Let's speculate about Polynesian some more!

[Cabius]

I kind of lean towards it being the same Association.

I believe in many ways it would be a disservice to the owners of Poly already to add a new "wing" if you look at it that way and not make it part of the original.

I don't think they care too much about serving existing owners -- they already have our money! -- and it will mostly come down to what helps them sell this resort, and to continue selling DVC long-term.

For their typical buyer, I think being able to offer the whole existing PVB resort improves the value of the product. They can point to having a massive inventory of Studios, and they get to sell the Bungalows and traditional longhouses as part of it.

That's really the main reason I've always suspected that they'll be same-association: It's tough to market the Polynesian resort, and then tell people they can't actually use their points for the signature Bungalows or iconic longhouses. This is an emotional sale, and for many people it's basically an impulse purchase. I just think to that audience, same-association sells better (even if more sophisticated purchasers worry about availability).

On the flip side, they'd have to worry about resales putting pressure on new sales. New association + restrictions would heavily mitigate that. And it would help normalize resale restrictions, though I think "net-new resorts get restrictions, add-ons to existing resorts don't" seems reasonable enough.

We'll see!

 

[mkatsy]

I don't think they care too much about serving existing owners -- they already have our money! -- and it will mostly come down to what helps them sell this resort, and to continue selling DVC long-term.

For their typical buyer, I think being able to offer the whole existing PVB resort improves the value of the product. They can point to having a massive inventory of Studios, and they get to sell the Bungalows and traditional longhouses as part of it.

That's really the main reason I've always suspected that they'll be same-association: It's tough to market the Polynesian resort, and then tell people they can't actually use their points for the signature Bungalows or iconic longhouses. This is an emotional sale, and for many people it's basically an impulse purchase. I just think to that audience, same-association sells better (even if more sophisticated purchasers worry about availability).

On the flip side, they'd have to worry about resales putting pressure on new sales. New association + restrictions would heavily mitigate that. And it would help normalize resale restrictions, though I think "net-new resorts get restrictions, add-ons to existing resorts don't" seems reasonable enough.

We'll see!

That’s what makes it so intriguing, they’re both valid points which will they choose?

 

[Patsaizan]

I don't think they care too much about serving existing owners -- they already have our money! -- and it will mostly come down to what helps them sell this resort, and to continue selling DVC long-term.

For their typical buyer, I think being able to offer the whole existing PVB resort improves the value of the product. They can point to having a massive inventory of Studios, and they get to sell the Bungalows and traditional longhouses as part of it.

That's really the main reason I've always suspected that they'll be same-association: It's tough to market the Polynesian resort, and then tell people they can't actually use their points for the signature Bungalows or iconic longhouses. This is an emotional sale, and for many people it's basically an impulse purchase. I just think to that audience, same-association sells better (even if more sophisticated purchasers worry about availability).

On the flip side, they'd have to worry about resales putting pressure on new sales. New association + restrictions would heavily mitigate that. And it would help normalize resale restrictions, though I think "net-new resorts get restrictions, add-ons to existing resorts don't" seems reasonable enough.

We'll see!

I lean towards new association or maybe put in the trust. The new tower is a new build (BPK was a renovation of an existing building, so I don’t see the “history” correlation some third party talking heads point to), there are too many existing Poly owners in the current association that will flood the new tower, and DVC has not exercised the ROFR for Poly sales (some points going for as little as $110-112 per point). Hopefully we find out where all this ends up soon. For now it is all speculation.

 

[Sandisw]

I lean towards new association or maybe put in the trust. The new tower is a new build (BPK was a renovation of an existing building, so I don’t see the “history” correlation some third party talking heads point to), there are too many existing Poly owners in the current association that will flood the new tower, and DVC has not exercised the ROFR for Poly sales (some points going for as little as $110-112 per point). Hopefully we find out where all this ends up soon. For now it is all speculation.

To be fair, the announcement at the meeting did say that at that time they were leaning to add to the current.

However, they never said that even that move guaranteed that all rules would still be the same for how they sell the tower.

So, while things seem to point one way, I think DVD, even with their own messaging have left the door open to make things different.

That’s why I am still skeptical about how it will shake out.

 

[maui22]

To be fair, the announcement at the meeting did say that at that time they were leaning to add to the current.

However, they never said that even that move guaranteed that all rules would still be the same for how they sell the tower.

So, while things seem to point one way, I think DVD, even with their own messaging have left the door open to make things different.

That’s why I am still skeptical about how it will shake out.

Any thoughts on what happens if they amend the PVB timeshare license? If I understand, you are saying they could have it in the same association, but make tower part of the trust?

Would it be subject to PVB association rules…but allow trust to book?
How does it impact license laws in all states? Could they maybe be restricted from selling tower in California, New York (if laws are different)?

 

[Sandisw]

Any thoughts on what happens if they amend the PVB timeshare license? If I understand, you are saying they could have it in the same association, but make tower part of the trust?

Would it be subject to PVB association rules…but allow trust to book?
How does it impact license laws in all states? Could they maybe be restricted from selling tower in California, New York (if laws are different)?

The POS for PVB states that it can create a different vacation plan.

So, if I understand that piece, it’s possible to set the rules different…meaning they could sell it as a RTU plan…without even involving the current trust that has been set up.

The current PVB condo property can not be put into the trust as DVD doesn’t own it…owners do…so I do not see a way that trust owners are getting home resort advantage at PVB.

The part that is a bit confusing to me right now is that the trust is a different association that accepts the property for DVD so they can sell RTU. But, it appears DVD remains the owner of the actual real estate with WDPR owning the land with a ground lease in place.

So, I am not sure exactly how to add the tower property to PVB under a different vacation plan abut also put it under the control of the trust association. There would be no need to do that because they could just add as a component site to the trust and cut out PVB all together.

So, I believe they could still create a situation that allows the tower to have its own rules, own booking rights and restrictions and still be part of PVB because DVD doesn’t have to isell as a leasehold condo like they have done with the original PVB if I understand that clause correctly. Basically, the PVB condo association would manage more than one vacation plan like the trust will eventually be able to do when or if they add more component sites to it.

Having said all of that, I think if we see the addendum to PVB license , it wlll take the trust out of the mix for this project and more likely than not it will be status quo…but I won’t say 100% no changes until we see the actual documents that support that.

If I was placing bets I am 50/50 its not going to sell as part of the current leasehold condo.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I posted a separate thread in the DVC resorts forum but since this is a Poly enthusiast crowd, I thought I would quickly ask here: does anybody know if PVB studios have the option/ability to connect to adjacent studios?

 

[Sandisw]

I posted a separate thread in the DVC resorts forum but since this is a Poly enthusiast crowd, I thought I would quickly ask here: does anybody know if PVB studios have the option/ability to connect to adjacent studios?

I believe all by a handful of studios in the current longhouses are connecting.

 

[maui22]

I believe all by a handful of studios in the current longhouses are connecting.

This is what I recall as well.

 

[Genie+]

I posted a separate thread in the DVC resorts forum but since this is a Poly enthusiast crowd, I thought I would quickly ask here: does anybody know if PVB studios have the option/ability to connect to adjacent studios?

I know for sure Tokelau is every single room has a connected partner. I think all 3 buildings are like that.

BPK over at VGF is similar in that it is all studios. Most of them connect to another too. Each floor has a few oddballs though.

I’m pretty sure Poly is 95-100% connecting studios and BPK is somewhere close to 90%.

 

[Cabius]

I know for sure Tokelau is every single room has a connected partner. I think all 3 buildings are like that.

Agreed. I can't speak to every room, I guess, but I've had connecting rooms in all three DVC longhouses. Yay for double-studio stays!

 

[hockeydad21]

From what I’ve read before, I believe 99% of the studios are connecting. There is either 1 or 2 studios in one of the longhouses that don’t connect. That’s it.

I think the 1 or 2 non connecting studios might be Moorea because of the laundry facility. I could be wrong on it being Moorea though.

 

[maui22]

From what I’ve read before, I believe 99% of the studios are connecting. There is either 1 or 2 studios in one of the longhouses that don’t connect. That’s it.

I think the 1 or 2 non connecting studios might be Moorea because of the laundry facility. I could be wrong on it being Moorea though.

Here is a post from @drusba in 2022 or 2023 indicating there are only 2 non-connecting studios.

DVC Poly has 360 studios. Two of them have no connection to another studio. Every one of the other 358 studios connects to another studio. If a request for connecting studios is made, it is highly likely to be met. If the previous connecting-studios request was made through the member and the member put in the request, you need do nothing further.

 

[mkatsy]

The POS for PVB states that it can create a different vacation plan.

So, if I understand that piece, it’s possible to set the rules different…meaning they could sell it as a RTU plan…without even involving the current trust that has been set up.

The current PVB condo property can not be put into the trust as DVD doesn’t own it…owners do…so I do not see a way that trust owners are getting home resort advantage at PVB.

The part that is a bit confusing to me right now is that the trust is a different association that accepts the property for DVD so they can sell RTU. But, it appears DVD remains the owner of the actual real estate with WDPR owning the land with a ground lease in place.

So, I am not sure exactly how to add the tower property to PVB under a different vacation plan abut also put it under the control of the trust association. There would be no need to do that because they could just add as a component site to the trust and cut out PVB all together.

So, I believe they could still create a situation that allows the tower to have its own rules, own booking rights and restrictions and still be part of PVB because DVD doesn’t have to isell as a leasehold condo like they have done with the original PVB if I understand that clause correctly. Basically, the PVB condo association would manage more than one vacation plan like the trust will eventually be able to do when or if they add more component sites to it.

Having said all of that, I think if we see the addendum to PVB license , it wlll take the trust out of the mix for this project and more likely than not it will be status quo…but I won’t say 100% no changes until we see the actual documents that support that.

If I was placing bets I am 50/50 its not going to sell as part of the current leasehold condo.

I don't know the significance, or if there even is any significance, but .... the original 14 properties have their respective condo association listed as the managing entity under the timeshare project license. However, ... Riviera, CFW, and VDH are all listed as having MA71848 Disney Vacation Club Management LLC as their managing entity. Why were those three properties different?

 

[BrianLo]

Since we have seen DVD let $112 and someone said a $110 pass recently, I don’t think they will use ROFR for PVB, or others TBH, at all moving forward.

I known some feel that not doing it made sense for being the same but these types of passes just make no sense to me if they are selling Poly tower exactly the same…but I am coming to realize that what makes sense to me doesn’t to those in charge!

They never pick up active selling resorts though. While 110 might seem like a steal to flip to 250, they are about to load the new tower at an ‘effective’ rate of 30-50pp into their inventory to flip to 225 or whatever.

They aren’t really eager to pick up 110pp as a result.

 

[mamaofsix]

They never pick up active selling resorts though. While 110 might seem like a steal to flip to 250, they are about to load the new tower at an ‘effective’ rate of 30-50pp into their inventory to flip to 225 or whatever.

They aren’t really eager to pick up 110pp as a result.

I wouldn't say never. They did ROFR on some VGF contracts while it was still actively selling direct.

 

[mamaofsix]

The POS for PVB states that it can create a different vacation plan.

So, if I understand that piece, it’s possible to set the rules different…meaning they could sell it as a RTU plan…without even involving the current trust that has been set up.

The current PVB condo property can not be put into the trust as DVD doesn’t own it…owners do…so I do not see a way that trust owners are getting home resort advantage at PVB.

The part that is a bit confusing to me right now is that the trust is a different association that accepts the property for DVD so they can sell RTU. But, it appears DVD remains the owner of the actual real estate with WDPR owning the land with a ground lease in place.

So, I am not sure exactly how to add the tower property to PVB under a different vacation plan abut also put it under the control of the trust association. There would be no need to do that because they could just add as a component site to the trust and cut out PVB all together.

So, I believe they could still create a situation that allows the tower to have its own rules, own booking rights and restrictions and still be part of PVB because DVD doesn’t have to isell as a leasehold condo like they have done with the original PVB if I understand that clause correctly. Basically, the PVB condo association would manage more than one vacation plan like the trust will eventually be able to do when or if they add more component sites to it.

Having said all of that, I think if we see the addendum to PVB license , it wlll take the trust out of the mix for this project and more likely than not it will be status quo…but I won’t say 100% no changes until we see the actual documents that support that.

If I was placing bets I am 50/50 its not going to sell as part of the current leasehold condo.

I think we're over-complicating this. They are going to treat it exactly as they did with VGF. Nothing to indicate otherwise.

 

[eticketplease]

I wouldn't say never. They did ROFR on some VGF contracts while it was still actively selling direct.

True but that was during the end of it being in active sales.

I don’t think the ROFR monster wants to mess with Poly since they will be trying to sell the shiny new ones.

 

[mkatsy]

The POS for PVB states that it can create a different vacation plan.

So, if I understand that piece, it’s possible to set the rules different…meaning they could sell it as a RTU plan…without even involving the current trust that has been set up.

The current PVB condo property can not be put into the trust as DVD doesn’t own it…owners do…so I do not see a way that trust owners are getting home resort advantage at PVB.

The part that is a bit confusing to me right now is that the trust is a different association that accepts the property for DVD so they can sell RTU. But, it appears DVD remains the owner of the actual real estate with WDPR owning the land with a ground lease in place.

So, I am not sure exactly how to add the tower property to PVB under a different vacation plan abut also put it under the control of the trust association. There would be no need to do that because they could just add as a component site to the trust and cut out PVB all together.

So, I believe they could still create a situation that allows the tower to have its own rules, own booking rights and restrictions and still be part of PVB because DVD doesn’t have to isell as a leasehold condo like they have done with the original PVB if I understand that clause correctly. Basically, the PVB condo association would manage more than one vacation plan like the trust will eventually be able to do when or if they add more component sites to it.

Having said all of that, I think if we see the addendum to PVB license , it wlll take the trust out of the mix for this project and more likely than not it will be status quo…but I won’t say 100% no changes until we see the actual documents that support that.

If I was placing bets I am 50/50 its not going to sell as part of the current leasehold condo.

Chapter 721 / PART II Vacation Clubs /subsection 721.552/ covers the addition, substitution, or deletion of component site accommodations. It literally only has three bullet points and doesn't really seem helpful. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0721/Sections/0721.552.html.

 

[Sandisw]

Chapter 721 / PART II Vacation Clubs /subsection 721.552/ covers the addition, substitution, or deletion of component site accommodations. It literally only has three bullet points and doesn't really seem helpful. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0721/Sections/0721.552.html.

That clause is referring to adding new component sites to the overall plan. DVC is a multi site timeshare plan so that’s what guides it ability to add new projects.

The piece with Poly tower is that it is located at the same hotel that had a DVC component site already.

The land that the tower sites on is not currently part of the boundaries for PVB. If this is to go into that, it would have to update the POS to include that, which is what happened with BPK.

But, it’s the actual clause in the PVB POS that mentions that, and I am paraphrasing here, “while the plan is that any new addition would be the same vacation plan, DVd reserves the right to add accommodations under a different vacation plan”

So, it’s why I do think we still have a situation that DVD, if they want to sell similar to CFW, vs leasehold, they technically can.

Now will they? Probably not..but I just am not convinced that something unique won’t happen.

I am off to WDW this week for 4 days so I will see what info I get when I talk to different DVC people in my travels!!