Multi-Site POS Revision Dated 01/19/19

[skier_pete]

That is nutso to me. The huge advantage to DVC (and most timeshares, truly) is the easy ability to trade out.... I would not ever consider Riviera either direct or resale based on that. And the idea that DVC doesn't realize this is nuts - are they really just counting on the folks with pixie dust obscuring their vision that spend $30k without blinking? Who are these people? lol

Some of the other most popular timeshares do it as well. I do think it's sort of crazy - I think it will negatively impact sales - especially amongst their "base" which is people that already own at other resorts, but now would be leary of a resort that won't retain it's value. I agree that what it's going to do - which is drive resale prices for this resort to rock bottom - is NOT beneficial to Disney. The thinking is that likely it will drive people away from resale, but I am not sure that is the case. We will only know what happens when it happens. I've been watching Disney closely for many years now - if you had asked me ten years ago if they triple the price and doubled the crowd allowances for the MNSSHP and MVMCP that people would still want to go - I would've thought you were crazy too....but people line up for these events. So probably sales will be just as strong as ever - just people being more pissed off with their purchases once they find out what they bought.

 

[Wakey]

Disney have in house lawyers who were, when I dealt with them, just off the 192. However, I do not know if they drafted this.

 

[AdamsMum]

SSR is too big, with too many people who want to stay elsewhere.

A well thought out post on all counts.

To add to that, I believe Disney built SSR to fill a space after the failed Disney Institute (I'm not sure of the complete history of the space). They had to figure out what to do with that land that was right up in the faces of people who visited Downtown Disney (at the time). Again, Disney doesn't admit to making a mistake, so they had to put something there to make it look like they were going forward. SSR is too big. If you don't have a car, you are too far away from the main amenities of the resort. To build this resort, far away from parks with only bus transportation and with the points structure that it has, was a big arrogant mistake. I believe the points structure should have been more like OKW. That would encourage people to stay there. JMHO

 

[The Jackal]

A well thought out post on all counts.

To add to that, I believe Disney built SSR to fill a space after the failed Disney Institute (I'm not sure of the complete history of the space). They had to figure out what to do with that land that was right up in the faces of people who visited Downtown Disney (at the time). Again, Disney doesn't admit to making a mistake, so they had to put something there to make it look like they were going forward. SSR is too big. If you don't have a car, you are too far away from the main amenities of the resort. To build this resort, far away from parks with only bus transportation and with the points structure that it has, was a big arrogant mistake. I believe the points structure should have been more like OKW. That would encourage people to stay there. JMHO

SSR is right next to OKW, so both only have bus transportation. From what I have heard they both also have a right of way for a monorail. New monorails are expensive, so they will not build it.

 

[drusba]

A well thought out post on all counts.

To add to that, I believe Disney built SSR to fill a space after the failed Disney Institute (I'm not sure of the complete history of the space). They had to figure out what to do with that land that was right up in the faces of people who visited Downtown Disney (at the time). Again, Disney doesn't admit to making a mistake, so they had to put something there to make it look like they were going forward. SSR is too big. If you don't have a car, you are too far away from the main amenities of the resort. To build this resort, far away from parks with only bus transportation and with the points structure that it has, was a big arrogant mistake. I believe the points structure should have been more like OKW. That would encourage people to stay there. JMHO

SSR was the result of 9/11. In July 2001, Disney announced it would be constructing a new DVC Resort called Disney's Villas at Eagle Pines in the area of the Eagle Pines and Osprey Ridge Golf Courses, which is now the location of the Four Seasons resort, and the Eagle Pines golf course is now long gone. 9/11 happened and Disney reservations, site wide, went way down and Disney just shut down the Disney Institute area as part of numerous money-saving activities taken in the year after 9/11.

Disney never again mentioned the Villas at Eagle Pines. Instead, in 2002, it announced it would be constructing the SSR DVC Resort to replace the villas that were in the Disney Institute area. SSR was never an easy sell -- a typical sales pitch used to sell it was to tell potential buyers they could buy into SSR and then stay at the other DVC Resorts at WDW BWV, BCV, and BRV -- but it was the only new resort available for about four years until AKV came in 2007 and thus sales were decent, although I still doubt it has ever actually sold out. From Disney's vantage point, it was not a "mistake." It replaced the closed Disney Institute area with a DVC Resort which brought in lots of sale profits, with the members becoming responsible for covering maintenance and repair costs. The resort is actually very nice and has a lot of plusses, including easy access to a golf course and Disney Springs, two very good themed pools, and a good restaurant, but I agree "Disney Greed" played blind to the fact that its point structure, from the beginning, should have been closer to OKW, but the higher numbers were chosen just to be able to sell more points.

 

[Wakey]

I would disagree about it being too big to walk around. Maybe if you are disabled or in ill health. Maybe if you are very unfit or obese, but in the latter two categories you need to be walking more anyway.
I shake my head when I keep reading how it's ridiculously far around SSR, from the lobby to rooms at Kidani etc. These are not big distances.
Being able to walk extensively around a resort and to DS is a big plus for many.

 

[crvetter]

Here are the Dues (less property taxes to get it similar as above):

HHI: $8.1786
Aulani: $7.2461
Vero: $6.816
OKW: $5.9323
AKV: $5.8914
BRV: $5.8628
BWV: $5.6008
CCV: $5.5717
BCV: $5.4945
VGC: $5.2253
SSR: $5.089
PVB: $5.0353
VGF: $4.7131
BLT: $4.6966

So yeah it makes it the most expensive onsite (WDW) DVC hotel. Interesting to see what is really contributing to it's budget. Did they build in the fact already that CMs being hired here will immediately be getting a raise at the end of this year to $13 an hour at minimum. In 2 years it will be interesting where it actually sits considering that the adjustments because of the pay raises aren't done being added yet. I could see them setting this a bit more conservative to avoid Aulani or the accusations (never proven) of BLT. I'm guessing part of the cost might be the Skyliner and the required capital that will be needed to keep it maintained. This isn't like the monorail hotels that the DVC is only about 1/3 or less of the total resort rooms there. More rooms to spread the cost over.

I was interested in seeing something. In particular what happened if we looked at the total cost to maintain a resort per room; however, I mapped each room to the equivalent number of studios that room could hold. This would be fair comparison; I said studios were weighted 1 since it was my basis. I used the following weights for the other rooms on average 1 Bedrooms 2, 2 Bedrooms 3, Grand Villas 5, Tree House 4, Bungalow 2.5, Tower Studio 0.75, Inn Room 1, Cabins 4. This way we have what truly is the cost per accommodation at each resort because obviously while PVB has a really low MF it has a much higher (one of the highest) nightly point costs. I had to leave Aulani off because I couldn't find a true figure on the total number of points for the entire resort.

PVB: $5.0353: $ 49,526.72
Riviera: $6.5478: $43,203.08
VGC: $5.2253: $34,739.54
CCV: $5.5717: $34,395.62
Vero: $6.816: $33,285.93
VGF: $4.7131: $33,088.57
HHI: $8.1786: $30,716.58
BRV: $5.8628: $28,828.65
AKV: $5.8914: $28,660.03
BWV: $5.6008: $27,983.03
BCV: $5.4945: $26,913.48
BLT: $4.6966: $26,803.87
OKW: $5.9323: $23,975.53
SSR: $5.089: $22,366.92

What is interesting is PVB is the most expensive out of all the DVC resorts followed by Riviera, etc. So in my opinion if you are comfortable paying the fees at PVB why any issues at Riviera. This entire basis of the exercise is predicated on the fact that you will be using the points at your home resort. I just wanted to highlight this issue because it is thrown around that the MF cost is the only thing needed to measure cost. However, that isn't true its more what is the cost for an entire's year maintenance allocated to a basis (a studio is what I used since it is the most popular room). No matter your change in basis though the ranking of the resorts will remain the same.

Hopefully this all makes sense. But essentially PVB has 410 equivalent studios (360 real studios and 20 Bungalows roughly 2.5 the size of a studio) so 4,032,720 points * $4.7131 / 410 equivalent studios gave me the $49,526.72. For Riviera I got 1,021.5 Equivalent studios (38 real studios, 29 1 bedrooms roughly 2 times the size, 238 2 Bedrooms, lockoff and dedicated, roughly 3 times the size, 12 grand villas roughly 5 times the size, and 24 tower studios roughly 0.75 times the size) so 6,739,966 points * $6.5478 / 1,021.5 equivalent studios gave me the $43,203.08.

This was an average looking view that has its limitations because of the lockoffs (skews VGF and SSR and OKW and BLT significantly lower than actually they are based on studios and 1 bedrooms) being booked separately. More precisely it be better to look at the cost per accommodation type but we can't do that yet because we don't know the point charts for Riviera. But I'll put together that next, rankings of each resort so one can see the truer measure of cost.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I was interested in seeing something. In particular what happened if we looked at the total cost to maintain a resort per room; however, I mapped each room to the equivalent number of studios that room could hold. This would be fair comparison; I said studios were weighted 1 since it was my basis. I used the following weights for the other rooms on average 1 Bedrooms 2, 2 Bedrooms 3, Grand Villas 5, Tree House 4, Bungalow 2.5, Tower Studio 0.75, Inn Room 1, Cabins 4. This way we have what truly is the cost per accommodation at each resort because obviously while PVB has a really low MF it has a much higher (one of the highest) nightly point costs. I had to leave Aulani off because I couldn't find a true figure on the total number of points for the entire resort.

PVB: $5.0353: $ 49,526.72
Riviera: $6.5478: $43,203.08
VGC: $5.2253: $34,739.54
CCV: $5.5717: $34,395.62
Vero: $6.816: $33,285.93
VGF: $4.7131: $33,088.57
HHI: $8.1786: $30,716.58
BRV: $5.8628: $28,828.65
AKV: $5.8914: $28,660.03
BWV: $5.6008: $27,983.03
BCV: $5.4945: $26,913.48
BLT: $4.6966: $26,803.87
OKW: $5.9323: $23,975.53
SSR: $5.089: $22,366.92

What is interesting is PVB is the most expensive out of all the DVC resorts followed by Riviera, etc. So in my opinion if you are comfortable paying the fees at PVB why any issues at Riviera. This entire basis of the exercise is predicated on the fact that you will be using the points at your home resort. I just wanted to highlight this issue because it is thrown around that the MF cost is the only thing needed to measure cost. However, that isn't true its more what is the cost for an entire's year maintenance allocated to a basis (a studio is what I used since it is the most popular room). No matter your change in basis though the ranking of the resorts will remain the same.

Hopefully this all makes sense. But essentially PVB has 410 equivalent studios (360 real studios and 20 Bungalows roughly 2.5 the size of a studio) so 4,032,720 points * $4.7131 / 410 equivalent studios gave me the $49,526.72. For Riviera I got 1,021.5 Equivalent studios (38 real studios, 29 1 bedrooms roughly 2 times the size, 238 2 Bedrooms, lockoff and dedicated, roughly 3 times the size, 12 grand villas roughly 5 times the size, and 24 tower studios roughly 0.75 times the size) so 6,739,966 points * $6.5478 / 1,021.5 equivalent studios gave me the $43,203.08.

This was an average looking view. We could also look at the maintenance cost of each accommodation type based on the points required to book it for an entire year.

I'm a little lost on your using a weighted system or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you did. For all resorts except Riviera you have the point requirements per night which then become the equivalent "cost" of that room when multiplied times the MF/pt. The points are the divisor for how those MF's are allocated so it's the true cost of staying there - depending on how you use the points. The resorts have slight variances to the differences between studios/1BR's/2BR etc that don't really allow a weighted assignment across the board.

Years ago I did a spreadsheet to see what the "cost" of each resort room is.

 

[chainkid]

The Bungalows/Cabin were definitely on purpose. They HAD to know what was going to result from that and they didn't care.
SSR the same thing. Even at that point they had resorts at BCV/BWV and had to know it wouldn't be as popular a location. Admittedly it was before the new "luxury" DVC.
HHI/VB were at a different stage of DVC - when they really were looking at it to be more broad timeshares. It was more of a change of direction that affected that. I guarantee when those contract up in 2042, I bet they don't even renew them as Disney timeshare resorts and sell them off.
Aulani was a genuine mistake in policy. As you say, they thought they could get an Asian market that never worked out. However, I disagree that the majority of the people there bought it for primarily WDW purposes. Most would be west coasters, and the wouldn't but something in Hawaii for solely that purpose. However, where your right is they do want to also use it at WDW, while there is probably not enough reciprocation about that.
The small contracts - I'm not sure what they can do there. I agree they should limit the size, but they are already limiting them to 75 points. 75 or 100 points its the same. They really should put some sort of limit that's higher than that (perhaps 150 points) but they would lose a lot of sales. Consistently the AVERAGE contract size is 140-150, this has been going on for as long as I've been a member. If the AVERAGE contract size is 150, then for each 300 point contract they are selling 3 or 4 smaller contracts. There's no way they eliminate small contracts.

The real solution to a lot of their problems is to get more studios in the system. If Disney were smart, they limit the number of large units (GVs and bungalows), have any new resorts have about twice as many studios as 1- or 2-bedrooms.Not saying that people don't rent the larger units, but they rent a lot more. I really thought that Disney had realized this with the Poly (bungalows being a separate issue), but then they build CCV.

 

[chainkid]

There are people who like to rent the larger units like grand villas most of the time but where they went off the rails was to expect that I would pay a whole lot more to stay in a poly bungalow that is tiny compared to a BW grandvilla , doesn't sleep as many or have as good an overall location. To me the best grand villas at BW and VGF are worth the points as you get a lot for your points. Why pay more for less. Given my options, I compare. I chose to not buy Poly after waiting as they made a huge mistake with their offerings. The bungalows spoil the shoreline in my opinion for other units. Disney probably wanted to use these for their celebrity high end customers for cash but charge the studio holders the maintenance fees .

 

[crvetter]

I'm a little lost on your using a weighted system or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you did. For all resorts except Riviera you have the point requirements per night which then become the equivalent "cost" of that room when multiplied times the MF/pt. The points are the divisor for how those MF's are allocated so it's the true cost of staying there - depending on how you use the points. The resorts have slight variances to the differences between studios/1BR's/2BR etc that don't really allow a weighted assignment across the board.

Years ago I did a spreadsheet to see what the "cost" of each resort room is.

I was looking at the case at the square footage of the units to be the normalizer. It is roughly the only thing I could do to say what Riviera MF compare against the other resorts. This was under the assumption that on average the nightly rates between units are correlated with square footage which is somewhat true. So I took the total number of points and divided by the equivalent number of studios a resort has. This was to say in a hypothetical case Disney decided each resort was only studios but used the same footprint of the buildings and number of total points, what the MF for those hypothetical rooms were. This was to get a common basis among the resorts. It was a quick and dirty calculation meant only to show that while PVB MF is one of the lowest because of the high number of points per night we see a significant cost. While yes this was hypothetical it was meant to get a basis to some degree.

Though looking at it as the total maintenance fee cost, when looking at the points required to book the entire Vacation Home Type for a given view at each resort we get the following. All in all what I was meaning to get at is I don't expect the MF when considering the point cost per night to be higher than Grand Floridian, Polynesian. I would expect it to be much more inline with them. Its just that it has a greater number of lockoffs in proportion to dedicated units. This causes the MF per point to go up because there will be less points sold overall so less to carry the cost of the resort. Thus they will be higher but most of those lockoffs will not be booked that way in the end. So as an owner or booker there the MFs per room booked will be lower. I expect to be around Theme Park and Lake View in MF cost for the resort.

Another comparison would be the question of efficiency of the resorts where you look at the Maintenance cost divided by the total square footage of all the resort rooms. This would be somewhat in line with my first post. I just didn't want to calculate the total square footage so used the studio as my measuring tool. Thus the order and proportions should roughly be the same.

Studios


One Bedrooms


Two Bedrooms


Grand Villas


Others

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I was looking at the case at the square footage of the units to be the normalizer. It is roughly the only thing I could do to say what Riviera MF compare against the other resorts. This was under the assumption that on average the nightly rates between units are correlated with square footage which is somewhat true. So I took the total number of points and divided by the equivalent number of studios a resort has. This was to say in a hypothetical case Disney decided each resort was only studios but used the same footprint of the buildings and number of total points, what the MF for those hypothetical rooms were. This was to get a common basis among the resorts. It was a quick and dirty calculation meant only to show that while PVB MF is one of the lowest because of the high number of points per night we see a significant cost. While yes this was hypothetical it was meant to get a basis to some degree.

Though looking at it as the total maintenance fee cost, when looking at the points required to book the entire Vacation Home Type for a given view at each resort we get the following.

Studios
View attachment 383651

One Bedrooms
View attachment 383652

Two Bedrooms
View attachment 383653

Grand Villas
View attachment 383654

Others
View attachment 383655

The flaw I see with that though is that the actual point requirements determine the real cost and in correlation to square footage of rooms it's varied a lot from resort to resort. Attempting to apply the value from previous resorts to a new one is very hypothetical. For example who ever expected DVC to match CCV point charts to BRV? And many never expected the point creep that started with BLT and culminated at VGF/PVB. You have the actual costs for all resorts except Riviera without creating a weighted system. If wanting to estimate what that will look like I'd attempt an averaged guess at the point requirements there. Just my thoughts though of course.

Another thought - if maintenance related then one would need to remove the tax component. If total cost then you have to include the costs imposed by the assessor. And if really showing the cost you have to work your way backwards to actual taxes billed.

I'll just be waiting for the point charts and see what they've decided to do this time around.

 

[crvetter]

The flaw I see with that though is that the actual point requirements determine the real cost and in correlation to square footage of rooms it's varied a lot from resort to resort. Attempting to apply the value from previous resorts to a new one is very hypothetical. For example who ever expected DVC to match CCV point charts to BRV? And many never expected the point creep that started with BLT and culminated at VGF/PVB. You have the actual costs for all resorts except Riviera without creating a weighted system. If wanting to estimate what that will look like I'd attempt an averaged guess at the point requirements there. Just my thoughts though of course.

Another thought - if maintenance related then one would need to remove the tax component. If total cost then you have to include the costs imposed by the assessor. And if really showing the cost you have to work your way backwards to actual taxes billed.

I'll just be waiting for the point charts and see what they've decided to do this time around.

I think if you look at the two methods you see the similar trend that PVB is the most expensive (where I looked at square footage just normalized to a studio room) and the total points to book a room for the year. So again not exact but meant to show that Riviera is likely not going to be out of line with other resorts when you look at a unit MF cost perspective.

As for the taxes those were removed from my calculation as my original post was the cost exclusive of tax, which is all we have for Riviera. Also I believe some older resorts are starting to see some tax savings provided by the County to eventually start falling off.

But overall I've shown that while PVB looked to be cheap with MF it is actually very expensive. CCV looks expensive but is about the middle of road. Which is all I was meaning to highlight. And using the equivalent studio approach (roughly maps to cost per square foot) we saw Riviera was up there but less than Polynesian. I'm expecting that the nightly point cost to be less than VGF or PVB so it probably be cheaper in MF than either of those two resorts.

There are flaws with all methods because each method operates under the assumption that studios will be booked and a lot of the resorts don't have dedicated studios. Therefore, this isn't how the MF is determine it inflates the MF cost up (for studios and 1 bedrooms) because less points in a 2 bedroom than in a studio and 1 bedroom together. This is why BLT looks cheap when compared on an area basis but on a room by room basis it is expensive (compared between the two methods) because of all the lockoffs and no studios or 1 bedrooms.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I think if you look at the two methods you see the similar trend that PVB is the most expensive (where I looked at square footage just normalized to a studio room) and the total points to book a room for the year. So again not exact but meant to show that Riviera is likely not going to be out of line with other resorts when you look at a unit MF cost perspective.

As for the taxes those were removed from my calculation as my original post was the cost exclusive of tax, which is all we have for Riviera. Also I believe some older resorts are starting to see some tax savings provided by the County to eventually start falling off.

But overall I've shown that while PVB looked to be cheap with MF it is actually very expensive. CCV looks expensive but is about the middle of road. Which is all I was meaning to highlight. And using the equivalent studio approach (roughly maps to cost per square foot) we saw Riviera was up there but less than Polynesian. I'm expecting that the nightly point cost to be less than VGF or PVB so it probably be cheaper in MF than either of those two resorts.

There are flaws with all methods because each method operates under the assumption that studios will be booked and a lot of the resorts don't have dedicated studios. Therefore, this isn't how the MF is determine it inflates the MF cost up (for studios and 1 bedrooms) because less points in a 2 bedroom than in a studio and 1 bedroom together. This is why BLT looks cheap when compared on an area basis but on a room by room basis it is expensive (compared between the two methods) because of all the lockoffs and no studios or 1 bedrooms.

I guess it's just that I created a spreadsheet years and years ago show the actual costs so I guess I like my method. I've known that high MF's don't necessarily mean the most expensive rooms and pointed it out over the years when people were analyzing where to purchase but it is something that many don't always realize. They look at that fee and think it's astronomical when as you say, it may actually place them middle of the road.

 

[crvetter]

I guess it's just that I created a spreadsheet years and years ago show the actual costs so I guess I like my method. I've known that high MF's don't necessarily mean the most expensive rooms and pointed it out over the years when people were analyzing where to purchase but it is something that many don't always realize. They look at that fee and think it's astronomical when as you say, it may actually place them middle of the road.

Agreed it is a complex puzzle but one thing that jumped out at me was how expensive PVB is which on surface doesn't look that way. I was actually shocked it was such a standout from the other WDW resorts.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Agreed it is a complex puzzle but one thing that jumped out at me was how expensive PVB is which on surface doesn't look that way. I was actually shocked it was such a standout from the other WDW resorts.

At this point of DVC it could be interesting to compare the costs of each component at each resort and see if some are operated more or less efficiently. PVB is a bit of an outlier IMO with the higher point requirements that you might expect the MF's to be lower per point. So is it the resort amenities costing more - or being passed along more due to certain allocation methods being chosen? It's not inconceivable that if they allocate based on room occupancy that DVC studios are often at a capacity of 5 there so much higher than the average PVB hotel room. Or are the Bungalows horrible expensive to maintain?

 

[crvetter]

At this point of DVC it could be interesting to compare the costs of each component at each resort and see if some are operated more or less efficiently. PVB is a bit of an outlier IMO with the higher point requirements that you might expect the MF's to be lower per point. So is it the resort amenities costing more - or being passed along more due to certain allocation methods being chosen? It's not inconceivable that if they allocate based on room occupancy that DVC studios are often at a capacity of 5 there so much higher than the average PVB hotel room. Or are the Bungalows horrible expensive to maintain?

Could be some capital issues with PVB being older buildings and utilities to the resort being ran. So Disney is charging more in capital costs maybe? I'd have to look at the budget but I suspect that might be true. The sewer lines and water lines over there are very old for example and will need repairing at some point. While BLT is a complete new construction and had that rant to the road during its build out. Just my thoughts on why it is a lot.

 

[E2ME2]

WOW- Don't try reading through this entire thread sober!
I've been curious about the Riviera POS debacle, and I'm stuck indoors with a snow day here in the mid-Atlantic, so I thought I would do some light reading on the DISboards
After the English grammar lesson in diagramming sentences, on pages 6 & 7 (through post#139), I thought DRUSBA landed a very nice post in #140 to diffuse the tension that I sensed building.
Then it was on to page #7 (posts #167 - #171) for a Math refresher. That's when I considered putting down my iced tea and getting something stronger to sip on!
Actually, it's probably still better that I don't drink, or I might still be stuck back at page 6 trying to identify dangling participles and predicated adjectives.

I do, tongue out of cheek now, appreciate the effort from all to try to help us navigate through the recent shenanigans surrounding our hefty MF increases, "False-Start"-Points Charts, and Surprise:New Resale Restrictions. It has gotten my attention, and I need to make sure my future DVC planning takes all of this into consideration. 6 Months ago I was chomping at the bit to add-on at AKV. Now I'm not sure if I still want to do that. I may need to see how this all sorts out, but I know that prices will only be going higher as I contemplate my options/strategies. Our 1st purchase was much less complicated, and we still have no regrets.
But, in the 7 years that have passed since then, the rules of the game have changed, and I think the final versions of the rules have not yet solidified. This is definitely making my retirement planning much more interesting.

 

[CraigInPA]

The flaw I see with that though is that the actual point requirements determine the real cost and in correlation to square footage of rooms it's varied a lot from resort to resort. Attempting to apply the value from previous resorts to a new one is very hypothetical. For example who ever expected DVC to match CCV point charts to BRV? And many never expected the point creep that started with BLT and culminated at VGF/PVB.

DVC could have kept all the points charts identical, and then weighted the value of points by some criteria as part of BVTC. For example, a point at SSR is worth 1 at SSR, but only worth 0.8 at BLT, and 0.5 at Poly.

 

[mustinjourney]

To build this resort, far away from parks with only bus transportation and with the points structure that it has, was a big arrogant mistake. I believe the points structure should have been more like OKW. That would encourage people to stay there. JMHO

or provide people with golf carts