Now, now, don't get your undies in a bundle.
Ok
I really am trying to get inside your argument and think about whether or not it's a valid concern.
good
I'm not trying to make you wrong,
good idea, since you can't
I'm just trying to see if it's a logical argument.
It's simple. Build 1000 rooms spread amoung 5 resorts. Make 400 of the rooms in the worst loaction in relation to the parks, and it is obvious it will strain the system.
You're making some big assumptions, though, don't you think?
let's see
1) assuming DVC will pick a bad location for a future resort,
enjoy your 20 min bus ride to EVERY PARK. DVC built bwv/bcv/vwl prior to ssr for a reason. until WDW build a 5th park, dvc is simply out of land to build another large resort, that can by any objective mind be viewed as "on site". I have no doubt when SSR sells out we will see more dvc resorts built. Some will be "on-site" IE: walk, boat ride to a park, but they WILL BUILD another monster, and that monster may well make SSR look like a 3 min walk from the parks. location, location, location.
I would assume that SSR owners would be worried if DVC built a resort 4 times the size of SSR and that resort was 3 miles further away from the parks then SSR?
2) assuming people who buy at that future resort won't like it, and
sure they will like it, it's new, if disney, you are happy and on vacation and trying to show your family you love them and want to give them MORE disney moments. Yes it would sell
3) assuming that people who bought now at SSR don't like it.
see above.
Having said all that, there is one resort where I honestly would not like to stay at all, and if I had to stay there every time I went to WDW, I would be bummed.
me too
It wouldn't ruin my life,
It wouldn't ruin my life if i walked out into the driveway and threw 20k into a pile and burnt it. But I would sure look back on that day with anger
but it would bug me enough that I would go to DVC management with my problem and see what they could do.
they couldn't do anything, nor would they care. They already have my money.
I guess you'd say that my chances of having to stay at that smaller resort are less than your chances of having to stay at SSR.
EGG-ZACT-LEE.......... Chances are SSR ,for numerous reasons will remain the least difficult resort to book into for many many many years.
It seems a bit early yet to determine if people are being forced to stay anywhere, assuming they book within their four-month home resort window.
ahoy captain obvious......... at 11 mths SSR will have no effect on other owners. WE ALL KNOW THAT. Now get inside 210 days......... well read the board. Wait list all over the place, that simply weren't there 2 years ago, and SSR is only half sold. Gonna get worse.
So if some day you really are forced to stay at SSR all the time, then I will feel sorry for you (just like you'd feel sorry for me if I was forced to spend every vacation at this other resort, which I won't name because I'm far too tactful ).
I have no need to be tactful on a public message board.
The schances of an SSR owner booking 90 days out and having to stay else where are slim to non. Obviously there will be sparadic exceptions.
By the way, I always understand jokes,
cool
but the one you made (above) went over my head.
sorry
Do you mean that since I bought SSR, I would buy anything?
anything is not a fair statement. If my ONLY choice today were SSR, I would consider buying.
I wouldn't buy any old timeshare;
good. Would you buy an "ocean" resort 20 min by bus from the ocean?
I bought with Disney, and so far it's been awesome.
And it will continue to be for 48 more years