC trying to emulate these other systems?

 

[Genie+]

Peoole keep mentioning the bungalows but DVC doesn’t need to reallocate those points. They book up eventually and those that don’t, get rented in some way.

Also wouldn’t make sense for DVD.

I’m assuming people think bungalow points are too high. To use the new tower to reallocate those points would mean LESS points for DVD to sell. If they took 10pts/nt off each bungalow, that would cost the tower 67,000 points! (10pts x 20 bungalows x 365 days). The result would mean 67,000 less points to sell on the tower. At $200/pt that is $13.4m vanishing. Even if they cared (likely don’t), for sure they don’t care to the tune of giving up $13,400,000.