Occupancy Thread

[laceemouse]

We are not wealthy, nor do we have mega points, but we did CHOOSE to have 4 kids (no accidents here!) Therefor, we must accept that responsibility and a) get a large enough unit for all of us (or 2 regular hotel rooms) or b) STAY HOME! I find it hard to feel sorry for people who have large families unless they got a whole bunch of surprises, most of us learned a long time ago what causes babies. People are more important than things or trips, but most people who want to travel, eat out, and enjoy the finer things in life LIMIT their family size so they can AFFORD the lifestyle they WANT to have. We have 4 kids and RARELY do I see a family larger than ours at WDW (or eating out for that matter!) I'm not knocking larger families, I tryed to talk DH into at least one more for us, but I would never turn around now and complain about how expensive it is for us to travel. Also, I just can't understand how people can enjoy sqeezing into a too small unit. Maybe it will be okay when the kids are small, but when puberty hits forget it! Our crew would come to blows if we made a bunch of them sleep together, wait in line for the bathroom, ect. We like to ENJOY our vacations!!!! JMO.

 

[Doctor P]

Originally posted by Desperado
But, that's between me and MS, right? Funny how people with smaller families take it upon themselves to be so smug on this issue.

Actually, I disagree strongly with both statements. When the occupancy limits are in the condominium declarations (which they are), it is NOT between you and MS--every owner has a right and an interest in seeking to have the declarations enforced. I find it fascinating how many owners apparently do not read what they sign (even though it is in both the POS documents and the summary statement of declarations that is signed by every owner) or choose to argue that what they signed doesn't matter. Just wondering whether that is their same approach with all contracts they sign--if it is something I don't like or agree with I will just ignore it.

That said, 2 adults and three kids in a studio is not going to bend me out of shape, but I'm not sure where you draw the line.

 

[tjkraz]

As I said in my last post on this topic, I am very sympathetic toward families with 5 or 6 children because there really isn't a good DVC "fit".

But when folks come here who are totally (or moderately) ignorant regarding DVC, they have a right to receive the textbook answer to their question. The fact that some people tend to subscribe to the "don't ask, don't tell" mentality certainly doesn't mean that they are any more correct than others who reply stating the FACTS.

Personally, I'd consider myself a "moderate" on this topic. If someone asks, I'll cite the rules. But that doesn't mean I'm passing judgement on those who choose to operate outside of the rules.

At the same time, I don't think it's fair to give a potential member the impression that they can do whatever they want for the next 40 years. Our contracts state occupancy limits in black and white. If DVC chooses to begin enforcing those limits, that is well within their rights.

As long as DVC continues to be wishy-washy on the matter, no one answer is more correct than the other. Potential members have a right to hear both arguments and make their own decision.

Frankly, to introduce an element of class warfare into the discussion is presumptuous and juvenile.

 

[DisneyKidds]

So we figured out how many points it would take to stay in a two bedroom for a week in Premiere season and bought accordingly. For now we can get by with a one bedroom so we can use the extra points to extend the length of our stay, go more often, or invite guests. When we need the space of the 2BR, we'll be set.

Same here. We were very blessed to have the opportunity to be able to plan for the future. In the mean time we've had more trips and a few rentals.

On the occupancy issue.......sorry, haven't read the whole thread for obvious reasons. 5 in a studio, if it includes a child under 3, is fine. Even if you don't intend to use the pack and play, they will take the ressie and you can sleep the crew however you like. If you have a 4 yo....5 yo......will they stop you if you only made the reservation for 4? Probably not. I won't go near the "should you" question..............

Taking the reservation. That is key to me. If MS will take a reservation I have to assume it is "legal" under the contract. After all, we aren't all lawyers and the contracts aren't as black and white as one would think. (Are "Sleeps" and "Occupancy" one in the same.........?) Anyway, it seems that they may not be taking reservations for 5 in a studio now if the children are older than 3. That is a pretty clear answer to the studio occupancy question for me. Of course we are one of those families of 5 and would love to use a studio as long as possible, but I think by the time our youngest is 3 we are planning on fewer trip and using a 1BR (whew!).

My question is with a 1BR. In all the literature is says a 1BR sleeps 4. However, it seems MS is guiding families of 5 to 1BR's. I happen to think that it's rediculous that a studio and 1BR should be limited to the same occupancy. Of course, I have a vested interest . But it seems to make sense to me that, while it only has bedding to sleep 4, a 1BR could and should accomodate more people. Anyone know if that is now officially the case, what with MS not only taking, but suggesting, 1BR's for a family of 5?

 

[pplasky]

Originally posted by laceemouse
We are not wealthy, nor do we have mega points, but we did CHOOSE to have 4 kids (no accidents here!) Therefor, we must accept that responsibility and a) get a large enough unit for all of us (or 2 regular hotel rooms) or b) STAY HOME! I find it hard to feel sorry for people who have large families unless they got a whole bunch of surprises, most of us learned a long time ago what causes babies. People are more important than things or trips, but most people who want to travel, eat out, and enjoy the finer things in life LIMIT their family size so they can AFFORD the lifestyle they WANT to have. We have 4 kids and RARELY do I see a family larger than ours at WDW (or eating out for that matter!) I'm not knocking larger families, I tryed to talk DH into at least one more for us, but I would never turn around now and complain about how expensive it is for us to travel. Also, I just can't understand how people can enjoy sqeezing into a too small unit. Maybe it will be okay when the kids are small, but when puberty hits forget it! Our crew would come to blows if we made a bunch of them sleep together, wait in line for the bathroom, ect. We like to ENJOY our vacations!!!! JMO.

Just for the record, we have 5 children. On our next trip, we will only be taking three(all 7, and it was a surprise), so a smaller unit would work. I was not complaining that we have to pay more or how life is unfair. I just wanted to give others a heads up on what happened with our ressie for future referance.

 

[MELSMICE]

Originally posted by laceemouse
I find it hard to feel sorry for people who have large families unless they got a whole bunch of surprises, most of us learned a long time ago what causes babies.

Be careful to pass judgment - I do know what "causes babies" but I sure was surprised when I found out I was having twins, so instead of my family growing to 4, we instantly added another member!!!

Obviously, I wouldn't change a thing & I also don't feel sorry for people that have large families - I think they are truly blessed, but it would be nice to have another option instead of going from a studio or 1BR right up to a 2BR if you have more than 4 people. I still think it would be nice to offer a 1BR that has 2 queens in the bedroom & will sleep 6, however, I don't think that is going to happen. Oh well!

 

[Johnnie Fedora]

Pull out your POS and read all the do's and don't listed; many of these may or may not be enforced. My guess would be that most members violate something listed in the POS at one time or another. For some reason, the occupancy issue gets people all gorked, but occupancy should be no more or less important than any of the "rules". Not really sure why that is. I'm just glad that most DVCers are to busy vacationing to really care what minor POS violations are occuring while they are staying at a DVC resort.

 

[lenshanem]

Actually, I only have two kids so if we are staying in a studio or a one bedroom we are within the limits. I just find it rather amusing how worked up people get on this issue. (And usually it is people that either have two or less kids, are empty nesters and/or have mega points.)
It does not bother me in the least if the family next door to us has a third child in their one bedroom or even studio for that matter sleeping on an aerobed.
I hope they have a fun time!

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by tjkraz
As I said in my last post on this topic, I am very sympathetic toward families with 5 or 6 children because there really isn't a good DVC "fit".

Actually there is a good fit for a family of 7 or 8 (5 or 6 kids), it's a 2 BR. Even for a total of 5 or 6 (3 or 4 kids), they will quickly out grow a 1 BR option.

Even the 4 plus a child under 3 is a stretch beyond the written rules, though a reasonable one.

Pull out your POS and read all the do's and don't listed; many of these may or may not be enforced. My guess would be that most members violate something listed in the POS at one time or another. For some reason, the occupancy issue gets people all gorked, but occupancy should be no more or less important than any of the "rules". Not really sure why that is. I'm just glad that most DVCers are to busy vacationing to really care what minor POS violations are occuring while they are staying at a DVC resort.

I doubt that's true for most of us when it comes to DVC but even if it is, I don't see the bearing on the discussion at hand. It's like when your teenager says "but everyone else gets to..." And the idea that someone else might go 2 miles over the speed limit or any other common violation, does not lessen the reasonableness of enforcing these rules, nor should it entitle another to violating them.

 

[Desperado]

Originally posted by Doctor P
....it is NOT between you and MS....

Baloney.

That said, 2 adults and three kids in a studio is not going to bend me out of shape, but I'm not sure where you draw the line. [/B]

There we go. The guidelines of 4 max in a studio, 5 max in a one bedroom and 8 in a two bedroom seems reasonble to me. Certainly 3 kids and two adults can be very comfortable in a one bedroom and fall well within the square footage But, that's between me and MS.

 

[Desperado]

Originally posted by MELSMICE
Be careful to pass judgment....

Well said, seems the smug label is becoming more and more applicable.....


Live long and prosper.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by Desperado

There we go. The guidelines of 4 max in a studio, 5 max in a one bedroom and 8 in a two bedroom seems reasonble to me. Certainly 3 kids and two adults can be very comfortable in a one bedroom and fall well within the square footage But, that's between me and MS.

The guidelines are already set, see legal paperwork and POS. The issue is where is the breaking point of MS and the resorts looking the other way.

 

[pplasky]

The fact remains that there will always be people breaking the rules. Truth be told, when MS told me a studio would be to small, I could have simply called back at a later date for the studio and said I only had two children. I decided the extra space would be nice, even though we had to cut two days off our trip. No matter what is said here, people are going to do what they want to do, and if MS lets them make these types of ressies most of the time, it is just that much easier.

 

[laceemouse]

I just have to say that I am really a moderate on this issue too. I am not for night raids to make sure no one is breaking the rules, however, I don't see how you could "sneak someone in." If you drive your own car at OKW and leave folks in the car maybe, but if you use valet they will SEE all the people that you have, unless you put a kids in a suitcase or something LOL. Again, when little kids are the issue, or maybe older kids that are all the same sex, you may be able to squeeze more in. After puberty kids want "privacy" and I don't blame them. My son is 9 and really doesn't want to sleep in the same bed with one of his sisters anymore. For the record, we own another T/S which we trade and most of the condos we have stayed in are similar to DVC in layout. It is all worth it to me for that extra bathroom, but then I have 3 girls. An all boy family could be a totally different story. I just don't want to spend my vacation yelling at DD13 and DD11 to hurry up and get out of the bathroom!

 

[CVW]

Originally posted by Johnnie Fedora
most members violate something listed in the POS at one time or another. For some reason, the occupancy issue gets people all gorked, but occupancy should be no more or less important than any of the "rules".

to which Dean replies:

Originally posted by Dean
I don't see the bearing on the discussion at hand. It's like when your teenager says "but everyone else gets to...And the idea that someone else might go 2 miles over the speed limit or any other common violation, does not lessen the reasonableness of enforcing these rules, nor should it entitle another to violating them. "

Easy enough to say, unless you actually have teenagers. Teenagers force you into a lifestyle of either harsh consistency or harsh oppression. (Most of us opt for the latter.) But in the real world, you don't get to pick and choose which rules to enforce. Do we really want DVC to rigidly enforce all rules to the letter of the law?

How willing is everyone else to subject themselves to a good hosing down before they get into their resort pool? And not a quick sprinkle. I mean a meaningful, Serratia and Staph clearing shower.

My wife's a pediatrician. She's willing. Be thankful she's not on these boards. She'll gladly advocate hosing everyone down, hourly pool clearing, and prohibiting the non-potty trained from ever entering a pool. And as a pediatrician, I'm sure you'd agree that prevention of E. coli sepsis needs to be taken seriously. She could care less if pplasky brings her triplets into a 1BR. It's a laughably low priority.

Your passion for room occupancy enforcement is grossly disproportionate with its true importance.

Again, think about it from the perspective of DVC. Their BIGGEST INCENTIVE to enforce occupancy to the letter of the law is to palliate empty nesters, and others who under-occupy their accommodations. (Not their only incentive, but certainly their biggest.)

The BIGGEST INCENTIVE to enforce pool hygiene rules is public health--perhaps preventing a life-threatening infection.

Yet there is no endless thread where an issue like this is discussed. Apparently, no health professional on this web site feels any passion about this.

(I'm just a lowly ophthalmologist. Keep the Acanthamoeba out of the hot tub and I'm happy.)

 

[Doctor P]

Here is the wording from the Product Understanding Checklist that each owner signs as part of the disclosures: "Occupancy in DVC Resort Vacation Homes is limited to 4 persons in a Studio or 1-bedroom, 8 persons in a 2-Bedroom, and 12 persons in a 3-Bedroom Grand Villa."

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by CVW
to which Dean replies:



Easy enough to say, unless you actually have teenagers. Teenagers force you into a lifestyle of either harsh consistency or harsh oppression. (Most of us opt for the latter.) But in the real world, you don't get to pick and choose which rules to enforce. Do we really want DVC to rigidly enforce all rules to the letter of the law?

How willing is everyone else to subject themselves to a good hosing down before they get into their resort pool? And not a quick sprinkle. I mean a meaningful, Serratia and Staph clearing shower.

My wife's a pediatrician. She's willing. Be thankful she's not on these boards. She'll gladly advocate hosing everyone down, hourly pool clearing, and prohibiting the non-potty trained from ever entering a pool. And as a pediatrician, I'm sure you'd agree that prevention of E. coli sepsis needs to be taken seriously. She could care less if pplasky brings her triplets into a 1BR. It's a laughably low priority.

Your passion for room occupancy enforcement is grossly disproportionate with its true importance.

Again, think about it from the perspective of DVC. Their BIGGEST INCENTIVE to enforce occupancy to the letter of the law is to palliate empty nesters, and others who under-occupy their accommodations. (Not their only incentive, but certainly their biggest.)

The BIGGEST INCENTIVE to enforce pool hygiene rules is public health--perhaps preventing a life-threatening infection.

Yet there is no endless thread where an issue like this is discussed. Apparently, no health professional on this web site feels any passion about this.

(I'm just a lowly ophthalmologist. Keep the Acanthamoeba out of the hot tub and I'm happy.)

I have two teenagers, want one? I think that's the problem. To some it's a victimless crime. That's hogwash, IMO. There are real costs and real issues. But to me it's more a symptom of DVC not enforcing rules in general or worse, enforcing them haphazardly. And as a Pediatrician, I'm with you on the showering part but I suspect everyone is. Why, no reason not to be and no downside to agreeing with it. In the occupancy issue, one bends the rules because it's convenient and offers personal benefits. It's no different than taking small items home from the office when everyone else does. But, as I've said before, including previous times this thread came around, the argument at this point is with MS and DVC as long as the member is honest and tells MS the number in the unit. And also as I've said before, members have no basis to complain if it is enforced though I'm sure some will do so anyway.

 

[Johnnie Fedora]

Originally posted by CVW
Yet there is no endless thread where an issue like this is discussed. Apparently, no health professional on this web site feels any passion about this.

Not true, being in health care myself, I've brought this exact point up several times in the past (it's likely buried way back in this mega thread). You stated the negative health impact of bacteria like E. coli O157:H7 very concisely. There have been documented cases of pools being the vector for transmission.

The "showering rule" is a great example of how we DVCers pick and choose which "POS rules" are the most important to us. The "hygiene rule" is likely broken 100 to 1 when compared to the "occupancy rule".

I'm motivated now to pull out my POS and review more rules before retiring tonight...I'll be asleep by pg 2.

 

[DrTomorrow]

Step right up, folks - it's the Battle Of the Health Care Professionals!

In one corner we've got CVW, an ophthalmologist and his pediatrician spouse.

In the other corner is Dean, a pediatrician himself.

And as the wild-card, we've got Johnny Fedora, self-described as "in health care", and making claims about E. coli O157:H7 (which, according to http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/escherichiacoli_g.htm is primarily a foodbourne illness, although it does mention that "swimming in or drinking sewage-contaminated water" is another source of infection. ewwww )

Quite the "appeals to authority" here on the "Occupancy Thread"

But hey, if it helps, I'll say that I'm concerned for BOTH the fire-safety hazards of over-occupancy and the public-health issues of infected/non.toilet.trained swimmers.

I hope that MS enforces occupancy limits AND shower requirements - let's be careful out there.

[This message has been brought to you be the Department of Bemused Incredulity.]


PS I was in health care, way back in 1999. But my Multiple Anterior Cervical Discectomy went fine, and the sent me home the very next day!

 

[Doctor P]

One big difference: I don't think the shower requirements are in the POS or the documents that people sign. I'm not saying one is more important than the other, however one does not have a CONTRACTUAL right to enforcement of the shower policy (though it might still be merited! )