Ft. Wilderness Cabins becoming DVC?

[Brian Noble]

In general, a Guide is not going to voluntarily give anyone reasons not to buy. The required disclosures are all covered by the "initial here and here and here" page(s) in the contract.

 

[kneely58]

I don't think so. If the Maximum Reallocation of a cabin is 21, that puts it somewhere between an SSR studio (16) and a 1BR (32).

https://dvcnews.com/dvc-program/policies-a-procedures/news-70636/779-pos-reallocation-language

And that feels about right: It's more than a typical studio, but less than a typical 1BR, at a location that is not park-adjacent.

I checked Poly, VGF and RIV standard studios and their maximum reallocations are 22, 22 and 20.

 

[Brian Noble]

Which again, sounds about right---those are park-adjacent (being slightly generous with the definition of "adjacent" in RIV's case.)

 

[walt34]

That’s my point though. I don’t think one would buying into more than one RTU plan. You would choose which one to have your deed tied to when you buy.

I was prompted by bearval's suggestion, that DVD might use this to sell Aulani points to people who actually want WDW. I think this would lead to confusion which would require guides to explain resale restrictions which they obviously want to avoid. If you are asking for CFW and getting CFW there is no disagreement.

 

[walt34]

Which again, sounds about right---those are park-adjacent (being slightly generous with the definition of "adjacent" in RIV's case.)

Technically RIV is 550m from Biergarten.

 

[Sandisw]

I was prompted by bearval's suggestion, that DVD might use this to sell Aulani points to people who actually want WDW. I think this would lead to confusion which would require guides to explain resale restrictions which they obviously want to avoid. If you are asking for CFW and getting CFW there is no disagreement.

I guess I just don’t see what resale restrictions have to do with it any different than now.

I took that point to mean that adding AUL into the trust would help sell it to people who want it for occasional trips but won’t buy because they don’t have WDW priority and so hsve moved away from chosong it as a home resort.

But now someone who was hesitant deciding to now choose AUL because it would have the enhanced benefit of priority access to WDW as well.

 

[bama_ed]

Yep! Exhibit A to the Declaration shows 30 cabins on those (see pgs 40 & 45 of pdf).

Yep that's Loop 2300 they're converting first (page 40).

Appears there will be no washer/dryer in the cabins looking at the floorplans (page 45).

The standard CFW are the same size as the old ones they're replacing - about 12'x42'. The ADA cabins are slightly larger in each dimension. So indeed they will fit on the old footprint pretty easily.

Bama Ed

 

[WDWFERN]

Because they are declared differently, would members who have both deeded and trust points have different membership accounts/numbers then also? How would that work for using points from both for a reservation?

For example, if they declare some of the unsold RIV into the trust and we added on to our deeded RIV points with new RIV based trust plan points, would we be able to use deeded and trust points together for a single consecutive 7 day reservation or would we need to make 2 separate reservations (example one 3 day and another 4 day) and hope we wouldn’t have to change rooms (assuming they were the same room size and view).

We are not planning to do this, and it seems complicated, I was just wondering if people had thoughts on how it would work if existing deeded members wanted to add on

 

[walt34]

But now someone who was hesitant deciding to now choose AUL because it would have the enhanced benefit of priority access to WDW as well.

You assume an informed decider. I assume a guide who wants to sell AUL points to some who actually wants WDW to fulfill his quota Today the actual home resort is relevant when the 11 and 7 months booking window come into play - which makes AUL less attractive for this customer. Therefore this scenario rarely happens. The new structure removes this obstacle which makes the remaining obstacle, resale restrictions - if there are any, more relevant. 'Home resort doesn't matter' suddenly changes to 'well, actually, it does matter for resale' in the pitch.

I think I have explained it as well as I can in English. If I can't get the point across, please attribute it to my language competence or lack thereof. It's not important.

 

[Bearval]

Unless you are confident to have the fastest fingers at 8 am you might still have a problem. Because the old lady who used to book something for these 300 points in November has just been replaced by hundreds of trust owners trying for that Christmas week.

(Assuming a scenario where sold out resorts are added to the trust, a scenario which many here believe to be unlikely, for good reasons)

Add to that "hundreds" of trust owners learning what "walking" a reservation is............

 

[Bearval]

Unfortunately, every restriction they add to resale makes purchasing direct less and less desirable, as a strong resale market is a solid reassurance that buying into this expensive timeshare plan has a reasonable exit strategy. They are shooting themselves in the foot by doubling down this way. Each change they have made takes us a step further into a traditional timeshare and further away from "DVC is the only timeshare that holds its value." I get that they want to force people to buy directly from them, but they are making the product so much worse that people will fail to see the value in spending tens of thousands of dollars to buy DVC at all.

DVD doesn't care about maintaining resale value since they don't make a dime from this. They only care about selling new resorts direct and the majority of buyers never give a thought about an "exit strategy".

 

[AwfulWaffle]

I guess I just don’t see what resale restrictions have to do with it any different than now.

Agreed but from Disney’s perspective they can now theoretically sell restricted properties easier because now the buyer can book multiple resorts at 11 month so they get the resort they are touring/buying plus all other resorts in the trust. Win win for Disney and buyers, not so much for sellers. Cutos to Disney for finding a way to put a positive spin on the restrictions instead of admitting failure with them.
The restrictions never concerned me previously and now concern me even less. Buy where I want to stay and as an added bonus I get more staying options beyond just where I bought. Still sucks for resale but should make for an an easier sale which they desperately need as they continue jacking ppp up year after year. Looking forward to seeing how this all plays out this year
A little sad to read the pet accessibility can be removed at any time, like it’s a direct benefit, so that may be the only reason we don’t buy but if that stipulation wasn’t there then the cabins would be a real consideration for us. What can you do

 

[Jlo85]

So, it appears that owners will still need to be tied to a specific plan for a specific resort property.

I'm not reading that. The documents suggest people will buy "Trust Property" and that "Trust Property" is subject to the 'Cabins Resort Use Plan.' So my assumption is that the Trust Property that members purchase would be subject to the particular Use Plans at each resort in the Trust. They may deed the membership in the trust to a specific resort, but it's going to just be for administrative reasons (there isn't any real property underlying the deed anyways).

Trust will be specific to the Cabins to start because documents will need to be updated at any other resorts to add the trust language to their declarations, etc. And I'm guessing that will require each association's approval, so that will take time.

 

[Mikey15]

Technically RIV is 550m from Biergarten.

I can’t wait for Skyliner’s sequel, the Skylauncher, to launch us over Buena Vista Dr and into World Showcase

 

[Sandisw]

I'm not reading that. The documents suggest people will buy "Trust Property" and that "Trust Property" is subject to the 'Cabins Resort Use Plan.' So my assumption is that the Trust Property that members purchase would be subject to the particular Use Plans at each resort in the Trust. They may deed the membership in the trust to a specific resort, but it's going to just be for administrative reasons (there isn't any real property underlying the deed anyways).

Trust will be specific to the Cabins to start because documents will need to be updated at any other resorts to add the trust language to their declarations, etc. And I'm guessing that will require each association's approval, so that will take time.

If they deed a person’s RTU ownership to a specific resort use plan, then when that person goes to sell, it sells points attached to the trust property they came from.

Right now, there are going to be 229,820 points sold in the CFW plan attached to 30 cabins.

Each person who buys will be tied to those points and one of those cabins. So while the owner doesn’t own property, the points in their contract do indeed represent actual property.

Thst is what they would then have to sell. If you read further into the documents about ROFR and the way points total have to stay neutral for the trust property in each plan, then each owner will have to be tied to the specific units.

The only difference between that and what we have now is we are deeded as actual owners of the property and the Palmetto Trust stays the sole owner of all the trust property.

If contracts, when sold, are not tied to the unit they came from, it would mean that some units would no longer balance. Thst is how they can implement resale restrictions for when the are sold.

Remember , trust property that is added will have their own point charts for their set of rooms so points can only be sold to match total inventory.

I agree that since the only trust property right now are the cabins, the first set of sales in the trust will be tied to CFW

But, later on, if more is added, people will be tied to other units at other resorts.

The key thing about the trust that I see might happen is that the DVC membership agreements in each of the RTU plans for each of the resorts are written in a way that give direct owners reciprocal rights to each others home resort.

So, unlike currently where it’s written that owners at the resort must have a one month advantage over non owners, the plans within the trust would be written to give everyone the same access for booking…it doesn’t mean you have no home resort,,,you do,,,but rather you would be given the ability to book more than just your home resort.

Something like this “Owners who purchase an interest in the CFW use plan will also be given home resort booking privileges to the trust property that is part of the RIV use plan in exchange for allowing owners who purchase into the RIv use plan home resort booking privileges into the units in the CFW plan”

In terms of current resorts, I don’t see amending that can happen because the units are declared already and I don’t see how anything can become trust property without it being defined.

Take VGF at BPK.. say DVD owns 2% of Unit 11, which is 101 resort studios. What gets added? That unit can not be broken apart and added to the trust because it wa declared that way.

I guess we will have to see how it unfolds when the second resort plan is added with units that exist elsewhere.

 

[StevieB81]

Does anyone think that they are doing the trust for the Cabins because they are trailers? Trailers that will not be refurbed, but replaced. Meaning you couldn't own deeded property, technically, for more than 15-20 years before it was gone? It feels like they HAD to have a trust for this. Any chance that's all this is? Or is that too simple? Just wondering

 

[Sandisw]

Does anyone think that they are doing the trust for the Cabins because they are trailers? Trailers that will not be refurbed, but replaced. Meaning you couldn't own deeded property, technically, for more than 15-20 years before it was gone? It feels like they HAD to have a trust for this. Any chance that's all this is? Or is that too simple? Just wondering

I don’t think that is the reason. I think this is a move for them to change things and potentially have a better way to deal with things in 2042.

But, I do think that having the cabins may have made sense to start it now.

 

[Sandisw]

Agreed but from Disney’s perspective they can now theoretically sell restricted properties easier because now the buyer can book multiple resorts at 11 month so they get the resort they are touring/buying plus all other resorts in the trust. Win win for Disney and buyers, not so much for sellers. Cutos to Disney for finding a way to put a positive spin on the restrictions instead of admitting failure with them.
The restrictions never concerned me previously and now concern me even less. Buy where I want to stay and as an added bonus I get more staying options beyond just where I bought. Still sucks for resale but should make for an an easier sale which they desperately need as they continue jacking ppp up year after year. Looking forward to seeing how this all plays out this year
A little sad to read the pet accessibility can be removed at any time, like it’s a direct benefit, so that may be the only reason we don’t buy but if that stipulation wasn’t there then the cabins would be a real consideration for us. What can you do

Definitely will be easier for them to sell because if buyers end up with privileges to access more than one resort during a home resort period, they might be willing to accept the restrictions.

I personally am not bothered by them either and if they decide to add Poly tower units to the trust, I’d have to seriously out it back on the table as an option.

 

[DianaMB333]

I’m not sure to follow the current discussion…

have DVC announced the Cabins will be a different (new) association?
and same resale restrictions at RIV?

Do you know if cabins will be available only with direct contracts?

Will the cabins be available soon right?

Thanks!

 

[PrincessKL]

You assume an informed decider. I assume a guide who wants to sell AUL points to some who actually wants WDW to fulfill his quota Today the actual home resort is relevant when the 11 and 7 months booking window come into play - which makes AUL less attractive for this customer. Therefore this scenario rarely happens. The new structure removes this obstacle which makes the remaining obstacle, resale restrictions - if there are any, more relevant. 'Home resort doesn't matter' suddenly changes to 'well, actually, it does matter for resale' in the pitch.

I think I have explained it as well as I can in English. If I can't get the point across, please attribute it to my language competence or lack thereof. It's not important.

I think there is another reason that “home resort” still matters which is the number of years the resort will expire in. I believe they announced that the cabins will have 50 years? But if you buy Riviera or AUL, there are less than 50 years left even if they are in the same trust. With this reason, they could price different resorts in the trust differently (using incentives) like what they are doing now. This can reinforce the mindset to buyers that they are buying into one resort, but they are also able to book at some resorts at 11 months and some other resorts at 7 months while these resorts have not expired.