How do we know WL bungalows will be DVC?

[SpaceMountain77]

To proceed with the project and incorporate it into the current entity, I'd think they need to extend now.

Overall I don't think there's enough track record or information to truly know what they'll do, however, I do think there's plenty of time to do an extension of any type now and for some methods, it wouldn't require much or any advanced warning.

You changed your stance!

 

[disneynutz]

If DVC puts Bungalows and Concierge at VWL into a separate system that excludes current owners, they'll have a riot on their hands much worse than the OKW fiasco.

No way DVC can expect current owners to put up with years of construction and share the cost with MFs and not get to participate in the final product.

I'd sue that they failed their fiduciary responsibility to represent the best interest of current owners. I think you could make a good case.

A riot, I don't think so. The majority of owners don't follow what's happening at the DVC, the ones that do tend to accept what ever DVC does.

Bill

 

[Dean]

You changed your stance!

No, the now was in the near term, not 2042. The option to wait was just until later but by or before any new section opened.

A riot, I don't think so. The majority of owners don't follow what's happening at the DVC, the ones that do tend to accept what ever DVC does.

Bill

I think DVC members have proven that they're not willing to go to extremes. Some complain, it dies down, generally no one goes to the degree of legal action. The exception I can think of is the end of the free passes at OKW where DVC was convinced by members they had to allow passes with borrowed points as well. We've seen a number of issues where there was a lot of complaining but no real action and we've seen a lot of threat's along the lines of riot, legal action, etc with no results. IMO for anything substantial to happen related to complaints or legalities, there must be firm ground for the complaint. IMO there was for the OKW extension and there was some success in clarifying dues late in the course but, to my knowledge, the SA aspect was not challenged formally in any way. I am confident there will be no firm legal ground for a complaint as they clearly have the legal ability to create a new resort, to extend (in general terms) and for construction.

 

[disneynutz]

No, the now was in the near term, not 2042. The option to wait was just until later but by or before any new section opened.

I think DVC members have proven that they're not willing to go to extremes. Some complain, it dies down, generally no one goes to the degree of legal action. The exception I can think of is the end of the free passes at OKW where DVC was convinced by members they had to allow passes with borrowed points as well. We've seen a number of issues where there was a lot of complaining but no real action and we've seen a lot of threat's along the lines of riot, legal action, etc with no results. IMO for anything substantial to happen related to complaints or legalities, there must be firm ground for the complaint. IMO there was for the OKW extension and there was some success in clarifying dues late in the course but, to my knowledge, the SA aspect was not challenged formally in any way. I am confident there will be no firm legal ground for a complaint as they clearly have the legal ability to create a new resort, to extend (in general terms) and for construction.

Most of the major DVC legal issues weren't noticed by owners but by Hawaii and Disney legal after the OKW caused confusion. Even the guides at the time didn't understand what was going on with the OKW extension. Lets face it Disney wrote the legal docs to allow them to modify agreements as they see fit. Yes there are laws to be considered but Disney has teams of people who know the laws better than we do and the know how to get the laws changed if they find it necessary.

Bill

 

[freediverdude]

I think it's going to be similar to AKL, with two separately named areas, just one side will have a later end date. They will probably be separate booking categories, but I can't see them making current owners wait til 7 months, I think it will be one resort for home resort purposes. I'm sure they can have a separate ground lease for the new units, since they are in a different building and area. I don't see why this setup wouldn't work- is there something in the contracts that would make this not work? The only question would be the names of the two areas. I can't really think of a good name that would represent the new units. Disney's Wilderness Lodge Villas and Cabins- Main Lodge, and the Villas at Disney's Wilderness Lodge- Outer Lodge just don't quite have a ring to them, lol.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Well whatever happens will set the footprint for future renovations or expansions at other DVC resorts. Locking out original owners will not bode well for DVC as a whole. Contrary to Dean and Bill's comments, I don't think your going to see DVC members just roll over.La suits may be tested but nothing speaks louder than money... can we say sell, default, or forclosure?

 

[gkrykewy]

Can they offer an extension, and have access to the new room types limited to those who extend or purchase new? If so, I bet that's what they'll do.

 

[hakepb]

Can they offer an extension, and have access to the new room types limited to those who extend or purchase new? If so, I bet that's what they'll do.

I don't think so
With OKW, they had to extend everybody (and get the non-extenders to quit claim their extended deed back to DVC)

I do wonder about the trust systems. (Where you own part of a trust instead of part of a real estate interest)

DVC is potentially going to have a bunch of inventory suddenly available in 2042

Would people rather have booking priority in multiple resorts vs actual real estate and booking priority in 1 resort?

 

[Dean]

I think it's going to be similar to AKL, with two separately named areas, just one side will have a later end date. They will probably be separate booking categories, but I can't see them making current owners wait til 7 months, I think it will be one resort for home resort purposes. I'm sure they can have a separate ground lease for the new units, since they are in a different building and area. I don't see why this setup wouldn't work- is there something in the contracts that would make this not work? The only question would be the names of the two areas. I can't really think of a good name that would represent the new units. Disney's Wilderness Lodge Villas and Cabins- Main Lodge, and the Villas at Disney's Wilderness Lodge- Outer Lodge just don't quite have a ring to them, lol.

I don't think they have that option, either it'll be as separate resort legally or it'll be included in total with the rest of the resort with the same expiration.

Can they offer an extension, and have access to the new room types limited to those who extend or purchase new? If so, I bet that's what they'll do.

Not as I read the info. The RTU is tied to the land lease so if they extend that, all owners will be extended whether they want to or not. What they did with OKW was extend the land lease then have owners who didn't want to extend to sign over their rights for the extra 15 yrs under threat of a special assessment if they didn't. To my knowledge, they haven't carried through on that threat. I'm still hoping someone will not pay the extension and not sign away the rights and call their bluff.

 

[theww228]

My biggest concern with grouping the new and old rooms together is the potential for point reallocation. If a Studio is currently 120 pts per week will the new studios be 120 pts per week? What if the rooms in the main lodge are 160 pts/week and then they are the last to fill and they reallocate so all studios are 140 pts/week? Every new resort has had higher point req. so why wouldn't it be the same with these rooms? Also, I have the same concerns that folks have expressed with poly, pts are so high for bungalows that they are filled and then a reallocation brings down pt req for bungalows and studios go up. I have the same concern for the cabins, they will be very high pts and everyone will say, "I don't care, I don't plan on staying there" and then the points go up on the accommodations they are planning on using (Studio, 1 and 2 BR).

 

[Tunseeker1]

Ok time to throw in my 2 cents.

The new vs old resort stuff is pretty easy.

Old will always be old. Everything stays the same.
The lease is for whats under the dvc resort not whats under where the cabins will go.
The MF will always pay for the old resort if they don't make it a single resort.

AKV has Kidani and Jambo on the titles.
They do not have to have the same end date. They can extend just Kidani and tear down Jambo if they wanted and the kidani owners would still have a resort.

Wilderness could have 3 titles if they really wanted. One for the old, one for the new and one for the cabins.

There are a lot of ways they can structure it to make less people mad.

Why extend WL for current owners? If they make a new resort the new owners will get to 2067.
Why would I buy shiny new points knowing that my MF are going to be paying for a resort that only has half the life of my shiny new titled resort.
They extend WL they lose the people that own at WL that would add on at the new resort.
In 2042 WL expires.
They do a quick shine up and make a new condo association.
They sell points that end in 2067 along with the cabin association.

A 25 year DVC would make more money then extending everyone for $50 a point.

A 15yr DVC contract at OKW starting in 2042? HMMMMM

 

[tjkraz]

AKV has Kidani and Jambo on the titles.
They do not have to have the same end date. They can extend just Kidani and tear down Jambo if they wanted and the kidani owners would still have a resort.

That is not correct. There is one legal entity (condominium association) for Disney's Animal Kingdom Villas which encompasses both physical buildings. They have the same annual dues and same contract end dates. Deeded ownership is tied to a physical structure, as is the case for every DVC holding across all thirteen properties.

There are a lot of ways they can structure it to make less people mad.

Well, "less mad" is very subjective. No matter what DVD/DVC decides, some owners will be dissatisfied.

If they create a second VWL condo association with a later end date, the most immediate issue would be 11/7 month booking rights. The system currently in place only allows owners the 11 month booking advantage at their Home association. Presumably, owners of VWL II would not be able to book the current Studio, One Bedroom and Two Bedroom villas in VWL I if there are separate associations.

There are a number of possible setups and solutions, but none will be universally praised. And it's clear that what Disney may judge to be in its own best interest may not be in the best interest of owners.

 

[DenLo]

I really think that any new Villas or Cabins added to Wilderness Lodge will be part of the same DVC association. However like OKW they could extend the expiration date and offer current owners an extension. If these owners refuse the extension then their contract ends as it shown on the filed document in 2042. Those points can be resold at a later date with the new expiration date.

By making them the same association it would limit any problems related to the fact that the quiet pool belongs to the original association. And any complications related to fact that the remodeling of the pool and deck will cover both the old and new lease areas would be negated.

Edit: It is possible that if there is a new association, that association would have to pay monies to the original VWL association for use of the pool since the pool is part of the original lease.
If it means Disney/DVD will make more money by having a separate association for the new Cabins and converted hotel rooms, they will go that way. So ignore what I just said the first two paragraphs.

 

[wdrl]

My biggest concern with grouping the new and old rooms together is the potential for point reallocation. If a Studio is currently 120 pts per week will the new studios be 120 pts per week? What if the rooms in the main lodge are 160 pts/week and then they are the last to fill and they reallocate so all studios are 140 pts/week? Every new resort has had higher point req. so why wouldn't it be the same with these rooms? Also, I have the same concerns that folks have expressed with poly, pts are so high for bungalows that they are filled and then a reallocation brings down pt req for bungalows and studios go up. I have the same concern for the cabins, they will be very high pts and everyone will say, "I don't care, I don't plan on staying there" and then the points go up on the accommodations they are planning on using (Studio, 1 and 2 BR).

Generally, but not always, there has been some degree of point inflation when a new DVC has been rolled out. When VWL debuted in 2000, a two-bedroom villa was allotted 17,290 points. The next three DVC resorts that debuted after VWL -- BCV (17,050 points); SSR (15,225 points); AKV (16,290 points) -- were actually allotted less points. Lately, however, the point allotments have significantly increased. BLT and VGF generate 19,640 points and 23,420 points, respectively, per two-bedroom. PVB doesn't have two-bedroom villas, but its bungalows generate 24,120 points each.

Common sense tells me that if DVD had a choice, it would prefer not to be tied to the old VWL formula that generates only 17,290 points per two-bedroom villa. To put it in perspective, DVD has just over 4 million points it can sell at PVB. If DVD had been forced to use VWL's point formula when setting up PVB, it would have had only 2.9 million points it could sell.

But here is the catch: The number of points allotted to a DVC resort is determined by a formula that translates the underlying real estate interest into point values. As I read the master declarations of the DVC condominium associations, each DVC condo association has a real estate interest-to-points formula that is applicable to the entire condo association. DVC has never used two formulas at the same resort. When Kidani Village was added to AKV, it used the same real estate interest-to-points formula as the existing Jambo House. Same thing happened when the Treehouse Villas were added to SSR.

The significance of being tied to a single formula is this: DVD can choose to incorporate the 'new' Wilderness villas & cabins into the existing VWL condo association, but then it must use the existing real estate interest-to-points formula that would limit it to generating no more than the equivalent of 17,290 points per two-bedroom villa. By having the same formula, the point chart for the expanded VWL could look much like it currently does.

OR, DVD can choose to create a 'new' Wilderness villas & cabins condo association that is a separate legal entity from the existing VWL. By having a new condo association, DVD could implement a new formula that allots a much larger number of points. Depending on the size of the 'new' Wilderness condo association, we could be talking about a difference of 1 million points or more. And at $165/point, that is a lot of money even to a multi billion dollar corporation like TWDC.

I suspect DVD would prefer the second option which involves setting up a separate condo association.

There are other options and variations I can see happening at VWL, but I'll save that for another thread.

 

[erionm]

...

 

[freediverdude]

Plus, another consideration would be whether they feel they can charge the same $165 per point for Wilderness Lodge that they have been charging for VGF and PVB (and even $170 for some new BLT contracts). They might have to add something unique or especially luxurious to those villas to be able to charge that price for a resort that does not have monorail access or a walking path to a theme park.

 

[freediverdude]

And opening 2018? No wonder they have started the Poly sales slowly. They better hope those Poly points last for 3 years before selling out, or they won't have anything to sell but Aulani (if that's not sold out by then too).

 

[tjkraz]

Generally, but not always, there has been some degree of point inflation when a new DVC has been rolled out. When VWL debuted in 2000, a two-bedroom villa was allotted 17,290 points. The next three DVC resorts that debuted after VWL -- BCV (17,050 points); SSR (15,225 points); AKV (16,290 points) -- were actually allotted less points. Lately, however, the point allotments have significantly increased.

True but it's worth reinforcing the fact that those increases came at monorail resorts. Contemporary, Poly and Grand Floridian are (objectively) the three crown jewels of the WDW resorts. They SHOULD be priced higher than BoardWalk, Beach Club and all others.

I suspect a new infusion of VWL points would be marketed at $165 or whatever the prevailing price may be--perhaps with some incentives. But the nightly point costs for a room at VWL should still be noticeably lower than a comparable villa at BLT, VGF or PVB.

And opening 2018? No wonder they have started the Poly sales slowly. They better hope those Poly points last for 3 years before selling out, or they won't have anything to sell but Aulani (if that's not sold out by then too).

Not sure where the 2018 date comes from. Construction permits, maybe?

If hotel rooms are to be converted to villas, bear in mind that task can be completed much faster than new construction. The Jambo / AKV conversions were first announced in the fall of 2006 and the first villas opened less than a year later in July 2007. Disney has a number of ways that they can manipulate the situation. Price increases are a very effective way of slowing down sales at Poly.

It may very well end up being 2018 but DVC can directly alter the timeline by speeding-up VWL renovations or adjusting prices on Poly points.

 

[Brian Noble]

The number of points allotted to a DVC resort is determined by a formula that translates the underlying real estate interest into point values.

Is it based on sq. ft. of the unit, sleeping capacity, or something else? If it is sq. ft., they could potentially use the same formula. A 2BR at VWL is only 1080 sq. ft. If the new cabins are similar in size to the PVB bungalows, you're looking at a space premium of a bit over 1.5x.

But the nightly point costs for a room at VWL should still be noticeably lower than a comparable villa at BLT, VGF or PVB.

I'm going to guess the new cabins will come in higher than a VWL 2BR. That 1.5x number I'm thinking about above might not be that far off.

 

[wdrl]

Is it based on sq. ft. of the unit, sleeping capacity, or something else? If it is sq. ft., they could potentially use the same formula. A 2BR at VWL is only 1080 sq. ft. If the new cabins are similar in size to the PVB bungalows, you're looking at a space premium of a bit over 1.5x.

I'm going to guess the new cabins will come in higher than a VWL 2BR. That 1.5x number I'm thinking about above might not be that far off.

The real estate interest-to-points formula is based on square footage.

Yes, increasing the square footage of a Unit means the unit is allotted more points. However, by changing the real estate interest-to-points formula each Unit would be allotted even more points. For example, let's say the current formula results in 10 square feet being represented by 1 DVC point. A 1,000 sqft Unit would then yield 100 points. If DVD merely increases the size of another Unit by 1.5 times, its 1,500 sqft would yield 150 points. The ratios remain constant. However, if a different formula is used so that 10 square feet is now represented by 1.3 DVC points, a 1,000 sqft Unit is generating 130 points and a 1,500 sqft Unit is generating 195 points.