Is this against the rules

[kaytieeldr]

Yes, the post from the single mom with the broken tent was sad

Sad? You couldn't have read the same post the rest of us did. That post was touching, and pixie-dusted. But sad? Nope. THAT woman - and her son - have an excellent outlook on life.

But keeping this thread on topic - that woman OCCUPIED the campsite she rented, albeit in her car.

 

[TammiMcMan]

If the OP isn't breaking any rules in the leasing contract, he/she is perfectly within his/her rights to rent any darn space at Disney he/she can pay for.

and to answer the OP's question, it's not against any rules or printed policies that I've ever seen.


I think the rest of the discussion is based on a secondary question from the OP about what people thought of it. As with all discussions, you'll find some people who feel stronger about their opinion. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it and when we were a group of 10 camping there, we would sometimes book an adjacent site just for the extra space if we needed it.

 

[bookmama]

Honestly, I don't understand some of the responses to this post. The OP wouldn't be depriving others of using the site any more than anyone else who rents a room/site/villa/etc. is depriving someone else of that space. You pay your money and you rent your accommodations. Every rented room could have potentially gone to someone else, for goodness sake. It's no one's business how much the renter is "using" the space, and the OP's "conscience" shouldn't have to be consulted at all. Yes, the post from the single mom with the broken tent was sad, but it hasn't a thing to do with the OP's question. By the same logic, I could say remember that woman and her kid the next time you book CR MK view and go Value instead out of respect for her sad, sad story. It's ridiculous. If the space is duly bought and paid for, the renter has met her obligations as far as that contract goes. Renting space at Walt Disney World isn't a moral issue, nor should it be made one. It's a business. They're trying to make money; we're trying to save money. If the OP isn't breaking any rules in the leasing contract, he/she is perfectly within his/her rights to rent any darn space at Disney he/she can pay for.

good Lord what is the world coming to? it's all about simple honesty and the ever decreasing common sense. Why would people think that it's okay to rent a space just for the benefits. It's actually stealing! C'mon if you're gonna buy the space use it! Don't take from someone else who would acutually appreciate the space. Now trust me I've told some whopper of lies but this is outright outrageous. Shame on you.

Also the single mom with the tent misshap wasn't about pity. It was about joy and kindness. After scrimping up the money to visit the World she had some unexpected misshaps. Sure she could've let it ruin her and her son's trip instead she made sure she found joy in just spending time with her baby in the greatest place on earth. And the wonderful people who helped her, thank you. This is why I love Disney.

 

[eliza61]

I posted this on a different thread about off site verse on site and didn't get a response so I thought I would try again.
I'm not even sure if this is allowed but couldn't you stay off site and rent a tent site at Fort Widerness for $42 per day and get the best of both worlds. You would get free parking, could use DDP, have charging privilages and take advantage of EMH.
I'm not sure but I don't think Disney would actually make you set up a tent, just pay for the site and go to your off-site resort.
I'm wondering what others think about this idea.

Uhm, I'm reallly trying to understand the logic of this. by the time you pay for the $42.00/night added onto the off site lodging, wouldn't it come close to what a mod would cost?

 

[Traveliz]

I wouldnt suuggest doing that economically and liogically. If you would be staying onsite and offsite you would be running into a cost issue because it will cost you more to stay on site and off site than to spend $80-100 a night at a value resort. Also you would be using a lot of time traveling to and from Disney than to stay on-site and use that time towards the water parks, DtD and other things. Also Disney despises guests who pay for rooms that are not occupied.

That is the funniest thing I have ever read.
Well probably not the funniest ever but it struck my funnybone today.

Liz

 

[eliza61]

My thought is for people who need multiple bed\bath rooms. Condos and houses with great ammenities like private pools are available for much less than a suite or multiple roooms on property. I did some calculations and I would save close to $3200 on a 10 night stay during peak season using this idea.

Call Disney and see what they say about it. I'm guessing that they would prefer that you didn't.

 

[mrbghd]

good Lord what is the world coming to? it's all about simple honesty and the ever decreasing common sense. Why would people think that it's okay to rent a space just for the benefits. It's actually stealing!

This is not stealing it is paying for a space and then using it as you see fit (in this case for park benefits) Here are some definitions of steal (ing) from dictionary .com:
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
8. to commit or practice theft.
As you can see paying to lease a particular space and then keeping it vacant does not constitute theft since the services are paid for.

With all that being said I think it is silly to rent a campsite and stay off site but that is my opinion; it certaintly does not affect me one way or the other!

 

[TammiMcMan]

Why would people think that it's okay to rent a space just for the benefits. It's actually stealing!

You may not think it's the appropriate use of the space, but how is it stealing when it's paid for and there is no occupancy requirement on the reservation?

 

[sandym718]

You may not think it's the appropriate use of the space, but how is it stealing when it's paid for and there is no occupancy requirement on the reservation?

This is how I see it also. Not stealing, and also not quite the same as double-booking ADR's, in that the person is actually Paying for the site each night (not just booking it and then not showing up, like the ADR's).

I'm sure Disney probably wouldn't look highly upon this, but I don't see what they could do and I really don't see it as an ethical thing either. Yes, others who want the spot won't be able to get it, but the OP is paying for the spot. I guess what he/she chooses to do with it is his/her business. To me, it's not really much different from a family that might choose to get 2 hotel rooms for more space, when their family DOES fit into 1 room (legally). They COULD just stay in one room, but they are choosing to pay for 2. That is also taking room availablity away from another family, but since this family is paying...well, then it's their right. I don't think there would be negative posts about that, and I don't really see it being all that much different. Maybe it's just me, though.

 

[TammiMcMan]

Maybe it's just me, though.

nope, it's not just you, I agree.

 

[auntie]

The idea that "you paid for it" use it anyway you want. Doesn't wash with me.

My objection would be that this is NOT a room. One of thousands available to Disney guests. It is a camp site. We campers have limited availability for our RV's in Disney. Or those who tent camp for that matter. Disney has ONE offering...ONE campground. Unlike the countless resort options available to guests wanting a room. When you book a site and don't use it, make NO MISTAKE, you are taking that site from a CAMPER who would make use of it. It is unavailable to someone who would be camping. Quite possibily not even going to the parks. Many people love to camp in FW to enjoy the amenities it offers.
While, again, it's do-able...I personally don't think it's right to begrudge t hose who honestly would be camping the availability to do so. I also don't see the financial sense to it. But that's me. Also...you might want to check the time of year you wil be visiting. Depending on the time of year you can find yourself paying over $100.00 for a site in FW.


___________________

 

[minnie61650]

You may not think it's the appropriate use of the space, but how is it stealing when it's paid for and there is no occupancy requirement on the reservation?

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.

We own several apartment complexes and rest assured It says the apartment must be occupied by the party that rents it.

It is standard requirement that rental contracts say that.
I cannot imagine that WDW does not also have that in their rental contract...

 

[polyforme]

Honestly, I don't understand some of the responses to this post. The OP wouldn't be depriving others of using the site any more than anyone else who rents a room/site/villa/etc. is depriving someone else of that space. You pay your money and you rent your accommodations. Every rented room could have potentially gone to someone else, for goodness sake. It's no one's business how much the renter is "using" the space, and the OP's "conscience" shouldn't have to be consulted at all. Yes, the post from the single mom with the broken tent was sad, but it hasn't a thing to do with the OP's question. By the same logic, I could say remember that woman and her kid the next time you book CR MK view and go Value instead out of respect for her sad, sad story. It's ridiculous. If the space is duly bought and paid for, the renter has met her obligations as far as that contract goes. Renting space at Walt Disney World isn't a moral issue, nor should it be made one. It's a business. They're trying to make money; we're trying to save money. If the OP isn't breaking any rules in the leasing contract, he/she is perfectly within his/her rights to rent any darn space at Disney he/she can pay for.

I totally agree. If you are paying for the site, you can be there or not. You shouldn't feel guilty about other people not being able to use it- you are paying for it!!!!

 

[auntie]

I totally agree. If you are paying for the site, you can be there or not. You shouldn't feel guilty about other people not being able to use it- you are paying for it!!!!

Only again..it isn't a room that someone ...anyone...would have rented anyway. It's a camping site..where the ONLY option we campers have is to stay at FW. While she may be paying for it..she is also depriving a camper the availability of a site and they have NO other option available to them.
While it can be done...I wouldn't feel especially proud about it. I for one, hope that FW starts cracking down on the use of sites for this purpose.


___________________

 

[Sammie]

Personally I have no idea why anyone would ask this question here, truly only Disney can tell you if you are allowed to do this, but be sure to tell them what you plan to do, in case you set up your empty tent and then disappear, they might call the police.

 

[AuburnJen92]

The idea that "you paid for it" use it anyway you want. Doesn't wash with me.

My objection would be that this is NOT a room. One of thousands available to Disney guests. It is a camp site. We campers have limited availability for our RV's in Disney. Or those who tent camp for that matter. Disney has ONE offering...ONE campground. Unlike the countless resort options available to guests wanting a room. When you book a site and don't use it, make NO MISTAKE, you are taking that site from a CAMPER who would make use of it. It is unavailable to someone who would be camping. Quite possibily not even going to the parks. Many people love to camp in FW to enjoy the amenities it offers.
While, again, it's do-able...I personally don't think it's right to begrudge t hose who honestly would be camping the availability to do so. I also don't see the financial sense to it. But that's me. Also...you might want to check the time of year you wil be visiting. Depending on the time of year you can find yourself paying over $100.00 for a site in FW.


___________________

I am here presently at the Fort and can tell you that this is quite a problem. The Fort is booked solid for the holiday weekend, yet there were 3 spaces in my loop alone that were vacant. I am not in the tent section (that is the group section or partial hookup) however, this kind of thing screws up not only the people who have no other choice, like us who have a MH and no where else to put it, and those who tent camp. Being a former tent camper of years ago, I can attest to auntie's opinion. For instance, please let me give you an example...we had a grand gathering set up for this weekend for the holiday. We were all supposed to be in the same loop so we could socialize and share, however, we were all split up. Because of all the empty spaces, there are many hard feelings that Disney now has to deal with. Now, the OP and others it seems have the opinion that this renting a site is justified because they pay for it. Just because it is paid for, doesn't mean that it is right. Many times, I could get a value resort cheaper than a campsite, depending on the time of year (with a full hook up, not a tent site), however, the love of camping and the friends I have made at the Fort would never convince me of going back. With the literally thousands of rooms available, I just don't see the point in this tactic, morally or financially. There are several suggestions posed on this board that make much more sense to me than doing this to get perks while someone else has to stay home. Why play the game when there is no sense in playing it?

 

[cinderellamom123]

I posted this on a different thread about off site verse on site and didn't get a response so I thought I would try again.
I'm not even sure if this is allowed but couldn't you stay off site and rent a tent site at Fort Widerness for $42 per day and get the best of both worlds. You would get free parking, could use DDP, have charging privilages and take advantage of EMH.
I'm not sure but I don't think Disney would actually make you set up a tent, just pay for the site and go to your off-site resort.
I'm wondering what others think about this idea.

Ok folks. I think that we should ease up on this person. They are obviously new to the boards (6 posts) and seem to be concerned about doing the right thing (thus asking prior to going ahead and doing this). So welcome to the boards, thanks for your question, but as you can see from everyone's responses, there are several other ways to get your free parking, EMH etc. without utilizing a tent site.

Good luck with your vacation planning. Please don't be afraid to ask additional questions based on a few not so friendly responses.

 

[sandym718]

It's a camping site..where the ONLY option we campers have is to stay at FW.


___________________

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.

 

[Goofy4]

This would seem to be another idea that is thought to be fairly "original", but has already been thought through, rationalized, and exercised by many; and here's the kicker: to the detriment of those that in many cases have the fewest financial alternatives.

 

[sandym718]

This would seem to be another idea that is thought to be fairly "original", but has already been thought through, rationalized, and exercised by many; and here's the kicker: to the detriment of those that in many cases have the fewest financial alternatives.

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?