Dean
DIS Veteran<br><a href="http://www.wdwinfo.com/dis
- Joined
- Aug 19, 1999
- Messages
- 39,228
The THV situation is a perfect example, they could roll them into the current resort (with qualifications) and reallocate later (both directions). What they can't do is have new 2 BR and old 2 BR with different points though they could make any new villas substantially different and have different point values. To have different point values for similar villas they'd need to have separate resorts OR they'd have to have a club level or something similar. I don't believe they could do so by view or location alone within a single resort.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).
As noted, AKV is one resort. They could term one and allow the other to continue at the end when they take it back but not now as I understand it. I don't think DVC is too worried about making people mad per se though they will be cautious of making them mad with a legal basis to complain. Just because people complain doesn't have much meaning. We've seen lot's of threat's here over the years about complaints, sell, tell their friends but it's always a tempest in a teapot or an individual votes with their feet and another member takes their place.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
IMO they can't with an expiration in less than 27 yrs. It's part of the reason I think they either have to extend or make it separate.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.