new DVC rules Riviera

[vacationer1954]

I agree with them wanting to prevent issues they have with people (not all but some) buying Vero, Hilton, ... just because they are the cheapest with the intention of only staying at other resorts specifically at WDW (MK and Epcot).

So I'm upset Disney is trying to kill the resale market to prevent a problem that could be prevented other ways. Like enhancing transportation to the more remote resorts, etc.

Hyperloop?

 

[Madame]

I have not heard any indication that that is affecting DVC's ability to sell contracts. Did you hear anyone at DVC saying that that's affecting their sales?

I wouldn't expect so, since generally people understand that when they're buying a real estate interest that they are buying something that may have cost a different amount some time in the distant past. The issue that DVC seems to be facing now stems from a difference between purchasing two different ways in the same time frame. People generally respond very poorly to the idea that they could have paid a lot less for essentially the same thing just by purchasing it differently.

Not at all. DVC has to deal with real people making real purchases in real time. This isn't a matter of some vague abstraction.

That explains the frustration I see in your responses. However, that's not really part of what's happening here. DVC doesn't look down on resale purchasers personally - they're just looking to change things so their business benefits.

When you buy real estate the seller also does not care who you resell to, nor do they expect to turn around & resell it.

It’s not frustration, it’s disgust.

 

[vacationer1954]

When you buy real estate the seller also does not care who you resell to, nor do they expect to turn around & resell it.

I don't see how that matters in the situation I outlined.

 

[Madame]

I don't see how that matters in the situation I outlined.

You said:
generally people understand that when they're buying a real estate interest that they are buying something that may have cost a different amount some time in the distant past.

Well, generally people don’t care who buys the real estate after they’ve sold it once either. And yet they do in this situation.

I’m fairly certain there are other TSs that distinguish between new retail buyers and old retail buyers in terms of perks, exchanges, etc. Let’s see if DVC goes the direction of that industry standard, shall we?

 

[vacationer1954]

Well, generally people don’t care who buys the real estate after they’ve sold it once either.

I think I see the confusion. You're comparing DVC to a fee simple deeded private home rather than a leasehold deeded timeshare. There are so many aspects of the DVC contract that make that comparison wrong, and actually all those differences are there specifically for this purpose.

 

[Madame]

I think I see the confusion. You're comparing DVC to a fee simple deeded private home rather than a leasehold deeded timeshare. There are so many aspects of the DVC contract that make that comparison wrong, and actually all those differences are there specifically for this purpose.

But really, why should retail buyers care who bought resale & what they paid (other than the obvious resale value of their own contract) - single family dwelling or timeshare. It’s simple defensiveness at feeling they overpaid.

 

[vacationer1954]

But really, why should retail buyers care who bought resale & what they paid

Because they want to know that they got a great deal.

 

[Dean]

And are they also upset that direct owners paid MUCH less years ago for the same sold out resorts for more years on the contract?!? I paid more at 132$ pp for BCV with 24 years left than many direct buyers did for more years! The argument is ridiculous.

ETA I find it very interesting that the assumption is that ALL resalers bought SSR on the cheap and are flooding "desirable" resorts. I'd like to see the resale vs retail numbers for BCV, BWV etc...

IMO it's factual that SSR is in lower demand than some other resorts and that the % of points there that are looking to reserve at other resorts is higher than any other on property resort. Whether his will change with the reallocation is unknown.

No I don’t, but I’m tired of the “resale trash” condescension (mainly encountered on FB).

It happens in a number of ways both directions including the sense that many overpaid going retail when it was unreasonable. Personally I see BCV as standard view at preferred price and a higher per point but obviously not everyone agrees or the resale price wouldn't hold up.

When you buy real estate the seller also does not care who you resell to, nor do they expect to turn around & resell it.

It’s not frustration, it’s disgust.

Not true when the sale is in direct competition with other sales from the previous seller. And in reality, EVERY single resale purchase is a potential lost sale for the developer even if the buyer says they would not have bought retail.

But really, why should retail buyers care who bought resale & what they paid (other than the obvious resale value of their own contract) - single family dwelling or timeshare. It’s simple defensiveness at feeling they overpaid.

I agree with you and I think most here likely do but let me give you a real life example that might make you think about it the other way. For the past 17-18 years almost all of my extended stays at DVC have been on exchanges in 1 & 2 BR units at all resort except Poly and VGF plus off site at VB. Historically my costs have been as low as $300 per week (total including indirect expenses) and most have been a total cost under $400 per week. Going forward they'll be more but a 1 BR for a cost of $600-700 for a week is still a bargain in my book. I've had as many as 10 villas at one time. That trip was about half at BCV & BWV. IIRC it was 4 villas at BCV & 6 at BWV and four 2 BR and six 1 BR (going from memory). Given the changes in RCI deposits this exact situation isn't likely to be repeated but it has happened. Therefore I've rarely used my own points other than for short stays or to round out a stay and have thus rented almost all of my points over that entire time.

 

[Madame]

Because they want to know that they got a great deal.

Well then I guess they’d also care about how much over the rate of inflation they paid than owners who bought in earlier. You’ve completely forgotten your original point....

They don’t care about retail owners who paid less because they have this idea that resalers are gaming the system and getting one over on them. We are now back to my original point.

 

[Madame]

Not true when the sale is in direct competition with other sales from the previous seller. And in reality, EVERY single resale purchase is a potential lost sale for the developer even if the buyer says they would not have bought retail

Yes, but we were not discussing the developper, but rather the retail purchaser & how they are being manipulated.

Therefore I've rarely used my own points other than for short stays or to round out a stay and have thus rented almost all of my points over that entire time.

And you don’t think that this factors into your acceptance of the reallocation?!? Why would you care then if members are paying more & getting less? Your points are renting for the same and it could translate to less work on your part. More points per transaction = less transactions...

 

[Dean]

Yes, but we were not discussing the developper, but rather the retail purchaser & how they are being manipulated.

The sale and resale issues are developer issues. DVCMC then has to manage the resorts based on that information. The perks are developer issues. I don't believe the reallocation is to drive purchases in anyway. When it comes to sales and resales you can't take the developer out of the equation when they're still actively selling.

And you don’t think that this factors into your acceptance of the reallocation?!? Why would you care then if members are paying more & getting less? Your points are renting for the same and it could translate to less work on your part. More points per transaction = less transactions...

100% no, I don't work that way. In reality this likely hurts me and it certainly doesn't help me. But it doesn't matter, I look at thing from a legal and contractual standpoint as well as my principles, not how they affect me personally, at least in terms of my opinion on what should be done. How it affects me is a separate issue. That's one of the problems here and certainly one of the problems we saw with the valet parking discussions a few years ago, some simply can't separate them, I can and routinely do. I don't care if members are paying more and getting less, I care that they know that and can make the best decisions possible, that they have the information because I care about people.

 

[cruisin5]

Could they lower the booking windows for resale buyers? For example, the existing 11/7 is only for direct points while resale is 9/5 or perhaps just 5?

That would certainly affect the resale market.

 

[Dean]

Could they lower the booking windows for resale buyers? For example, the existing 11/7 is only for direct points while resale is 9/5 or perhaps just 5?

That would certainly affect the resale market.

Not for the current DVC but they might be able to for a new system.

 

[Madame]

The sale and resale issues are developer issues. DVCMC then has to manage the resorts based on that information. The perks are developer issues. I don't believe the reallocation is to drive purchases in anyway. When it comes to sales and resales you can't take the developer out of the equation when they're still actively selling.


100% no, I don't work that way. In reality this likely hurts me and it certainly doesn't help me. But it doesn't matter, I look at thing from a legal and contractual standpoint as well as my principles, not how they affect me personally, at least in terms of my opinion on what should be done. How it affects me is a separate issue. That's one of the problems here and certainly one of the problems we saw with the valet parking discussions a few years ago, some simply can't separate them, I can and routinely do. I don't care if members are paying more and getting less, I care that they know that and can make the best decisions possible, that they have the information because I care about people.

We aren’t talking about a perk like valet parking. This is literally the functioning and management of our real estate interest.

Everyone’s view is coloured by personal interest.

 

[vacationer1954]

Well then I guess they’d also care about how much over the rate of inflation they paid than owners who bought in earlier.

They don't.

 

[vacationer1954]

Yes, but we were not discussing the developper, but rather the retail purchaser & how they are being manipulated.

Actually, we are discussing the developer, and why they do what they do.

 

[vacationer1954]

But it doesn't matter, I look at thing from a legal and contractual standpoint as well as my principles, not how they affect me personally, at least in terms of my opinion on what should be done. How it affects me is a separate issue. That's one of the problems here and certainly one of the problems we saw with the valet parking discussions a few years ago, some simply can't separate them, I can and routinely do. I don't care if members are paying more and getting less, I care that they know that and can make the best decisions possible, that they have the information because I care about people.

I think that it is essential for people to look at things the way you look at them, and not just with regard to this but with regard to practically everything where money or agreements between people are involved.

 

[Madame]

They don't.

Actually, we are discussing the developer, and why they do what they do.

Ok.

 

[Bing Showei]

How it affects me is a separate issue. That's one of the problems here and certainly one of the problems we saw with the valet parking discussions a few years ago, some simply can't separate them, I can and routinely do.

While there is no doubt about how principled you are in that respect, Dean, I know for a lot of the more vocal people in this thread who have taken issue with the reallocation, we are not personally affected all that much by the change.

But that is not to say you alone are speaking out on principle. Skier_pete has mentioned repeatedly that the increase in studios, something he understands and accepts, would be the one change that would affect him most. And yet, I haven't seen him once complain about that.

The principles that have driven our vocal objections have been around the logic of the change. AKV-Value going down in price, 1BRs going up in price, etc. Not trying to rehash the data debate, just pointing out that a lot of us are not upset because of the personal impact of this change, it's what appears to be the lack of transparency and failure on DVCMCs part to appropriately address this change, and from early contacts, their refusal to supply any support for their position.

A lot of us don't share your trust in DVD/DVCMC/TWDC; that they will always operate in good faith. In the absence of that trust, we will (and should) question things that don't make sense to us. Have some of us (and I definitely include myself in this subgroup) gone too far in our language and tone in adopting a guilty until proven innocent position? Maybe? Probably? But DVCMC bears some responsibility in how they have handled this whole thing. From waiting until after the condo meeting, quietly releasing it during the holidays, and refusing to providing justification/guidance, they have done themselves no favors.

 

[Dean]

We aren’t talking about a perk like valet parking. This is literally the functioning and management of our real estate interest.

Everyone’s view is coloured by personal interest.

Sales are developer and every resale is developer/DVD related. I would agree that our opinions are our own and are colored by personal experiences, I am confident that I have been dramatically consistent over MANY years in separating the 2 with DVC/DVC and in specifying when appropriate. I think even those who routinely take a different stance would vouch for my consistency in that area.

While there is no doubt about how principled you are in that respect, Dean, I know for a lot of the more vocal people in this thread who have taken issue with the reallocation, we are not personally affected all that much by the change.

But that is not to say you alone are speaking out on principle. Skier_pete has mentioned repeatedly that the increase in studios, something he understands and accepts, would be the one change that would affect him most. And yet, I haven't seen him once complain about that.

The principles that have driven our vocal objections have been around the logic of the change. AKV-Value going down in price, 1BRs going up in price, etc. Not trying to rehash the data debate, just pointing out that a lot of us are not upset because of the personal impact of this change, it's what appears to be the lack of transparency and failure on DVCMCs part to appropriately address this change, and from early contacts, their refusal to supply any support for their position.

A lot of us don't share your trust in DVD/DVCMC/TWDC; that they will always operate in good faith. In the absence of that trust, we will (and should) question things that don't make sense to us. Have some of us (and I definitely include myself in this subgroup) gone too far in our language and tone in adopting a guilty until proven innocent position? Maybe? Probably? But DVCMC bears some responsibility in how they have handled this whole thing. From waiting until after the condo meeting, quietly releasing it during the holidays, and refusing to providing justification/guidance, they have done themselves no favors.

As I noted, if I didn't have a certain amount of trust, I'd act, and it wouldn't be soliciting a Mickey Mouse class action suit (pun intended). But I would not continue to play in the sandbox long term having that opinion, esp when there are easy exit options. If there weren't true options, it might be different. I'd either sell or go meet directly with them. After that I'd either sell or move up the legal ladder. It's just like continuing to frequent a restaurant with good food but they are consistently rude with bad service. Or continuing to go to a physician where you routinely have to wait 3 hours but you like them when you see them AND there are other good options. It is NOT that one has to own DVC to go to Disney or even stay at DVC resorts.