I think that keeping the dues low at all of the resorts is used to benefit sales, not the membership. The Guides will tell you during their sales presentation the Disney has some of the lowest dues in the industry.
Disney knows that most of the membership is unhappy with the maintenance and worn look at most of the resorts. Why not start the new resorts off with slightly increased dues to build a bigger fund for future repairs and maintenance? Why not set the dues at a level that would allow the DVC resorts to be the best looking and maintained resorts at WDW?
Wouldn't it be nice to have people say, "the DVC resorts are the best resorts at WDW". Instead of, "the DVC resorts look beat up because they are a time share and they get more wear because they are always full".
But my point is, if what you say is true, why wouldn't DVC set the dues a bit higher particularly at resorts like BLT and VGC? Those resorts started with dues that are 15-17% LOWER than any other current resort. Adding an extra nickel or dime to the 2009 dues wouldn't have caused the tiniest blip in sales statistics.
Why not set the dues at what ever amount is required to maintain the resorts at something other that a Motel 6 standard. Take the rooms out of service and fix the problem, don't put a temporary band-aid on it and make a Guest stay in sub standard conditions.
Here is the crux of the matter: everything that you stated above is purely a subjective opinion.
Personally, I have never stayed in a DVC room that was anything close to "Motel 6 standard." Over our 15-20 DVC stays, the worst problem we've had was a dishwasher & toaster that needed to be replaced, and a couple of missing kitchen utensils.
Aside from that, our rooms are clean and well maintained. I vividly remember entering rooms for the first time and being hit with a whiff of cleaning solution from the recent servicing.
Do some members experience problems? Of course they do. But with 3000+ DVC guest rooms in service every single day of the year, the number of complaints we see are the tiniest fraction of DVC membership. And even then we are never aware of any extenuating circumstances. I'm sure there are situations where housekeeping is short-handed due to no-shows or scheduling problems. There are problem CMs who just don't perform on a consistent basis. Maintenance could be handcuffed by similar issues or backordered parts. Late-departing guests could be responsible for late room cleanings. Rooms that are in obvious need of repair could be scheduled for such services a few days or a week later. When DVC resorts are booked to 100% occupancy, the staff cannot simply block off a room for the night because it needs extra attention.
These are all real-world problems that all corporations face, including Disney. Even careful planning and well thought-out maintenance schedules can't fix every problem when our fellow DVC members abuse rooms.
Why is there a subsidy at BLT anyway? I have never seen a reason and when I asked the question to DVD Management, I never received an answer.
Because many resort amenities are designed to service many more guests than will actually be owners in a given year.
BLT is only about 50-60% sold now. Take one amenity--the pool, for example. The pool was designed to service about 285 rooms full of guests. Only about 150 of those rooms will be sold in 2009. That small population of owners cannot be asked to pay 100% of the operating costs for a pool that was designed to hold many more owners.
The same is true of things like the savanna at AKV. There are 300+ guest rooms at Kidani and only a fraction of them have been sold. The current owners cannot be forced to pay for all animal care expenses when the resort plan calls for many more owners to pay the total cost of that amenity.
When SSR first opened the subsidy was nearly $.50 per point. The reason was because the resort opened with the full Carriage House facility open (main pool, front desk, gift shop, restaurants, Community Hall, etc.), yet only 190 of the resorts 800+ rooms were open. Again, the owners of those 190 rooms shouldn't have to pay the full operating costs of the pool, CH, front desk, etc. Over time the subsidy was gradually reduced and there have been no unexpected blips in the total dues amounts. I believe the total increase averaged less than 3% per year since 2004.
It is the developer's responsibility to subsidize the dues for such amenities until he has met his commitment to fill the resort with dues-paying owners.
I agree.
