Is this against the rules

[auntie]

I'm not trying to be rude, but technically this isn't true. Everyone has the option of choosing to stay in a resort room as well (at least, until and if everything gets booked up). Even people who like to camp, even people who drive their RV to Florida, can still just park it and stay in a resort. Wanting a campsite is a Choice, choosing that over a resort room. I'm sure there's lots of valid reasons WHY to choose camping instead, some of which were listed by a poster above, but it's still a choice. Again, not trying to be mean, but for this reason I don't see campsites as a "special" thing different thing from hotel rooms (for the purpose of discussion on this thread). It is not like there are certain "types" of people who can ONLY camp and not possible use a hotel room. The ONLY thing I can think of that would fall into this category would be handicap-accessible rooms - that IS different and I think the idea the OP suggested would NOT be ethical if they were talking about doing that with that type of room. Other than that, in my opinion, pay for the room, site, cabin, what-have-you, and then what you do, within legality, is up to you. People can be shut out of campsites all the time by other paying guests, this is no different. First-come, first served, I guess.

Now, a previous poster did mention that occupancy MIGHT be part of the rental contract. If that is the case, then what the OP suggested would be wrong. I honestly have never seen anything like that, but also honestly haven't read the fine print on Everything, so it may be the case.

RV'ing..camping is a choice. I'd agree with you there. That being said, our options as such are extremely limited when it comes to Disney. Where as there are thousand, upon thousands of resort rooms to choose from. It would be fine, if every site were actually occupied, and the first come, first serve, rule applied. That's just the way things go. However, our very limited options are being taken away by those who have NO intention of actually camping.
I just don't think that's the right thing to do. While the Disney police aren't going to lock them up...come on...it's just not right. It's a way to scam early entry and extra magic hours.

 

[sandym718]

I get what you're saying, and thanks for the explanation. I guess it still doesn't seem like a scam to me since the poster would be paying the same amount as everyone else. If they were adding themselves to someone elses ressie, not paying, and staying offsite -that would seem like a scam. I guess I'm just not seeing this the same way.

 

[AuburnJen92]

But I thought someone posted that the Values are often cheaper?

No, I specifically said that full hookups, depending on the time of the year, can be more expensive than value resorts.

I choose to camp and I have one place to do it at Disney. I have stayed at many of the resorts in the past and can see your point of view in that it may be hard to put yourself in a camper's shoes if you have never been there. We have people on the DIS boards that propose this idea (and many go through with it) all the time. We are not trying to bash the OP, just passionately trying to help people understand that if there were a 1000 campsites, this wouldn't be an issue. Disney knows that campsites at the Fort are at a premium, and many of us make reservations a year in advance just to get a spot. It just seems to me that going through all the effort of the "game" is just that, all effort for little benefit. Disney added 1000's of rooms in the 1980's and 1990's to make it more beneficial to stay on property. Why not take advantage of that? With all the incentives, and this forum can tell you so many to take advantage of, I just don't see the point. Hopefully we can enlighten some people to hopefully understand the other side of the fence.

 

[minnie61650]

Ok, maybe I'm totally missing something here - WHY is a campsite the only choice for some people? Really, I'm not being facetious (sp?? sorry!) here, I'm trying to understand why some of you (many, it seems) see campsites as the only option for some people? I feel like I'm missing something, I"m not getting it. Is it financial? As in the campsites are the cheapest? But I thought someone posted that the Values are often cheaper? And maybe offsite places too? Or is it something else I'm missing?

Yes, a campsite is a lot cheaper than other options.
A campsite during value season is $42 and can sleep up to 10 people plus each of those 10 people will get a KTTK card.
Also included in that $42 is free parking at the theme parks & resorts, they can use EMH and they can buy the DDP.

Maybe WDW should sell all those perks to offsite guests for a fee of $42 for a party of 10. That would give offsite folks the opportunity to have the same perks as those of whom book onsite and would leave the camp sites for those who wish to camp.

How many think WDW should that.
Please raise your hands!

 

[kimsuenew]

Ok, maybe I'm totally missing something here - WHY is a campsite the only choice for some people? Really, I'm not being facetious (sp?? sorry!) here, I'm trying to understand why some of you (many, it seems) see campsites as the only option for some people? I feel like I'm missing something, I"m not getting it. Is it financial? As in the campsites are the cheapest? But I thought someone posted that the Values are often cheaper? And maybe offsite places too? Or is it something else I'm missing?

For some people, ecspecially those tent camping, the only way they can afford WDW is to camp... a tent space is less than half of what a Value is (or close, someone please feel free to correct or submit figures).

When our teenage son was young we did not have much money (heck... we still don't but we are better off than we were then), and while we did not camp at WDW, we did camp every year for four or five years at Myrtle Beach State Park in a tent. Why? It was all that we could afford and we really wanted (we both came from families that did not vacation, growing up mine honestly never went anywhere and DH family went once to WDW in the 70's and that was it) our son to enjoy a fun ocean vacation every year in an area full of fun and interesting things to do! For less than $20.00 a night we tent camped in a beautiful campground, with nature programs, beautiful wooded sites, and a beach!

WDW can be expensive because you must factor in lodging, tickets, meals, ect... and it can be out of many peoples grasp. Perhaps tent camping at FW will allow a family to visit WDW! I had wanted to visit WDW since DS was born, we could not afford it until he was 16!

Honestly, if we could no longer afford to stay in a Value, we would tent camp in FW in a heartbeat... it is beautiful, has many activities (movies, campfires, the ability to watch fireworks and I have heard see the floating Spectro type show, and mainly because it is WDW)!

I guess the reason there are so many passionate people protesting someone doing this (renting for perks only, not to use) is so the people that would love to visit WDW but can only do so by staying in a tent at FW have somewhere to go! There are limited tent spaces available, ecspecially at peak time!

To the OP: welcome to the Disboards and thank's for asking about this before simply deciding to do it! Please do feel free to post and to ask questions, this is a wonderful place that holds a wealth of information! If it were me, and I was truly considering this option, I would call WDW directly and ask if it is allowable and ask if the campsite must be utilized... we can all give you the "why's and why not's" that we think fit, we can share our opinions, but ultimately Disney controls their properties and have a very specific set of rules and guidelines!

 

[lisa3383]

I don't see any problem with this - its not a scam and it certainly isn't stealing! The rental contract mentioned above is more to ensure you don't move people in that are not on that contract (background checks and credit checks are done to ensure good quality residents, and they don't want someone to render these things pointless), also an empty apartment may lead to it being used for unsavory things. These aren't issues that Disney is dealing with, so I HIGHLY doubt there is any such clause in any Disney contract.

Just as there are limited campsites, there are limited rooms at any one of the Disney resorts - I've been SOL when it came to getting a room at my favorite GF before, and I didn't curse the families that took two rooms when they could have done with 1 (as someone else posted earlier). That isn't stealing, this isn't really any different - its taking more than you need for certain benefits.

Disney made it so that you had to have reservations onsite for certain benefits. With the size of the family the OP has, it does seem more affordable to do this.

Is it wrong that many people who camp never even go to the parks? All the OP wants is to get extra time at the parks! Someone else who wants to camp to go to the parks at an affordable price might be locked out (so to speak) because of all those just choosing to camp! Is that stealing?

My point is that this can be looked at in a variety of ways, but it never appears to be stealing or something of the like!

If the campsites were so popular, I do wonder why Disney hasn't raised the rates?

 

[auntie]

I don't have a problem with them doing that..and letting us campers keep our sites for CAMPING. Not have them be used those who stay off site, and but want the benefits of staying on site.

 

[TammiMcMan]

This I do not understand as I thought there was an occupancy requirement once you sign for the room or campsite.
It may not be be on the reservation papers but it should be on the rental contract.

Hi Linda, do you mean the paperwork you sign when you check-in? To be perfectly honest, I can't even remember what it says. I know at other hotels it usually confirms the nightly rate and sometimes will authorize them to charge $250 for smoking in the room, etc. It's not something that we'd keep, so maybe someone checking in to Disney can make note of what is on there. Obviously, if it does state that the party must be present at the campsite every night, then the answer to the OP's question would be, "yes, it's against the rules" and this whole thread would be a moot point .

I think what you may be referring to in your rental agreement is more about not allowing your renters to sub-lease or have others claim occupancy of it instead of them.

This question is sort of along the same lines as the OP, would you care if someone paid you a monthly rent check, but never actually occupied the apartment? Not exactly sure why anyone would do that, maybe they're taking advantage of it being on the beach, or in the city close to work with an assigned parking spot (big amenity in some cities). They're taking advantage of the amenities, but not setting up house there.

 

[auntie]

I don't see any problem with this - its not a scam and it certainly isn't stealing! The rental contract mentioned above is more to ensure you don't move people in that are not on that contract (background checks and credit checks are done to ensure good quality residents, and they don't want someone to render these things pointless), also an empty apartment may lead to it being used for unsavory things. These aren't issues that Disney is dealing with, so I HIGHLY doubt there is any such clause in any Disney contract.

Just as there are limited campsites, there are limited rooms at any one of the Disney resorts - I've been SOL when it came to getting a room at my favorite GF before, and I didn't curse the families that took two rooms when they could have done with 1 (as someone else posted earlier). That isn't stealing, this isn't really any different - its taking more than you need for certain benefits.

Disney made it so that you had to have reservations onsite for certain benefits. With the size of the family the OP has, it does seem more affordable to do this.

Is it wrong that many people who camp never even go to the parks? All the OP wants is to get extra time at the parks! Someone else who wants to camp to go to the parks at an affordable price might be locked out (so to speak) because of all those just choosing to camp! Is that stealing?

My point is that this can be looked at in a variety of ways, but it never appears to be stealing or something of the like!



If the campsites were so popular, I do wonder why Disney hasn't raised the rates?

I have stayed in the WL, the Poly, the Beach Club, and the Caribbean Beach resort. I have been going to Disney since '91. There have been many times when I wasn't able to secure a room in my resort of choice..but I did have the OPTION of staying in another resort. I don't find having a resort filled by legitimate occupants as wrong. If a resort had no occupancy..I chose another. I think I would be pretty bothered if the resort was booked up..yet no one was actually ocuppying those rooms. Begrudging my family a chance to stay there.
That being said, when camping...the ONLY option available to you..whether it is for a tent site..or more often for an RV site..is Fort Wilderness. When you are told FW is sold out..only to find unoccupied sites in your camping loop, it can be pretty discouraging.
As noted previously, there is a poster currently at the Fort experiencing this problem. It does appear to becoming more of an issue. I do hope that FW starts to enforce a rule to prevent this.
I think that simply paying some $42.00 for the option of the early entry, and parking would be a better solution.

As far as the price, that would appear to be for a tent site which would require no water, electric or sewer hook ups. Nor would it include cable to your site. Many of the campers in FW have RV's of one type or another. Be it travel trailers, motor homes, pop ups, 5th wheelers. Most require water/electric and sewer hook ups. FW is actually in the process of renovations and upgrading of sites to Premium sites which will accomodate the larger rigs that are more common today, then when the Fort was built back in the 70's. It is not unusual for a site to be closer to or over the $100.00 mark, depending on the time of year..and if you have any discounts available to you. However, one just wanting the benefits of early entry, and parking would likely opt for tent site, there by securing those options usually reserved for those staying on site.


_______________

 

[lisa3383]

I have stayed in the WL, the Poly, the Beach Club, and the Caribbean Beach resort. I have been going to Disney since '91. There have been many times when I wasn't able to secure a room in my resort of choice..but I did have the OPTION of staying in another resort. I don't find having a resort filled by legitimate occupants as wrong. If a resort had no occupancy..I chose another. I think I would be pretty bothered if the resort was booked up..yet no one was actually ocuppying those rooms. Begrudging my family a chance to stay there.
That being said, when camping...the ONLY option available to you..whether it is for a tent site..or more often for an RV site..is Fort Wilderness. When you are told FW is sold out..only to find unoccupied sites in your camping loop, it can be pretty discouraging.
As noted previously, there is a poster currently at the Fort experiencing this problem. It does appear to becoming more of an issue. I do hope that FW starts to enforce a rule to prevent this.
I think that simply paying some $42.00 for the option of the early entry, and parking would be a better solution.

As far as the price, that would appear to be for a tent site which would require no water, electric or sewer hook ups. Nor would it include cable to your site. Many of the campers in FW have RV's of one type or another. Be it travel trailers, motor homes, pop ups, 5th wheelers. Most require water/electric and sewer hook ups. FW is actually receiving upgraded Premium sites to accomodate larger that are much more common today, then when the Fort was built back in the 70's. It is not unusual for a site to be closer or over the $100.00 dollar mark, depending on the time of year..and if you have any discounts available to you. However, one just wanting the benefits of early entry, and parking would likely opt for tent site, there by securing those options usually reserved for those staying on site.

_______________

Ok, I see your point, I really do - but how do you respond to those who (admitted in this thread) sometimes go to the campground just to camp and not even visit the parks!? What about those who (like what I think you suggest) can't afford to do Disney at any other rate? Most need to travel to go to Disney, and if traveling need a place to stay. They can't go to the parks because people just camp out? I don't really see this as any worse than what OP suggests! Yet I haven't seen any campers have an issue with it?

 

[auntie]

Sorry..but you lost me there.
I'm not quite sure what you mean.
There are those who enjoy FW for FW itself. Not to be able to go to the parks. Many who camp at FW live locally as well, and visit to enjoy Camping. It is a lifestyle choice..a way people choose to vacation. Sleeping in there own beds..with there own pillows. Sitting around a campfire in the evening. Yes, having it be Disney is great..and the option of being able to go to the parks is wonderful. However, FW is a top rated camping/RV resort. It would be hard for me to describe this to you, if you are not a camper, or if you don't own an RV. FW offers canoeing, biking, golf cart rentals, of course the pool, and fishing excursions, marina and water craft rental. One does not have to set foot in the park to appreciate the beauty of FW. I think this is why we campers find it offensive that those staying off site, want to reserve a site simply for the park benefits. They don't know what they are begrudging those of us that enjoy the camping experience.

 

[TammiMcMan]

When you are told FW is sold out..only to find unoccupied sites in your camping loop, it can be pretty discouraging.
As noted previously, there is a poster currently at the Fort experiencing this problem. It does appear to becoming more of an issue.

But that's making an assumption about the site, when in fact there could be other reasons for it being empty:

a. reserving party is late arriving (been there, done that so many times when driving)
b. it was reserved by the adjacent loop for extra space, personal space
c. it was pulled out of inventory by Disney due to conflicting scheduling of reservations
d. it was pulled out of inventory because of maintenance, mechanical, etc.
e. last minute cancellation that wasn't able to be filled

Realistically, I don't think it's a huge problem. It seems like a whole lot of trouble and added expense for some silly amenities. It would cost less to stay on site at a value or mod.

 

[minnie61650]

....This question is sort of along the same lines as the OP, would you care if someone paid you a monthly rent check, but never actually occupied the apartment? Not exactly sure why anyone would do that, maybe they're taking advantage of it being on the beach, or in the city close to work with an assigned parking spot (big amenity in some cities). They're taking advantage of the amenities, but not setting up house there.

We do not allow tenets to just rent an apartment and keep it vacant for amenities.
We do allow tenents to keep an apartment and not occupy it for a period of time if they want to keep the apartment but they were called to duty or they are going out of town for an extended period of time. They just need to let us know that way we can have the manager check the apartment on a regular basis to make sure it is well maintained. (heat set low in the winter so a pipe does not freeze & burst, check the hot water heater to make sure it is not leaking etc. etc.)

 

[lisa3383]

Sorry..but you lost me there.
I'm not quite sure what you mean.
There are those who enjoy FW for FW itself. Not to be able to go to the parks. Many who camp at FW live locally as well, and visit to enjoy Camping. It is a lifestyle choice..a way people choose to vacation. Sleeping in there own beds..with there own pillows. Sitting around a campfire in the evening. Yes, having it be Disney is great..and the option of being able to go to the parks is wonderful. However, FW is a top rated camping/RV resort. It would be hard for me to describe this to you, if you are not a camper, or if you don't own an RV. FW offers canoeing, biking, golf cart rentals, of course the pool, and fishing excursions, marina and water craft rental. One does not have to set foot in the park to appreciate the beauty of FW. I think this is why we campers find it offensive that those staying off site, want to reserve a site simply for the park benefits. They don't know what they are begrudging those of us that enjoy the camping experience.

But thats sort of my point - some people stay there for the resort and nothing else, while others take advantage of it for the park benefits and nothing else. Both situations leave people wanting - both (a) those that can't afford another hotel and want to go to the Disney parks; and (b) those that don't care to do the parks and just want to camp. How can you really judge which is more right?

BTW I have camped in both tents and RV and I know how much fun a good park can be (the place I've visited had crafts, like ceramic painting, and pools, dance night, horses to ride, and more that I didn't do).

 

[TammiMcMan]

We do not allow tenets to just rent an apartment and keep it vacant for amenities.

Okay, so that is specified within your rental agreement, fair enough then. I just do know of places that have been rented in the city simply for a parking spot. Kind of unbelievable that monthly rent is cheaper than parking, but it can be. Sorry to go off topic. Back to the regularly scheduled discussion .

 

[auntie]

But that's making an assumption about the site, when in fact there could be other reasons for it being empty:

a. reserving party is late arriving (been there, done that so many times when driving)
b. it was reserved by the adjacent loop for extra space, personal space
c. it was pulled out of inventory by Disney due to conflicting scheduling of reservations
d. it was pulled out of inventory because of maintenance, mechanical, etc.
e. last minute cancellation that wasn't able to be filled

Realistically, I don't think it's a huge problem. It seems like a whole lot of trouble and added expense for some silly amenities. It would cost less to stay on site at a value or mod.

While I agree any of those reasons could be an explanation for empty sites..however add them to those who reserve and don't use them..and it's a problem.
Those of us who post regulary on the camping forum have become increasing aware of this issue. We share our experiences in planning camping trips, and trips reports upon return. I would say I am aware of least seven or so members who live close enough to FW to make fairly regular trips..even day trips. There are those, much like the person staying there currently..who report back about the situation of sites being reserved..yet not occupied. It's been enough of a problem for campers to know it's becoming a common practice.
We currently have a forum member who has been trying for days to secure a site..being told there are none available. There is a Grand Gathering taking place and those currently attending have reported many empty sites, that would have been available to this family.

I would agree that it seems like a whole lot of trouble to go to for amenites like early entry and parking. Personally, I don't see why anyone would bother...but apparently they do.

 

[auntie]

But thats sort of my point - some people stay there for the resort and nothing else, while others take advantage of it for the park benefits and nothing else. Both situations leave people wanting - both (a) those that can't afford another hotel and want to go to the Disney parks; and (b) those that don't care to do the parks and just want to camp. How can you really judge which is more right?

BTW I have camped in both tents and RV and I know how much fun a good park can be (the place I've visited had crafts, like ceramic painting, and pools, dance night, horses to ride, and more that I didn't do).

I don't think you need to distinguish..I feel for the most part, it's a combination of both. We love Disney..and we love to camp. Why not combine the two. I don't find feel that you get alot of people who travel to Disney to camp because it's cheap and the only way they can vacation. It's a lifestyle choice. Either way...the camping option is only in ONE location. FW. While the resorts offer thousands of rooms. I don't see the need to begrudge anyone the opportunity to camp in FW..whatever their reasons for wanting to ACTUALLY CAMP are.
Booking a site, and not occupying it..while done..in my opinion, isn't something to be proud of. I for one hope that Disney is able to come up with a way to prevent this from happening.

 

[lisa3383]

Unfortunately, for some, I don't think that Disney will be offering the park benefits to non-resort renting guests anytime soon. I would guess this would become very popular and maybe reduce occupancy in the resorts (something they wouldn't want for sure). Also, if it were open to anyone the parks would be very full during EMH which would upset those paying on property prices. For those reasons they probably need to stick to numbers that are represented by number of rooms/campsites available.

 

[TammiMcMan]

Those of us who post regulary on the camping forum have become increasing aware of this issue. We share our experiences in planning camping trips, and trips reports upon return.

If regulars are beginning to notice a pattern, then maybe it should be shared with Disney, if you haven't done so already. A dramatic increase in this practice would hurt Disney in their pocketbook, since off-siters are most likely not renting watercraft, bikes, canoes, etc. on down days or buying food in the general store or restaurants. They're obviously willing to make changes when it hurts the bottom line, as we saw with the dining plans. I'm not sure of what the solution is though, as they'd need to hire personnel to check daily occupancy at the sites. I don't know. They can't fix it or address it if they don't know it's happening to such an extreme.

As of right now, regardless where you stand on the morality issue, there doesn't appear to be any policy to prevent it from happening or any numbers to indicate how out of control the practice is.

 

[ILoveDisney&Cruising]

WHY is a campsite the only choice for some people?

One reason off the top of my head ...... I have a friend who is purchasing a camper because of the size of her family -- 2 adults, 5 children. Camping will allow them to vacation and make memories for the next 15 years - otherwise, they are required to rent 2 hotel rooms almost everywhere they go and that just gets pricey (at least $200/night). Add park tickets for 7 for a WDW vacation and

For others, it might not be the ONLY choice, but perhaps it's their preferred choice - as a PP mentioned - they know whose bed they are sleeping in, etc.