Not trying to get a rumor going but I do feel a little concerned...

[supersnoop]

My contract at VWL ends in 2042.....by definition I am not an "owner"...I am a "member"....Disney pedals that owner fiction, and it works for sure.....I am the ultimate "between two worlds" person....I love my DVC membership, but i am very clear it is not the great bargain Disney, and many folks who buy the fantasy would have me believe.....I simply understand i am paying a premium for a preferred vacation

Legally, you are an owner. You own specific real estate. That real estate interest provides a membership in the condo association.

 

[gmboy95]

Legally, you are an owner. You own specific real estate. That real estate interest provides a membership in the condo association.

all due respect....how can i "own" something that I paid for, and eventually gets taken away from me???......by definition that is a rental or a lease

 

[gmboy95]

Legally, you are an owner. You own specific real estate. That real estate interest provides a membership in the condo association.

I own my home and the land around my house....as long as i pay my taxes, it is mine forever....that is ownership.....as of a couple of months ago, I cant even sell my "ownership" interest in DVC "as is"....i would have to sell it to a person as a 'second-class" owner who cant partake in the benefits I allegedly "own"

 

[supersnoop]

all due respect....how can i "own" something that I paid for, and eventually gets taken away from me???......by definition that is a rental or a lease

I own my home and the land around my house....as long as i pay my taxes, it is mine forever....that is ownership.....as of a couple of months ago, I cant even sell my "ownership" interest in DVC "as is"....i would have to sell it to a person as a 'second-class" owner who cant partake in the benefits I allegedly "own"

It's a very common ownership mechanism in some areas. You own the improvements, not the land. Same as if you owned a condo. It is possible to own real estate without owning the land underneath it. In this case, you own it until the land lease expires.

You have certain benefits as a customer of DVD; they provide you those benefits. Selling your ownership doesn't diminish any benefits of ownership. The new owner doesn't get any benefit that you received from being a customer of DVD.

 

[drusba]

^And the same type of lease/ownership arrangement actually exists for the Swan and Dolphin hotels. The land on which those sit is subject to a 99 year lease from Disney. All the improvements, including the buildings, are owned and maintained by the owner of the Swan and Dolphin but when that lease runs out, the land and anything sitting on it, including the buildings, becomes Disney's again. That is a common commercial real estate arrangement.

And if you like reading history, look into the city of Hong Kong to learn how China regained political control of the city in 1997 after a 99 year lease to England ran out.

 

[Dean]

Can you explain the part about the Valet Parking? That was a nice perk, and I hated to see it go. i went to an owners meeting the year they did away with it, and they tried to explain that it was a huge expense, which really didn't seem to be accurate.

While there has been some answers to your question, here's the info as I understand it. As noted, it was being included when the Valet provider was Disney. When the outside company took over, it continued to be free for DVC members (plus tip). When the contract came up for renewal, the outside company was not willing to continue it for free. I presume they hoped the tips and volume would be enough but apparently it wasn't. As I understand it, DVC's option was to pay full price for the DVC members or end the benefit creating pay to play. IMO they correctly made the decision to end it, there really was no other reasonable options. The sad part is they did it badly. No announcement, no lead time, there were those that arrived with free valet and left with charges, apparently in some cases without any knowledge that it was happening. So the right decision, done badly. Still, there were those who felt DVC (the other members) should continue to pay for their free valet parking, that was my reference. Had there been a significant savings in doing so, I would agree with that option but ther's no reasonable person can say it should be covered by DVC at full price.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

While there has been some answers to your question, here's the info as I understand it. As noted, it was being included when the Valet provider was Disney. When the outside company took over, it continued to be free for DVC members (plus tip). When the contract came up for renewal, the outside company was not willing to continue it for free. I presume they hoped the tips and volume would be enough but apparently it wasn't. As I understand it, DVC's option was to pay full price for the DVC members or end the benefit creating pay to play. IMO they correctly made the decision to end it, there really was no other reasonable options. The sad part is they did it badly. No announcement, no lead time, there were those that arrived with free valet and left with charges, apparently in some cases without any knowledge that it was happening. So the right decision, done badly. Still, there were those who felt DVC (the other members) should continue to pay for their free valet parking, that was my reference. Had there been a significant savings in doing so, I would agree with that option but ther's no reasonable person can say it should be covered by DVC at full price.

Sorry, a little off topic, but any idea how Tables in Wonderland makes this work?

MG

 

[Dean]

Sorry, a little off topic, but any idea how Tables in Wonderland makes this work?

MG

I presume they contract for it. Since they're being paid for the service as part of the membership fee, it's a fairly easy calculation. If you figure that only a small % of diners will use it, the cost is fairly small but they can figure it in to the cost of the membership. DVCMC would have to do this as well by adding it to fees. Maint fees for such items usually consider how broad a given option is, whether the item is an integral part of the resort experience or "standard" (like pool or exercise room), whether there is a significant savings due to the economy of scale and whether it's feasible to police it pay to play. In all categories valet parking falls into the side of not being covered. It's not integral for the membership, it's clearly a small portion of the guests, there was apparently NO savings doing it contractually and it's easy to track pay to play. If you buy TIW you're in effect paying for it and if you don't use it, basically paying for someone else who is.

 

[MajorWoody]

While there has been some answers to your question, here's the info as I understand it. As noted, it was being included when the Valet provider was Disney. When the outside company took over, it continued to be free for DVC members (plus tip). When the contract came up for renewal, the outside company was not willing to continue it for free. I presume they hoped the tips and volume would be enough but apparently it wasn't. As I understand it, DVC's option was to pay full price for the DVC members or end the benefit creating pay to play. IMO they correctly made the decision to end it, there really was no other reasonable options. The sad part is they did it badly. No announcement, no lead time, there were those that arrived with free valet and left with charges, apparently in some cases without any knowledge that it was happening. So the right decision, done badly. Still, there were those who felt DVC (the other members) should continue to pay for their free valet parking, that was my reference. Had there been a significant savings in doing so, I would agree with that option but ther's no reasonable person can say it should be covered by DVC at full price.

Thanks for the info. I asked at the owners meeting, probably in 2007 or 2008, and got a basic, generic, Disney non answer.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I presume they contract for it. Since they're being paid for the service as part of the membership fee, it's a fairly easy calculation. If you figure that only a small % of diners will use it, the cost is fairly small but they can figure it in to the cost of the membership. DVCMC would have to do this as well by adding it to fees. Maint fees for such items usually consider how broad a given option is, whether the item is an integral part of the resort experience or "standard" (like pool or exercise room), whether there is a significant savings due to the economy of scale and whether it's feasible to police it pay to play. In all categories valet parking falls into the side of not being covered. It's not integral for the membership, it's clearly a small portion of the guests, there was apparently NO savings doing it contractually and it's easy to track pay to play. If you buy TIW you're in effect paying for it and if you don't use it, basically paying for someone else who is.

Without totally stealing the thread, I will say we are one of the exceptions. We use it, on average, once a week. That's $1250 a year just from us. I'm sure there are lots of vacationers without cars that never use it, but also sure there are others that use it a lot. Especially since it's marketed to a lot of locals.

To the mods:
Again, sorry if that was on a tangent, but it did relate to "how come TiW can do it but DVC can't". That was my intended focus.

MG

 

[Dean]

Without totally stealing the thread, I will say we are one of the exceptions. We use it, on average, once a week. That's $1250 a year just from us. I'm sure there are lots of vacationers without cars that never use it, but also sure there are others that use it a lot. Especially since it's marketed to a lot of locals.

To the mods:
Again, sorry if that was on a tangent, but it did relate to "how come TiW can do it but DVC can't". That was my intended focus.

MG

For TIW it's not $1250 from you but a cost of a likely discounted $1250, guessing a a couple of hundred. Still, the % of people using it is small and if their costs go up too much in that area they'll either remove the option or increase their prices.

 

[keishashadow]

L

Because they own the buildings, but not the land. Once their right to use the land expires (DVD's 50-year lease), everything on top of it belongs to the landowner. It's actually a very common form of real estate in Hawaii.

Common in many high rent districts (waterfront), some condo associations and conversely mobile home communities

Enables buyers to typically buy a home at up to 80 percent less than what the going rate is for a non leasehold agreement property.

I've seen primarily in 2nd, vacation homes but told its very popular in parts of CA currently

Typically, the real estate taxes are paid by land owner with percentage rolled into a monthly rental or HOA fee