NO MORE free valet parking for DVC members.

[disneynutz]

Our dues covered valet at $10 but not at $12. That's a $2 short fall.

DVC collects dues from 150,000 or so members and lets say the average member owns 150 points. If DVC raises the dues by $.02, that's $450,000 dollars or 225,000 valet parks.

Something doesn't seem right.

Bill

 

[tjkraz]

Our dues covered valet at $10 but not at $12. That's a $2 short fall.

Member dues are not currently being used to subsidize valet parking. The increase in cost to members would have been the full $12 per vehicle.

 

[disneynutz]

Member dues are not currently being used to subsidize valet parking. The increase in cost to members would have been the full $12 per vehicle.

I can't believe that the Valet contractor Mears/Bags wasn't being paid by someone. Doesn't our dues cover common area expenses and transportation and wouldn't a portion of that pay for the Valet contract?

Bill

 

[Chuck S]

It is possible that Mears was being paid by DVC Marketing at a much lower negotiated price than $10. Sales are down, and they don't want that expense any longer, and Mears wants more $ per car.

 

[crisi]

I can't believe that the Valet contractor Mears/Bags wasn't being paid by someone. Doesn't our dues cover common area expenses and transportation and wouldn't a portion of that pay for the Valet contract?

Bill

Mears apparently 'gave' DVC 'free' valet in order to get the original valet contract or it was being paid by DVD marketing.

Prior to that it was a fixed cost for the hotels - they employed the valets and paid them $X an hour whether they were parking cars or not. The revenue from cash guests would go to the hotel, and they didn't get revenue from the DVC side. At that point (which was several years ago) we might have reimbursed the hotel for via dues, the DVD marketing arm might have reimbursed them as a sales expense, or the hotels might have said "don't worry about it, we pay these guys anyway."

 

[KAMLEM]

maybe a parking garage should be built more spaces would be available.

Who's going to pay for that?

 

[NJmouse]

Do not forget that it is not just a DVC resort it also has the Inn and the Convention Center that brings in money. Why does it seem like everyone thinks the DVC is paying for everything?

 

[Chuck S]

Do not forget that it is not just a DVC resort it also has the Inn and the Convention Center that brings in money. Why does it seem like everyone thinks the DVC is paying for everything?

But surely even DVCs share of a parking structure would be a substantial cost, and that payment would come from....?

 

[hakepb]

But surely even DVCs share of a parking structure would be a substantial cost, and that payment would come from....?

I almost wonder if Mears was going to bill the resorts differently, based on usage. Then the resultant fees wind up "socking" BWV with a much higher cost (because Valet is used most there) then BWV members with the highes DVC dues wonder why their dues went up $.25 more than others and/or the resulting charge to BLT would push the new 2010 BLT dues above $4 a point and DVC sales said "no way" we want to sell BLT at a premium $120/point because there are currently low (<$4) dues...

 

[hakepb]

Who's going to pay for that?

Parking garages have to be very, very expensive. You only see them if there is no available real-esate to build a flat lot on, and Disney has a lot of real estate

I'm certain it would be much cheaper to build an air-conditioned, covered walkway to across-the-street than build a parking deck.

 

[jade1]

I am not really interested in paying dues for free valet parking as I've used it twice since 2002.

About the same as us, but we might gladly contribute if we knew what the cost would be.

 

[TDC Nala]

Why go out of the way to have valet parking included? Valet parking is not something most would use unless in fact it's free. Especially at WDW where it's entirely possible to get around without having a car.

Be fine, I think, for those who like valet parking to be able to access a discounted or prepaid version if free won't do. But those who do not bring cars should not be asked to subsidize valet parking for those who do.

 

[Dean]

The strange thing is that we DO ask for this....we ask that our dues remain low. I'm willing to bet that of all the complaints DVC gets over the course of the year, the calls and emails they get when dues are released make any other single complain (except maybe housekeeping) pale in comparison.

DVC management has a difficult task. They have to give members the quality they are looking for at a value. This economy has to be particularly difficult - they have to be aware that a lot of their members are struggling with lower business volume, smaller bonuses, lost jobs, income cuts - just the threads on this board in the past year indicate that this is a tough time. They don't want to devalue their product by having even more resales hit the market because people can't afford dues - and some of the management probably even has human feelings and empathy.

I agree, well stated. I don't think it's strange at all, I expect them do keep costs low but do a good job. That DOES mean tough choices at times and it also means not everyone will be happy with every decision, esp with the way times are right now.

Our dues covered valet at $10 but not at $12. That's a $2 short fall.

DVC collects dues from 150,000 or so members and lets say the average member owns 150 points. If DVC raises the dues by $.02, that's $450,000 dollars or 225,000 valet parks.

Something doesn't seem right.

Bill

It is my understanding that this is not the entire picture. It is not as simple as going from $10 to $12 or $2 extra per DVC car per day spread out over the entire membership. IF that were the case, it likely would be a reasonable choice to just suck it up and roll it into dues. My understanding is there is a much larger expense that just the proportionate increase. That there were other discounts in the contract that are going away so instead of a $2 per DVC car per day increase it's a much larger per day increase. Still, none of us have the facts of the case enough to make a rational decision as to specifics, all we can do is speculate and talk about generalities. It's certainly possible that it was truly free for the DVC members. From Mears standpoint it could have been reasonable to do so. They get the contract and the tips go to pay their personnel even if they themselves get nothing for those DVC cars parked. They look at the entire project from a large picture standpoint. Then along comes the economy issues which put a squeeze on them so they in turn put a squeeze on Disney which has to decide whether to take it back over or give in to demands.

A parking garage might be reasonable for certain situations, esp at places like BWV, GF and CR where there are convention centers. Obviously someone has to pay for it and that would be spread out over all involved but over years and there are other potential savings long term. Obviously you'd only go to the aggravation and expense if ti were truly necessary.

 

[jade1]

Why go out of the way to have valet parking included? Valet parking is not something most would use unless in fact it's free. Especially at WDW where it's entirely possible to get around without having a car.

Be fine, I think, for those who like valet parking to be able to access a discounted or prepaid version if free won't do. But those who do not bring cars should not be asked to subsidize valet parking for those who do.

Can't disagree for some of you (or most of you), but again, we might be glad to contribute to it since we may want to use it some day (maybe when ME goes to $25 ea) and also we feel some things make a membership more upscale instead of generic-cost is a factor for us though, but nobody seems to have a clue what it would be. It never bothered me in the least for the last 3 or 4 years that folks that did not use ME like we did, were using free valet parking-and I assumed all along that was from our dues and was more than happy for them. Why would I suddenly be against it now?

 

[photobob]

Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that the only thing that we as owners can do is speculate as to the reasoning this was done? We don't get answers, we just have to take an educated guess. It sure would be easier to handle if we got solid reasoning from DVC instead of vague, generic statements that we will no longer have a given perk. I'm not saying that there isn't solid reasoning behind it, we just aren't given the info which leads to the speculation which sometimes can grow wildly. There would be no reason for the speculation if we were kept in the know!

 

[Chuck S]

Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that the only thing that we as owners can do is speculate as to the reasoning this was done? We don't get answers, we just have to take an educated guess. It sure would be easier to handle if we got solid reasoning from DVC instead of vague, generic statements that we will no longer have a given perk. I'm not saying that there isn't solid reasoning behind it, we just aren't given the info which leads to the speculation which sometimes can grow wildly. There would be no reason for the speculation if we were kept in the know!

It really doesn't bother me, except from a "curious of the reason" type thing. All businesses generally keep their contract negotiations confidential. They have, in a sense, given a reason...to keep dues costs down. I don't think we need to know every detail, anymore than it would be a good idea to have members vote on such things. It's a perk, not a change to our ownership, and like all perks, subject to change or cancellation at anytime. Simple as that.

 

[Dean]

Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that the only thing that we as owners can do is speculate as to the reasoning this was done? We don't get answers, we just have to take an educated guess. It sure would be easier to handle if we got solid reasoning from DVC instead of vague, generic statements that we will no longer have a given perk. I'm not saying that there isn't solid reasoning behind it, we just aren't given the info which leads to the speculation which sometimes can grow wildly. There would be no reason for the speculation if we were kept in the know!

If it were important to me, I'd find out. There are ways to get more info as I've posted already on this thread. To get specific contract info it's likely to take a visit to corporate but I doubt it'd be difficult to get enough specifics by phone to be comfortable in the decision if one were so inclined to put the time and effort into it.

 

[toocherie]

If it were important to me, I'd find out. There are ways to get more info as I've posted already on this thread. To get specific contract info it's likely to take a visit to corporate but I doubt it'd be difficult to get enough specifics by phone to be comfortable in the decision if one were so inclined to put the time and effort into it.

Dean: I am planning on finding out the names and addresses of the board and asking specific questions and voicing concerns about communication--even if they have the right and are justified in making these decisions, it isn't right to spring it on the membership like they do--if I had been in the middle of a vacation and the policy changed I would have been really steamed--being that it's a couple of weeks after the policy change that I will be at WDW I am only slightly steamed. And being that I am paying cash at BWI the first two nights (and would have to pay valet anyway) and then moving to SSR it probably will be a non-issue for THIS trip. I will be most interested to discover what rights the membership has--if any--to get information. I suspect it's extremely limited--not like a homeowners' association where you have the right to get info. However, there also may be some Florida statutes governing the dispensing of info.

 

[Dean]

Dean: I am planning on finding out the names and addresses of the board and asking specific questions and voicing concerns about communication--even if they have the right and are justified in making these decisions, it isn't right to spring it on the membership like they do--if I had been in the middle of a vacation and the policy changed I would have been really steamed--being that it's a couple of weeks after the policy change that I will be at WDW I am only slightly steamed. And being that I am paying cash at BWI the first two nights (and would have to pay valet anyway) and then moving to SSR it probably will be a non-issue for THIS trip. I will be most interested to discover what rights the membership has--if any--to get information. I suspect it's extremely limited--not like a homeowners' association where you have the right to get info. However, there also may be some Florida statutes governing the dispensing of info.

I posted a few pages back how I would have approached and implemented it. No argument on the implementation, very poor and really no excuse to do it the way it was done. Not saying it didn't have to be short notice, I don't know, but IF it had to be short notice, they didn't approach it like it was an emergency they needed to respond to as they should have. With that and a few other poorly implemented issues the last couple of years I can certainly understand those that are concerned, waiting for the other shoe to drop and is this just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. Given these are not contractual issues, there are no notification requirements and therefore no legal rules or laws to break in that area. I hesitate to post the voting rep because even though I know the person who it was is still there, I don't know if they're still the voting rep currently. That's where I'd start if it were I. If that didn't satisfy my need for info, I'd ask the voting rep who the VP was in charge of that area and ask to speak to them. If that didn't work out for some reason, I'd schedule a trip to go visit them as per our legal right under FL law. BTW, I've done it once already, to my knowledge I'm the only one who's done so. My purpose wasn't the same as in this thread, I just wanted to do it to see how it'd go. One thing to note is that you'll only have legal access to contracts directly with DVC, not with the resorts or DVD. BTW, the person who was the voting rep is very good, very upfront but not patronizing. That's not to say their going to give you a lot of info, I doubt they'll share absolute specifics on contracts and the like but I would expect they'd share enough info you're comfortable that they made either the right or wrong decision based on the specifics. The problem is going to be when those that aren't really interested in finding out information but just on trying to change their mind get involved. Lastly members have the right to non binding arbitration if they want to go that far, actually it is a requirement prior to legal action for most areas.

 

[crisi]

Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that the only thing that we as owners can do is speculate as to the reasoning this was done?

No....I'm in corporate contract negotiations now and a few audits and I can't keep my own STAFF informed of what is happening or why things are being done. And even once the contract is done and signed or the audit completed, there are a lot of things I can't share with my staff. And these are internal things. Nor is every reason for every business decision made above me shared with me.