Grand Floridian shouldn’t allow non hotel guests

[Sandisw]

I'd be curious what people think about the fact that GFV owners pay a portion of their transportation dues towards upkeep of the Monorails (as do all Monorail resort owners), even though a few of the "experts" on here are certain that the Monorail is "public transportation", free to be used by anyone, guest and visitor alike ("available to the public" and "publicly funded" are two vastly different things). In fact, every resort pays a portion of operating costs for those modes of transportation serving that resort, be it buses, boats, the Skyliner or the Monorail.

If it is "public transportation" (again available to the public, but not publicly funded), and paid for by everyone who visits WDW, or lives within the greater geographical Central Florida region (through food and merchandise purchases, property taxes, whatever), and free to be used by anyone who chooses to do so, then why place an additional burden on the DVC owners at a particular resort? And, if you DO place that additional burden on those owners, then why would it be impractical to reserve some portion of those modes of transportation for people who are specifically paying for their upkeep and use?

In 2024 VGF owners paid $2.7 million towards transportation that anyone visiting WDW for any reason whatsoever enjoyed for free. Now, it certainly can be argued that the owners could potentially utilize that transportation more than non-owners/non-guests, but it could also be conversely argued that locals (and in particular AP holders) could (and likely do) utilized the WDW transportation system orders of magnitude more than DVC owners who might visit their resort once or twice a year.

As for the congestion once in the resorts, well that's just something you can either adapt to, or deal with through the scheduling of your vacations, but access to the Monorail (or other transportation) in a timely manner seems not to be an out of order request.

Because part of DVC ownership includes paying for a share of the expenses and that is how the contract was set up?

We agree to it in exchange for being eligible for all the things that onsite guests get.

We don’t get a say as owners/guests in how Disney chooses in run their resorts, parks or the transportation associated with it.

For GF, that includes monorail, buses and boats and I agree that advocating to be sure that transportation to and from the parks is sufficient to handle the demand.

But that doesn’t mean guests or owners are entitled to priority over any one of those options, including the monorail, since Disney opens their transportation and resorts to everyone.

Its really as simple as that.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Well, they could roll those costs into property taxes, and we'd still all be paying the same. It would be a wash. Since the resorts/ DVC and Non-DVC all pay into it, it really is a form of a tax, isn't it? Likely it isn't in the property taxes because of the way Reedy Creek/South Florida Tourism Oversight District is set up..More like a rural cooperative than a taxing district.

So, you're suggesting that the family living over in Apopka is paying a proportionally equal amount towards WDW transportation, and the Monorail specfically, as the DVC owner who pays for it directly through their dues?

 

[eandt]

I'd be curious what people think about the fact that GFV owners pay a portion of their transportation dues towards upkeep of the Monorails (as do all Monorail resort owners), even though a few of the "experts" on here are certain that the Monorail is "public transportation", free to be used by anyone, guest and visitor alike ("available to the public" and "publicly funded" are two vastly different things). In fact, every resort pays a portion of operating costs for those modes of transportation serving that resort, be it buses, boats, the Skyliner or the Monorail.

If it is "public transportation" (again available to the public, but not publicly funded), and paid for by everyone who visits WDW, or lives within the greater geographical Central Florida region (through food and merchandise purchases, property taxes, whatever as some have suggested), and free to be used by anyone who chooses to do so, then why place an additional burden on the DVC owners at a particular resort? And, if you DO place that additional burden on those owners, then why would it be impractical to reserve some portion of those modes of transportation for people who are specifically paying for their upkeep and use?

In 2024 VGF owners paid $2.7 million towards transportation that anyone visiting WDW for any reason whatsoever enjoyed for free. Now, it certainly can be argued that the owners could potentially utilize that transportation more than non-owners/non-guests, but it could also be conversely argued that locals (and in particular AP holders) could (and likely do) utilized the WDW transportation system orders of magnitude more than DVC owners who might visit their resort once or twice a year.

As for the congestion once in the resorts, well that's just something you can either adapt to, or deal with through the scheduling of your vacations, but access to the Monorail (or other transportation) in a timely manner seems not to be an out of order request.

My dues pay for the AKL/Kidani savanna and those beautiful animals and I would lay money that you and a large % of WDW visitors have trekked on over (probably via a bus that my dues also pay for) to take a gander … if you want to restrict you and me to whatever resort we happen to be ‘paying for’ on a given trip that’s fine but ya’all act like you just want your neck of the woods private while mine remain public for you to enjoy at will… also those that park at TTC and anyone that purchases a park ticket also pay to use that train …

 

[nuhusky123]

Because part of DVC ownership includes paying for a share of the expenses and that is how the contract was set up?

We agree to it in exchange for being eligible for all the things that onsite guests get.

We don’t get a say as owners/guests in how Disney chooses in run their resorts, parks or the transportation associated with it.

For GF, that includes monorail, buses and boats and I agree that advocating to be sure that transportation to and from the parks is sufficient to handle the demand.

But that doesn’t mean guests or owners are entitled to priority over any one of those options, including the monorail, since Disney opens their transportation and resorts to everyone.

Its really as simple as that.

Do all dvc owners pay for boats and monorail or just those in the mk loop?

 

[nuhusky123]

My dues pay for the AKL/Kidani savanna and those beautiful animals and I would lay money that you and a large % of WDW visitors have trekked on over (probably via a bus that my dues also pay for) to take a gander … if you want to restrict you and me to whatever resort we happen to be ‘paying for’ on a given trip that’s fine but ya’all act like you just want your neck of the woods private while mine remain public for you to enjoy at will… also those that park at TTC and anyone that purchases a park ticket also pay to use that train …

I think all resorts should be behind closed doors outside of adrs

 

[eandt]

Do all dvc owners pay for boats and monorail or just those in the mk loop?

If you pay to park or pay for a park ticket a portion of that price would certainly go toward the transportation system that Disney advertises for use by all guests …

 

[Sandisw]

Do all dvc owners pay for boats and monorail or just those in the mk loop?

Owners of the resorts share in the expenses for the ones that service their resorts.

However, because we have the right to exchange into other resorts, we get the benefits of those just like everyone else.

I am sorry you are frustrated, but WDW has always had open resorts and my guess is the vast majority of guests see that as a big plus.

 

[eandt]

I think all resorts should be behind closed doors outside of adrs

I do not but at least that clears up that you don’t just believe that your resort should be walled off … now truth be told have you visited other resorts and ‘stolen’ (as some have stated) their amenities at any time during your visits to GF? Again I would venture that most if not all have done just that at some point … so all ‘guilty’ or none guilty

 

[nuhusky123]

Owners of the resorts share in the expenses for the ones that service their resorts.

However, because we have the right to exchange into other resorts, we get the benefits of those just like everyone else.

So then logic is sound that only those staying at the resort should benefit from that resorts transportation

 

[nuhusky123]

I do not but at least that clears up that you don’t just believe that your resort should be walled off … now truth be told have you visited other resorts and ‘stolen’ (as some have stated) their amenities at any time during your visits to GF? Again I would venture that most if not all have done just that at some point … so all ‘guilty’ or none guilty

Yeah all or nothing imo

Gf was the eye of my rage but I think this applies to any resort. If you have no business being there, (adr or active resort reservation) you shouldn’t be allowed on property

 

[nuhusky123]

I do not but at least that clears up that you don’t just believe that your resort should be walled off … now truth be told have you visited other resorts and ‘stolen’ (as some have stated) their amenities at any time during your visits to GF? Again I would venture that most if not all have done just that at some point … so all ‘guilty’ or none guilty

Actually for all my Disney trips I can’t recall a single time I visited a resort I was not staying at and didn’t have an adr

Actually I tell a lie. Once. Stay at bwv and I went over to beaches take out window but I went to bc for the solve purpose of beaches

 

[Sandisw]

So then logic is sound that only those staying at the resort should benefit from that resorts transportation

Disney funds a share of expenses, don’t they?

They obviously cover the cost to allow non guests to visit other resorts with their share of profits.

So, no, it’s not a sound argument at all…

When you bought DVC, were you not aware that all of WDW and its resorts are open to the public and non guests, including transportation?

 

[eandt]

Actually for all my Disney trips I can’t recall a single time I visited a resort I was not staying at and didn’t have an adr

Actually I tell a lie. Once. Stay at bwv and I went over to beaches take out window but I went to bc for the solve purpose of beaches

I knew it …so some go to GF for the sole purpose of a gingerbread man … same difference

 

[DonMacGregor]

Because part of DVC ownership includes paying for a share of the expenses and that is how the contract was set up?

Not the point. The point is whether or not paying a proportionally higher percentage for the use of transportation available to everyone and anyone is equitable. No one has, anywhere in this or any other thread, suggested that the transportation fees are not included in the contract we all signed. Obviously, they are. The question raised is whether or not, at some point, due to anticipated (or unanticipated) increased demand on those systems, the owner is no longer enjoying the same benefit of the bargain. It's a thought exercise.

We agree to it in exchange for being eligible for all the things that onsite guests get.

That literally makes no sense whatsoever. We pay a fee in exchange for being eligible for things anyone else gets for free?

We don’t get a say in how Disney chooses to in run their resorts, parks or the transportation associated with it.

Yes, we are all quite aware of that. As with #1, that's not the point. The question is whether or not it is equitable, regardless of whether or not it can or will be changed). While there may not be a course of action to address it, that doesn't mean the discussion can't be had.

It’s really as simple as that. Disney opens their transportation and resorts to everyone.

I never said anything to the contrary, I simply echoed the question raised by others with regard to the equity of paying for a service that others enjoy at no cost, and whether or not anyone had an opinion or response beyond "because Disney said so".

You know, I've said it before. Even the United States Constitution, arguably the greatest single document providing a framework for the rights and governance of a society ever written (almost every single one of the 170 constitutions worldwide are based at least in part on ours), has been amended 27 times (25 if you don't include the 21st which repealed the 18th, so they cancel each other out). If that fantastically seminal and oft-copied document had enough flaws to necessitate 27 revisions, then there's a sneakingly good chance the DVC POS may be worthy of a revisit every now and then. Will it happen? Probably not. Should people talk about it and discuss its impact on the regardless? Absolutely.

 

[nuhusky123]

I knew it …so some go to GF for the sole purpose of a gingerbread man … same difference

I walked. Ha I win

 

[DonMacGregor]

My dues pay for the AKL/Kidani savanna and those beautiful animals and I would lay money that you and a large % of WDW visitors have trekked on over (probably via a bus that my dues also pay for) to take a gander … if you want to restrict you and me to whatever resort we happen to be ‘paying for’ on a given trip that’s fine but ya’all act like you just want your neck of the woods private while mine remain public for you to enjoy at will… also those that park at TTC and anyone that purchases a park ticket also pay to use that train …

Where did I say anything about restricting access to anything. Go ahead, I'll wait as long as "ya'all" need to take.

I don't think any resorts or any of the public amenities in any resort should be walled-off to anyone. The question (for about the tenth time) is whether Disney should make an effort to set aside some accommodation in the various modes of transportation, only when needed (peak times, seasonally, whatever) to allow those people who are specifically paying for the upkeep of that transportation access to it.

We know we pay for transportation, and that's fine. We also know the transportation is available to all WDW guests, and that's fine too. The question is whether or not it is equitable for those who do pay specifically for a mode of transportation be offered better access to that transportation at certain specific times.

 

[jppeek]

Wow just got back from Disney and kinda shocked this discussion is still going strong

Stayed Friday 11/29 to Saturday 12/7 at VGF and honestly the Monorails were much smoother than expected. I did need to wait every evening for the 2nd or 3rd but felt like they had more running cause they came super fast.

Not sure if it’s been mentioned here or not but the walking path from GF to MK is a pretty easy walk.

As for the lounge you’re able to join the walk up list from your room (at least that is what they told me) so you can wait comfortably until your tables ready.

Middle of the lobby is def hard to maneuver but if your trying to get around the resort and stay to the outside it isn’t too bad

You can room service stuff from ginger bread house which is pretty awesome. Got 2 stollen breads for the road (they are so good) and that was a huge perk not having to wait on the line at the ginger bread house

I actually found the buses and traffic created due to the construction to be a way bigger inconvenience than the crowds from outside guest or Monorail this trip

 

[Sandisw]

Not the point. The point is whether or not paying a proportionally higher percentage for the use of transportation available to everyone and anyone is equitable. No one has, anywhere in this or any other thread, suggested that the transportation fees are not included in the contract we all signed. Obviously, they are. The question raised is whether or not, at some point, due to anticipated (or unanticipated) increased demand on those systems, the owner is no longer enjoying the same benefit of the bargain. It's a thought exercise.

That literally makes no sense whatsoever. We pay a fee in exchange for being eligible for things anyone else gets for free?

Yes, we are all quite aware of that. As with #1, that's not the point. The question is whether or not it is equitable, regardless of whether or not it can or will be changed). While there may not be a course of action to address it, that doesn't mean the discussion can't be had.

I never said anything to the contrary, I simply echoed the question raised by others with regard to the equity of paying for a service that others enjoy at no cost, and whether or not anyone had an opinion or response beyond "because Disney said so".

You know, I've said it before. Even the United States Constitution, arguably the greatest single document providing a framework for the rights and governance of a society ever written (almost every single one of the 170 constitutions worldwide are based at least in part on ours), has been amended 27 times (25 if you don't include the 21st which repealed the 18th, so they cancel each other out). If that fantastically seminal and oft-copied document had enough flaws to necessitate 27 revisions, then there's a sneakingly good chance the DVC POS may be worthy of a revisit every now and then. Will it happen? Probably not. Should people talk about it and discuss its impact on the regardless? Absolutely.

Where we differ then is that I am looking at it from how things function. I say it is equitable because Disney pays its share of expenses and that helps to cover the costs for guests and non guests.

We know we pay a share of costs whatever that is and that Disney controls operation of the resort, transportation, etc.

Again, we should expect, as guests, not owners, that Disney provide responsible transportation options,,,

Not the same as saying that because during certainly times of the year we have to wait longer for a monorail that somehow we aren’t getting something?

The point of the POS comment was in relation to costs and that we agree to be treated as onsite guests…who don’t get it for free because they pay for it in hotel rooms, offsite guests help fund it through thier park attendance and everything in between.

Not sure what the POS has to do with Disney running its resorts…the contracts have anything to do with the running of Disney parks or resorts.

 

[eandt]

I walked. Ha I win

Nope you stole a valuable amenity when you stepped on BC property and added to the congestion on the property to the detriment of the beach clubbers experience …

 

[eandt]

Where did I say anything about restricting access to anything. Go ahead, I'll wait as long as "ya'all" need to take.

I don't think any resorts or any of the public amenities in any resort should be walled-off to anyone. The question (for about the tenth time) is whether Disney should make an effort to set aside some accommodation in the various modes of transportation, only when needed (peak times, seasonally, whatever) to allow those people who are specifically paying for the upkeep of that transportation access to it.

We know we pay for transportation, and that's fine. We also know the transportation is available to all WDW guests, and that's fine too. The question is whether or not it is equitable for those who do pay specifically for a mode of transportation be offered better access to that transportation at certain specific times.

Setting aside = restriction …