Non Home Resort and Dues

[disneynutz]

I have a question about the dues process.

Many people post that they purchased or will purchase at the home resort with the less cost per point, or the cheapest dues, with little intention of staying there.

That means that the most popular resorts will always be booked and as a result have more wear and tear and require additional maintenance. The cost of this maintenance is billed to the owners of the popular resort, not the other members staying there.

Is this fair?

What's your opinion?

 

[BirdsOfPreyDave]

Yes, people can trade into a resort that has higher maintenance fees than the one at which they own, but only after owners have had the first opportunity to book those rooms. That four-month booking advantage is the premium you're "buying" by owning at one resort over another. I think it's an individual choice as to whether this perk is worth the expense of a particular resorts maintenance fees.

Are you advocating doing away with the ability to book at non-home resorts? In my eye, that's one of the biggest benefits to DVC -- the ability to return to WDW year after year, and still have new and exciting places to explore.

Another option would be to totally restructure the way DVC is set up, so that there's a single overhead cost for the entire club, with all members paying the same maintenance fee. I'm not a real estate lawyer, but my first impression is that this would be impossible under Florida timeshare laws, as each resort is sold as a separate entity. Someone with a little more savvy on the intricacies of how DVC is organized and how Florida law works can correct me if I'm wrong.

To be honest, I don't think it's that big of a problem. If anyone is truly upset that they're paying an unjust portion of the overall DVC costs because they own at a particular resort, they always have the option of selling and buying at a resort with cheaper fees.

I'm not sure I agree with your wear and tear point.

If rooms are available for non-home members to book, that means the owners are staying somewhere else, and are presumably causing comparable wear and tear at that location. From a strict wear and tear perspective, I think it pretty much works itself out in the end. Repainting a room and replacing furniture at SSR costs about the same as it would at BCV.

I don't necessarily agree with a premise that rooms and furniture wear out faster at one resort over another because of popularity, either. This would presume that large blocks of rooms at the resorts with cheaper maintenance fees sit empty for significant periods of time. Yes, it's easier to book at SSR and OKW than it is at smaller resorts -- but only up to a point. Some DVC resorts may have higher occupancy rates than others, but I'm betting the difference isn't significant. Economic downturn aside, Disney does a darn good job of keeping rooms filled.

 

[JimMIA]

Yes, people can trade into a resort that has higher maintenance fees than the one at which they own, but only after owners have had the first opportunity to book those rooms. That four-month booking advantage is the premium you're "buying" by owning at one resort over another. I think it's an individual choice as to whether this perk is worth the expense of a particular resorts maintenance fees.

Are you advocating doing away with the ability to book at non-home resorts? In my eye, that's one of the biggest benefits to DVC -- the ability to return to WDW year after year, and still have new and exciting places to explore.

Another option would be to totally restructure the way DVC is set up, so that there's a single overhead cost for the entire club, with all members paying the same maintenance fee. I'm not a real estate lawyer, but my first impression is that this would be impossible under Florida timeshare laws, as each resort is sold as a separate entity. Someone with a little more savvy on the intricacies of how DVC is organized and how Florida law works can correct me if I'm wrong.

To be honest, I don't think it's that big of a problem. If anyone is truly upset that they're paying an unjust portion of the overall DVC costs because they own at a particular resort, they always have the option of selling and buying at a resort with cheaper fees.

I'm not sure I agree with your wear and tear point.

If rooms are available for non-home members to book, that means the owners are staying somewhere else, and are presumably causing comparable wear and tear at that location. From a strict wear and tear perspective, I think it pretty much works itself out in the end. Repainting a room and replacing furniture at SSR costs about the same as it would at BCV.

I don't necessarily agree with a premise that rooms and furniture wear out faster at one resort over another because of popularity, either. This would presume that large blocks of rooms at the resorts with cheaper maintenance fees sit empty for significant periods of time. Yes, it's easier to book at SSR and OKW than it is at smaller resorts -- but only up to a point. Some DVC resorts may have higher occupancy rates than others, but I'm betting the difference isn't significant. Economic downturn aside, Disney does a darn good job of keeping rooms filled.

What he said.

 

[bevis]

This kind of goes to the SSR bashing we see here once in a while, as an example.
Personally I don't have a problem with these folks intentions. We are all in the same boat as far as staying at a non-home resort. I will "compete" for a reservation only with BWV owners from 11 months out to 7 months so non-BWV owners are irrelevant to me in this period. Of course if I decide to take a trip within that 7 month window at any DVC resort I will "compete" with all owners and if all that happens to be available is SSR or OKW, which seems to be a major complaint for some, I have no problem whatsoever staying at either of these two.

I suppose my point is that if you can plan your trip more than 7 months out at your home resort, it shouldn't matter where non-owners want to stay-you will already have your reservation.

For me the bigger question is how the folks that purchase a DVC resort without ever (or very rarely) intending to stay there feel the need to complain about no availability at the higher demand resorts within 7 months, especially at certain times of the year.

 

[DenLo]

I don't buy it. The days the rooms are available for renting does not change (51 weeks a year), whether Home Resort members stay there or members coming from another resort or if the rooms are turned over to CRO. Therefore, the wear and tear would be the same no matter who is renting. All of this wear and tear should already be figured into the dues and/or the original investment. The real difference between popular resorts or sections within a resort (like Treehouse Villas) and all the others is that you can't make reservations at a later date. The 11 month rule really comes into play.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I don't buy it. The days the rooms are available for renting does not change (51 weeks a year), whether Home Resort members stay there or members coming from another resort or if the rooms are turned over to CRO. Therefore, the wear and tear would be the same no matter who is renting. All of this wear and tear should already be figured into the dues and/or the original investment. The real difference between popular resorts or sections within a resort (like Treehouse Villas) and all the others is that you can't make reservations at a later date. The 11 month rule really comes into play.

Exactly, the design of timeshares and DVC is no different is stay at a pretty high level of occupancy all year long, thus the seasons in order to entice members to come during less busy times and keep the resort at capacity. Some of the larger resorts don't run into a capacity issues during the most extreme slow periods, but points are sold with the intent to be booked all the time, so wear and tear would be all the same. Reality is there is some variation, but not a ton.

 

[Chuck S]

All DVC resorts are designed to operate at near capacity year round, dues are based upon the total number or points available at a resort and normal upkeep/maintenance costs on the rooms.

Why would a BCV room, for example, cost more upkeep than an OKW room or an SSR room? In truth, it probably doesn't, except for the differences in furnishings, shared common areas and resort amenities. Those upkeep costs will vary. Also the number of points in the resort makes a difference, as we see in BLT...more points designated to the entire resort = lower dues per point.

But actual wear and tear per average guest is likely quite constant no matter the resort or room size.

 

[DVC Mike]

Yes, people can trade into a resort that has higher maintenance fees than the one at which they own, but only after owners have had the first opportunity to book those rooms. That four-month booking advantage is the premium you're "buying" by owning at one resort over another. I think it's an individual choice as to whether this perk is worth the expense of a particular resorts maintenance fees.

I agree.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

This kind of goes to the SSR bashing we see here once in a while, as an example.

Why do folks have the need to keep bringing this "bashing" up? There was or is NO mention of SSR! Now, I bought BLT points to use elsewhere. They have cheaper MF's , will sell faster on the market, and I'll have home resort advantage to use when I need to in harder to book seasons. Since as Chuck mentioned resorts are booked to near capacity, it really makes no difference who is staying in the room.

 

[DebbieB]

You can't guarantee that a certain resort will always have lower dues. Hilton Head is a good example. It used to be one of the lowest, now it's one of the highest.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

You can't guarantee that a certain resort will always have lower dues. Hilton Head is a good example. It used to be one of the lowest, now it's one of the highest.

Lets hope BLT does not go that way!!!

 

[DebbieB]

Lets hope BLT does not go that way!!!

I think HH got hit because of the wind insurance.

 

[crisi]

You can't guarantee that a certain resort will always have lower dues. Hilton Head is a good example. It used to be one of the lowest, now it's one of the highest.

No, but its a pretty good bet that BLT will keep fairly low dues - because it costs more per point to stay there. So more points spread over fewer rooms means fewer dues.

Its the opposite of the BWV situation. BWV has high rooms - but someone here did that math - if you adjust for standard view (fewer points), you get dues almost exactly on par with BCVs.

I suspect BLT will go up a little, but it won't have BWV level dues.

As to the additional wear and tear - don't buy it - as has been mentioned, DVC resorts are usually pretty darn booked on any given night - the smaller resorts just book FASTER. And if I'm paying more dues at BWV, I'm also getting first stab at those standard view rooms, which have pretty low dues per room night because the room nights are so much cheaper.

 

[disneynutz]

Let me add a couple of thoughts.

CRO Guests pay cash for their reservation and I understand that a portion of their payment is used towards the maintenance of the resort. Some resorts seem to always have availability so they book more CRO Guests than others. It would seem that these resorts would collect extra money which would reduce the dues assessment for their owners. Popular resorts would not receive this cash benefit.

Having stayed at several resorts each year for the last several years, I have first hand knowledge that some resorts have more empty rooms than others. The system may be designed to have every room booked, but clearly some owners don't stay at their home resort.

When Hawaii comes on line I would expect a high demand all year round and higher dues due to it's location.

What would happen if non-home members had to transfer a dues payment from their home resort to the resort that they are staying at? X amount of dollars per point as a accounting transaction. Would this be more fair?

 

[Chuck S]

What would happen if non-home members had to transfer a dues payment from their home resort to the resort that they are staying at? X amount of dollars per point as a accounting transaction. Would this be more fair?

It would be a wash, since to trade into a non-home resort that means someone who owns there is likely staying at the other resort, as RCI trades and Disney collection trades turn over the points/rooms to their respective entities, those rooms would not be available to non-home member wantingto trade in.

 

[wdrl]

Let me add a couple of thoughts.

CRO Guests pay cash for their reservation and I understand that a portion of their payment is used towards the maintenance of the resort. Some resorts seem to always have availability so they book more CRO Guests than others. It would seem that these resorts would collect extra money which would reduce the dues assessment for their owners. Popular resorts would not receive this cash benefit.

Are you talking about breakage income, or are you talking about income derived from cash reservations on undeclared accommodations and/or points owned by DVD?

When I look at the 2009 Resorts Budgets, I note that Hilton Head and Vero Beach have the highest Breakage Income budget line items at 0.1311 cents and 0.1680 cents, respectively. Among the WDW resorts, BWV has the highest breakage income at 0.1093 cents. SSR has only 0.0847 in breakage income, while OKW is at 0.0973. While there may be several reasons for this difference in the amount of breakage income by resort, the numbers have me believe that even a popular resort such as BWV benefits from cash reservations.

Now, if you are talking about income derived from CRO cash reservations, I am a little confused. I wasn't aware that DVC received any income from CRO reservations made on undeclared accommodations. I suspect that DVD has to pay the MF for all the points they own or control, but that DVD keeps any income it obtains from "renting" its points to CRO.

 

[disneynutz]

Are you talking about breakage income, or are you talking about income derived from cash reservations on undeclared accommodations and/or points owned by DVD?

When I look at the 2009 Resorts Budgets, I note that Hilton Head and Vero Beach have the highest Breakage Income budget line items at 0.1311 cents and 0.1680 cents, respectively. Among the WDW resorts, BWV has the highest breakage income at 0.1093 cents. SSR has only 0.0847 in breakage income, while OKW is at 0.0973. While there may be several reasons for this difference in the amount of breakage income by resort, the numbers have me believe that even a popular resort such as BWV benefits from cash reservations.

Now, if you are talking about income derived from CRO cash reservations, I am a little confused. I wasn't aware that DVC received any income from CRO reservations made on undeclared accommodations. I suspect that DVD has to pay the MF for all the points they own or control, but that DVD keeps any income it obtains from "renting" its points to CRO.

I thought that there was a 60 day rule where at 60 days all unbooked rooms were made available to CRO. Not the breakage inventory that never seems available for broken rooms, I talking about non reserved rooms.

 

[Chuck S]

I thought that there was a 60 day rule where at 60 days all unbooked rooms were made available to CRO. Not the breakage inventory that never seems available for broken rooms, I talking about non reserved rooms.

The 60 days rooms ARE the breakage inventory that shows on the dues. The maintenance inventory belongs to Disney/DVD, any income derived from that is theirs. The 60 day rooms belong to DVC owners of the resorts.

 

[Sammie]

To me an occupied room is an occupied room. I seriously doubt someone that owns at OKW and books the BWV or BCV is going to cause any more wear and tear on that resort.

Based on conversations with friends that work at the these resorts the occupany percentages stay pretty consistent for each resort irregardless of who is occupying the rooms.