With both the new and old set up a given member must decide whether to use it or not. IMO, 5-10¢ a point (my guess) is a lot to pass on to those that did not use it. Plus it's likely that ONLY the resorts that actually have valet would have been paying, not all members which likely pushes the 10¢ a point level or more. While there are items where the costs are shared by all that not everyone uses, there is NOT another item that is comparable to the valet parking that I can think of. The internet option is by far the closest and there is still a major difference there. Ultimately to me the question is why would anyone think others should pay their way. IF there are items that one feels they do not use and the costs should not be shared by all, make that case to
DVC. We've already seen other items (towels, shampoo, etc) go pay to play for extras. There certainly are other areas that could do so including multiple reservation fees, cancelation fees, banking/borrowing fees, etc. The question isn't whether to draw the line but WHERE to draw the line. I wouldn't vote to have the costs shared unless there were a significant economy of scale by doing so and/or there were significant costs in enforcement and my info suggests neither is true in this situation, at least at the present time.
For those that think this should be a shared expense, what rationale would you say to those that don't think so since you'd be trying to convince the majority they should pay for the minorities costs? I don't think that "it was free before", "everyone pays for things they don't use" or "it's only an extra $15-30 out of your pocket" or similar would convince others.
There are perks that are win/win but they all cost nothing or almost nothing like dining and AP discounts. Unfortunately this particular perk is AT BEST win/lose with the majority subsidizing the minority if the costs were rolled into dues. The only question was whether those that used it were going to "lose" by having to pay the costs of whether some that didn't use it were going to lose by subsidizing those that did use it. The only way to make it win/win would be to negotiate a price that cut the TOTAL cost to around 20-30% of what the costs would have been assuming no change in volume after the price change. Of course there could be further losses such as a total loss of valet going forward as well which wouldn't surprise me at the DVC resorts in question.
The members at a given resort pay a prorated portion of transportation and other items for that resort only. If I recall correctly they use a formula that approximates the number of people occupying a given resort for each year and for the mixed use properties, prorate the costs between the DVC and none DVC component. When a given item also is shared with other resorts, they use the same formula to calculate the costs to each resort. This all came to the forefront a few years ago with transportation costs for BWV & BCV.
). It reeks of a breakdown in negotiations. 
