Max Occupancy in DVC Resorts

[Dean]

Regardless, 5 in a one bedroom personally affects our current use of vacation accomodations at our children's current ages. I am bias on this issue and therefore post about it. I do find it very puzzling as to why other posters who say they do not have strong views, at the same time have numerous and multiple posts on the issue. Me thinks somone is attempting to bluff others with proported statements of indifference. Thank goodness MS is now applying some reasonableness to the occupacy issue. We find the one bedroom accomodations very nice for our family, and would not use the second bedroom for our kids at thier current ages. It would be locked off and go totally unused if we got a two bedroom villa at this point. Our children still need supervision, especially in strange environments with balconeys right outside the rooms. It really doesn't make sense for us to rent the two bedroom and then never use the second bedroom.

And I think it's colored your objectivity. To you this appears to be an emotional issue. And I can understand if one were told one thing and agreed to another, how this could be a concern. It happens in timeshare sales all the time. Then one signs a paper that says everything they've been told is in writing and nothing else will be applicable. To be clear, the occupancy issue itself isn't important but the fact that MS enforces the written rules IS. Besides, if a couple of us don't stand up and defend the position, everyone would think it's a non issue. This is far from the truth, IMO. And there are real consequences of room overcrowding like pool, restaurant, parking crowds as well as increased maint issues. How much this affects, I don't know. But my guess is it's a lot more than you'd think it is. Plus I find it interesting when people know the rules and still insist on breaking them and telling everyone about it, even if MS is complicit. I think it reflects society in general where most people are most interested in what's in it for them.

As for what's OK with MS, I think that's a subject where the jury is still out. Not enforcing it and it truly being OK are totally different things. Hence the pot legalization analogy. MS may have decided it's not worth the effort, again that's not the same as saying it's OK. There are rules and there are actually ways that the rules can be changed.

 

[DebbieB]

Are occupancy limits in the public offering statement? The only place I can recall seeing it is on the Product Understanding Checklist.

 

[idratherbeinwdw]

<snip> And there are real consequences of room overcrowding like pool, restaurant, parking crowds as well as increased maint issues. How much this affects, I don't know. But my guess is it's a lot more than you'd think it is.

Your guess??? Hey I can guess too, and I guess it's a lot less than you think it is.

5 in a one bedroom is a non issue for the most part. Unless it's five Wooly Mammoths, in which case I see your point.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

5 in a one bedroom is a non issue for the most part. Unless it's five Wooly Mammoths, in which case I see your point.

Well... There goes my idea of stuffing my mother-in-law into our 1br.

MG

 

[DisneyDVClover]

I can't see how 5 in a 1 bedroom would affect parking wouldn't they all come on the same shuttle or in the same car I can't see them all driving on their own. As for the pool it would be no worse than pool hopping and the locals as they are called using the pools.

 

[Doctor P]

Yes, the occupancy limits are part of the POS.

 

[Dean]

Are occupancy limits in the public offering statement? The only place I can recall seeing it is on the Product Understanding Checklist.

I know it's in the multi site POS listed as Sleeping Capacity on the charts that show the number of units. It's also in the II info delivered at closing and referenced in the POS related to exchanging.

 

[Dean]

Your guess??? Hey I can guess too, and I guess it's a lot less than you think it is.

5 in a one bedroom is a non issue for the most part. Unless it's five Wooly Mammoths, in which case I see your point.

My guess but at least we agree there are consequences and that was the point.

I can't see how 5 in a 1 bedroom would affect parking wouldn't they all come on the same shuttle or in the same car I can't see them all driving on their own. As for the pool it would be no worse than pool hopping and the locals as they are called using the pools.

Only to a degree. A certain percentage will be adults that will add another vehicle. Plus, the family that stays in the extra unit freed up will also bring a vehicle in many cases. As for the pool hopping, etc, the extra people for a room stuffer will be on top of those other groups and actually reduce the viability of pool hopping.

 

[DisneyDVClover]

Well I know our family travel with the 3 kids and usually my mother but we all come in one vehicle or pick up whoever flies in at the airport so no extra vehicle. Now I can only speak for my family but pool hopping is a perk we can honestly live without we seldom do it and could care less about it.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I can't see how 5 in a 1 bedroom would affect parking wouldn't they all come on the same shuttle or in the same car I can't see them all driving on their own.

I have been known to trailer-in the wooly mammoth (mother-in-law), and the trailer can take up some significant park area.

MG

 

[CaptainMidnight]

To you this appears to be an emotional issue.

Dean and Doctor P - Quite the contrary, it is not just emotional, it is a very practical issue since we currently have our three children stay with us in a one bedroom. This is not some philosophical exercise attempting to interpret real estate law, or some trumped up baloney about how all the resort amenities will be overused, it is practical application of real world vacation practice. If you are suggesting there is emotion tied to the practicality of not using points for a second bedroom that would be locked off anyway, then I would agree, there is emotion tied to it, of course. Why wouldn't there be?

I think it reflects society in general where most people are most interested in what's in it for them.

So regardless of the societal concerns you raise, I guess we are agreed that your analogy of the cruise industry you stated earlier was something you did in fact raise, and is not applicable? Earlier you said an analogy about cruising shouldn't be attributed to you ("You must attribute the cruise analogy to someone else, it wasn't me"), then you said othersl were talking about cruising ("others were discussing the cruise issue at the time"), but I think if you look back you'll see that wasn't really the case.

Hence the pot legalization analogy.

Sure doesn't seem like a very good explanation of a far fetch analogy any more than the far fetched cruise analogy.

It still doesn't adequately answer the question as to why some get so bent out of shape on this issue when they will not be using the 5 in a one bedroom grace that MS offers and they will not see a visible tangible effect on thier current vacation experience. If anything, going with the 5 in a 1 bedroom will be a limitation to the 5 in a studio and mroe than 5 in a one bedroom practices we have read about on this forum. I notice Dean and Doctor P as being very much in alignment on thier views, both say they would not use it regardless given thier family situations, both seem or appear equally bothered by the issue given the numerous strong factually worded posts, and at least one is saying it really doesn't matter to them, they are just discussing the issue. I find it puzzling as to why the views are so strong. I hope I've been clear on why I think the issue is important.

Now, don't misunderstand, I'm not advocating any challenge or change, merely pointing out that this is serious stuff (much more serious than people want to believe).

I am not a real estate law expert by any means. If you are an attorney in real estate law you would certainly have greater expertise in this than I do. I mistakenly thought your name indicated you were some type of doctor, sorry if that was in error. Somehow I thought Dean was also in the medical profession. I may be wrong there as well. My layperson's opinion is that some are attempting to trump this up as some big legal issue in an attempt to support thier personal opinion more than it really is. I'd certainly welcome a real estate attorney's first person opinion on this for our forum.

I guess the one idea I'm sharing that I haven't read previously is that if anything, my opinion is that going with the 5 in a 1 bedroom guideline from MS will be a limitation to the 5 in a studio and more than 5 in a one bedroom practices I have read about on this forum. If MS follows this, there should be a reduction in the use of resort resouces compared to current practices IMO.

 

[DisneyDVClover]

MG that is funny but totally understandable as my wife says the same thing when we bring my mom. I love my in laws to death but my mom seems to smother when we take her and she spoils the kids rotten not that I mind as it leaves more money for us but my wife hates it. Mind you we always take my moms van so my wife really shouldn't care LOL.

 

[Doctor P]

Captain Midnight,

My opinion is no more important than any one else's in the forum, expertise or no expertise. The point of my post was to indicate that much of the discussion is, contrary to what has often been claimed, based in fact rather than opinion. I am not a medical doctor. My professional expertise does include contract, land use, and real estate law as part of my portfolio, and that is why I have been so concerned about some of the directions that some of the threads on this topic have taken, while not actually being concerned about the practice of allowing 5 in a studio or 1BR. Dean actually stated many of the same concerns I have.

 

[Dean]

Dean and Doctor P - Quite the contrary, it is not just emotional, it is a very practical issue since we currently have our three children stay with us in a one bedroom. This is not some philosophical exercise attempting to interpret real estate law, or some trumped up baloney about how all the resort amenities will be overused, it is practical application of real world vacation practice. If you are suggesting there is emotion tied to the practicality of not using points for a second bedroom that would be locked off anyway, then I would agree, there is emotion tied to it, of course. Why wouldn't there be?

So regardless of the societal concerns you raise, I guess we are agreed that your analogy of the cruise industry you stated earlier was something you did in fact raise, and is not applicable? Earlier you said an analogy about cruising shouldn't be attributed to you ("You must attribute the cruise analogy to someone else, it wasn't me"), then you said othersl were talking about cruising ("others were discussing the cruise issue at the time"), but I think if you look back you'll see that wasn't really the case.

Sure doesn't seem like a very good explanation of a far fetch analogy any more than the far fetched cruise analogy.

It still doesn't adequately answer the question as to why some get so bent out of shape on this issue when they will not be using the 5 in a one bedroom grace that MS offers and they will not see a visible tangible effect on thier current vacation experience. If anything, going with the 5 in a 1 bedroom will be a limitation to the 5 in a studio and mroe than 5 in a one bedroom practices we have read about on this forum. I notice Dean and Doctor P as being very much in alignment on thier views, both say they would not use it regardless given thier family situations, both seem or appear equally bothered by the issue given the numerous strong factually worded posts, and at least one is saying it really doesn't matter to them, they are just discussing the issue. I find it puzzling as to why the views are so strong. I hope I've been clear on why I think the issue is important.

I am not a real estate law expert by any means. If you are an attorney in real estate law you would certainly have greater expertise in this than I do. I mistakenly thought your name indicated you were some type of doctor, sorry if that was in error. Somehow I thought Dean was also in the medical profession. I may be wrong there as well. My layperson's opinion is that some are attempting to trump this up as some big legal issue in an attempt to support thier personal opinion more than it really is. I'd certainly welcome a real estate attorney's first person opinion on this for our forum.

I guess the one idea I'm sharing that I haven't read previously is that if anything, my opinion is that going with the 5 in a 1 bedroom guideline from MS will be a limitation to the 5 in a studio and more than 5 in a one bedroom practices I have read about on this forum. If MS follows this, there should be a reduction in the use of resort resouces compared to current practices IMO.

I finally was able to go back and read the quote you posted from me. You quoted it out of context. The point was that for a cruise, you have no choice. I'm not ducking what I said, I just didn't remember saying it nor does sit particularly apply to the way I think about it as a general issue. As for profession, I am a Pediatrician with a fair amount of expertise in contracts and Timeshares in general. Certainly far more than the average lawyer when looking at the combined expertise. Many lawyers don't know about timeshares.

But since when does not having 5 people in my family affect my ability to have an opinion or post it. I usually get a 2 BR for four people, why wouldn't I for 5. I believe your emotional and practical applications have colored your objectivity. My opinion is based in the fact that the rules are explicit, you're arguing a moving target. If 5 is OK, why not 6, etc. Even if you only had 4 in your family, you might truly care if people don't follow the rules, that would be your choice.

But I particularly like your subtle personal attacks. The old shoot the messenger if you don't like the message approach. If you want to discuss the issues, that's what I'm about but it seems this is about feelings for some and not factual information. Do I want MS to enforce this issue, absolutely, to the hilt. Will I feel for those that have been lied to, absolutely, it's not their fault if they were misled. But it is their mistake for signing something they didn't understand fully. But I'd say every member on this board knows what the rules are and most that MS doesn't currently enforce them very well. What's worse is they tend to enforce them variably and that's what happens when you don't enforce a single standard.

BTW, I also post on the rental issue and it really doesn't affect me much there either, likely not any now as I've just sold one of my contracts.

 

[Johnnie Fedora]

What constitutes occupancy? If you have friends (in excess of 4) over to your 1-BR unit for a large part of the day aren't you breaking the occupany rule. If your friends are sleeping at All-Stars, but spend the rest of their stay with you at an OKW 1-BR aren't you breaking the occupancy rule? Or is it only sleeping in the unit that cements the violation?

Just as many of the other POS rules have situational degrees, maybe occupancy does as well.

 

[idratherbeinwdw]

Originally Posted by idratherbeinwdw
Your guess??? Hey I can guess too, and I guess it's a lot less than you think it is.

My guess but at least we agree there are consequences and that was the point.
.

No we don't agree. My alot less meant none at all. Unless everyone had 5 in a one bedroom the effect is negligible IMHO. It's probably "evened out" by the fact that many times 2 or 3 stay in a one bedroom and it's "under" occupied. In fact I am going alone in January and staying in a one bedroom. So three families can stay 5 in a room and it will balance out my underuse.

 

[MDonley]

What constitutes occupancy? If you have friends (in excess of 4) over to your 1-BR unit for a large part of the day aren't you breaking the occupany rule. If your friends are sleeping at All-Stars, but spend the rest of their stay with you at an OKW 1-BR aren't you breaking the occupancy rule? Or is it only sleeping in the unit that cements the violation?

Just as many of the other POS rules have situational degrees, maybe occupancy does as well.

Bravo! That being said, it seems that the elevator at VWL has a higher occupancy rate than any 1-BR!

 

[jarestel]

It's a hoot when the wanna-be attornies start throwing out legal opinions as if that actually meant anything. The fact of the matter is, if real estate law, or any category of law, was so cut and dried, there would be no need for real estate lawyers now would there? I'm absolutely convinced you could round up 2 actual, (not pretend) attornies who would claim each side of the great occupancy debate is correct. The interpretation of the "law" in any situation isn't cut & dried, black & white, or pre-defined. (Not to mention the varying degrees of interpretation for any law or rule.) If it were, the court system wouldn't be clogged with cases and the attorney section of the phone book would be much smaller. Sorry, but for those who think the world operates strictly "by the book", they must find it a very disappointing place.

 

[CaptainMidnight]

I finally was able to go back and read the quote you posted from me. You quoted it out of context.

I did no such thing sir. Please be more honest than to post such statements.

The point was that for a cruise, you have no choice.

That was not the point you made at all. That was never in any part of your explanation. You stated that other people were discussing it, they were not. You stated "You must attribute the cruise analogy to someone else, it wasn't me". That is an incorrect statement as well.

I'm not ducking what I said,

All evidence to the contrary.

On one hand you post that this issue really doesn't matter much to you, and how it has no impact on your family's personal reservations. On the other you are up at the top on the number of times your reply and post on this issue. Those two facts between what you say and how frequently and strongly you post on the issue do not match.

If 5 is OK, why not 6, etc.

As you clearly know from the threads you very frequently post on this issue, MS is establishing a guideline of 5 being OK in a one bedroom, not 6. Your distorting the issue again. They are not establishing a guideline of 6 being OK in a one bedroom. They are saying 5 is OK in a one bedroom.

I hope you practice a higher degree of forthrightness in other areas than you are in posting your opinion of the issues of occupancy. I see your analogies as misleading and non-applicable at best. Your description of the cruise analogy is lacking IMO.

If you want to discuss the issues, that's what I'm about

Unfortunately, evidence does not support this claim. It would be nice if that were consistent with your posts, and your attempts at analogies were more applicable to the discussion. I'm simply refuting thier applicability, because they do not help make the point your are attempting to use them to make regarding occupancy. That sir, is discussing the issues.

Sorry you're having trouble with the analogies, do you want me to explain them further.

The problem I'm having with the analogies is they are not very good or applicable, and don't support the intended discussion point. Is there some other subtly I'm missing in the post above?

It's a hoot when the wanna-be attornies start throwing out legal opinions as if that actually meant anything. The fact of the matter is, if real estate law, or any category of law, was so cut and dried, there would be no need for real estate lawyers now would there? I'm absolutely convinced you could round up 2 actual, (not pretend) attornies who would claim each side of the great occupancy debate is correct. The interpretation of the "law" in any situation isn't cut & dried, black & white, or pre-defined. (Not to mention the varying degrees of interpretation for any law or rule.) If it were, the court system wouldn't be clogged with cases and the attorney section of the phone book would be much smaller. Sorry, but for those who think the world operates strictly "by the book", they must find it a very disappointing place.

Excellently stated, thank you for making this point in such a clear and forthright manner, it is refreshing. I agree that those proporting such 'legal expertise' (although not thier primary profession) claiming the issue is so cut and dried are themselves all wet with such claims. :thewave:

I certainly do have emotions tied to this issue, I agree with that point, it directly affects my vacation patterns. Given the current ages of our children, if we reserved a two bedroom, one of the bedrooms would be locked off and completely unused for the vacation. I think MS has done the right thing in establishing the guideline of 5 being OK in a one bedroom. They didn't say "6", they are saying "5".

 

[WDWMom]

It's a hoot when the wanna-be attornies start throwing out legal opinions as if that actually meant anything. The fact of the matter is, if real estate law, or any category of law, was so cut and dried, there would be no need for real estate lawyers now would there? I'm absolutely convinced you could round up 2 actual, (not pretend) attornies who would claim each side of the great occupancy debate is correct. The interpretation of the "law" in any situation isn't cut & dried, black & white, or pre-defined. (Not to mention the varying degrees of interpretation for any law or rule.) If it were, the court system wouldn't be clogged with cases and the attorney section of the phone book would be much smaller. Sorry, but for those who think the world operates strictly "by the book", they must find it a very disappointing place.

Wow, I can't imagine a better reply. In my last three years or so of being on these boards I have seen opinions thrown around with such authority that one wonders why they are not written on stone. I couldn't agree more with your evaluation of lawyers and our court system. It would seem that rarely is an issue decided on the basis of right or wrong anymore, or even on specific language, but rather it is the side most determined(spends the most) to win. I believe that lawyers are increasingly drawing up contracts so that no one knows exactly what they mean anymore. Recently we had 5 college graduates all looking at one paragraph in a contract and between the 5 of us we had 4 different ideas on what the language meant.