Poly DVC expansion coming 2024!

[Jlo85]

I went down a rabbit hole, and from what I can gather from Copper Creek, CCV and BRV entered into a 'Common Facilities Agreement' basically agreeing that each resort has access to the other's amenities. And BRV (Wilderness Lodge Villas) had to sign-off on it. So, I guess would gauge what might have to happen for Poly2. For sharing facilities, they would need to get the Poly1 association to sign-off. Here is the doc I found, page 98:

https://cdn1.parksmedia.wdprapps.disney.com/media/dvc/en/collateral-docs/vwl-pos-rev-02_16_17.pdf

As a Poly 1 owner, I wouldn't sign-off if there was no material benefit for myself from Poly2.

 

[Sandisw]

I guess my question is if Poly2 has access to everything Poly1 but not vice-versa, it seems like a legal issue to me. If Poly1 see no benefit (for example, decreased dues) and has less access to amenities they are paying dues for. I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like tortious interference to me.

If it is a different association, PVB owners would not be paying dues for any of the operational elements of Poly tower. Therefore, if the pool is a common element, paid for by Poly tower owners…like BLT pool is…and restricted to guests of the tower it doesn’t impact PVB owners who can’t stay there.

The key to this is that all the amenities that current PVB owners have access to are because they share the expenses with the hotel.

Technically, the right to use aspect in the POS for current PvB owners means the hotel could take that away at any time..

In terms of dues, anything that is part of the hotel, is paid for currently by PVB owners and the hotel. Each share is determined by occupancy levels.

If Poly tower is its own association, it’s operating expenses for anything declared as part of it will be paid solely by those owners. They will then pay a share of all the shared expenses for being part of the Poly Village Resort.

So, that would mean all those shared costs get divided by three instead of two, Now, those will go up with more guests, if more staffing, buses, water taxis, etc need to be done but will be split with three vs, two groups.

Same association means that there are two groups splitting the costs and current PvB owners and Poly tower owners will take on a larger share as the DVC portion is increasing in occupancy but the hotel side is not,

If it is all one, then yes, the pool, if declared as a common element can’t be restricted from any owners…which means it would be for those buying resale.

If that pool, as I mentioned above, becomes a resort amenity with all guests having access, including cash, then it won’t matter.

Actually, now that I think about it, if it’s rolled into one, the current POS would have to be amended if they want to limit pool access to tower guests…without a change in language it would fall under being owned and operated by the resort..which is how both pools are currently discussed.

 

[RoseGold]

As a Poly 1 owner, I wouldn't sign-off if there was no material benefit for myself from Poly2.

Well the management company signs for you and it already signed off on worse for you. Namely that RIV can book at your resort and you can't at theirs.

We give them permission to pretty much do whatever they want, even when it obviously hurts us, like one-sided deals with locked down resorts.

 

[Paul Stupin]

Will they, though? For example, with pool hopping still prohibited, would Poly2 have access to the Volcano pool? And it is kind of interesting to think about if resale Poly1 owners would have access to new association Poly2 amenities and vice-versa. Seems like a legal issue to me. Will Poly2 be able to use the water taxi if they aren't paying dues for it? Will they be able to use the beach? Heck, isn't the monorail something we pay dues for?

Like CCV and Boulder Ridge, my guess is that Poly2 owners will indeed have access to the multiple pools, even with the separate association. I believe the Poly1 pools are part of the hotel, not DVC.

 

[Sandisw]

I went down a rabbit hole, and from what I can gather from Copper Creek, CCV and BRV entered into a 'Common Facilities Agreement' basically agreeing that each resort has access to the other's amenities. And BRV (Wilderness Lodge Villas) had to sign-off on it. So, I guess would gauge what might have to happen for Poly2. For sharing facilities, they would need to get the Poly1 association to sign-off. Here is the doc I found, page 98:

https://cdn1.parksmedia.wdprapps.disney.com/media/dvc/en/collateral-docs/vwl-pos-rev-02_16_17.pdf

As a Poly 1 owner, I wouldn't sign-off if there was no material benefit for myself from Poly2.

Oh, actual owners don’t get a real vote on anything. We have representatives that do that for us.

Each unit has one representative and if the owners of that unit want to have input into how their rep votes, you need to get 60% of all owners of that unit together and they can decide on how it votes.

And, the POS only requires a vote if it’s a material change to the contract. Other than that, DVD can amend it if they deem in non material change.

 

[SLThomas318]

The pool looks very close to cash rooms.....I think it would be odd to make it for tower only?

I think they are with holding the details just so we have something to debate on disboards!

 

[Paul Stupin]

I went down a rabbit hole, and from what I can gather from Copper Creek, CCV and BRV entered into a 'Common Facilities Agreement' basically agreeing that each resort has access to the other's amenities. And BRV (Wilderness Lodge Villas) had to sign-off on it. So, I guess would gauge what might have to happen for Poly2. For sharing facilities, they would need to get the Poly1 association to sign-off. Here is the doc I found, page 98:

https://cdn1.parksmedia.wdprapps.disney.com/media/dvc/en/collateral-docs/vwl-pos-rev-02_16_17.pdf

As a Poly 1 owner, I wouldn't sign-off if there was no material benefit for myself from Poly2.

Interesting! I don’t think Poly1 owners would have a vote on this, though, to get the Poly1 association to sign off.

 

[Sandisw]

I went down a rabbit hole, and from what I can gather from Copper Creek, CCV and BRV entered into a 'Common Facilities Agreement' basically agreeing that each resort has access to the other's amenities. And BRV (Wilderness Lodge Villas) had to sign-off on it. So, I guess would gauge what might have to happen for Poly2. For sharing facilities, they would need to get the Poly1 association to sign-off. Here is the doc I found, page 98:

https://cdn1.parksmedia.wdprapps.disney.com/media/dvc/en/collateral-docs/vwl-pos-rev-02_16_17.pdf

As a Poly 1 owner, I wouldn't sign-off if there was no material benefit for myself from Poly2.

Here is the big difference. The one pool was a villas pool and thus in the control of DVD as it was built with VWL.

The main pool belonged to WorldCo, now TWDC…So an agreement was made to allow guests of each to access each…without that deal, BRV owners would not be able to use the main WL pool.

At Poly, the pools existed before DVC as part of it. So, as I shared, there was no need to an agreement like at CCV/BRV because TWDWC owns and operates all the Poly pools,

There would be no need for any PVB owner to sign off on it. Now, the new Poly tower pool might need it if it is declared as a common element…whether it’s a new or same association.

So, two different situations because of who owns the pools. PVB owners dont own the Poly pools.

 

[Paul Stupin]

No, I don't agree with that statement or see evidence to support it. Disney is just like any US cooperation - they live and die quarter to quarter and the leadership will be changed if they have a few bad quarters. They don't care about resale owners staying in new resorts, they care about selling the points and they sell 100% of the points they offer for WDW resorts.

Of course there’s evidence to support it, ie, Riviera still has them! Resale owners cannot book at Riviera, which so far is the only post restrictions new construction DVC resort in the system. To repeat, resale owners are shut out of Riviera, so obviously DVD cares, right?

As Sandi says, if VDH has the restrictions, it will be a pretty strong indication that Poly2 will as well. But I’ve seen no evidence to support the argument that they’re going away.

 

[Sandisw]

Interesting! I don’t think Poly1 owners would have a vote on this, though, to get the Poly1 association to sign off.

See my post above.. the pools at Poly are not part of PVB. The Villa pool at BRV is.

 

[RoseGold]

Of course there’s evidence to support it, ie, Riviera still has them! Resale owners cannot book at Riviera, which so far is the only post restrictions new construction DVC resort in the system. To repeat, resale owners are shut out of Riviera, so obviously DVD cares, right?

This is the best argument for the grandfathered points. It's pretty hard to argue RIV isn't a material chance in the ownership for those resale points, so everyone's resale contracts now say they can't book anything but O14. Thus, I bought knowing that I would never be able to use them.

I still think there's an argument here that flooding my resort with direct points from elsewhere with future properties could be a material change. And I don't think it's a flimsy argument.

If DVC were so confident in these restrictions, I just don't understand why VGF2 didn't use them. It seems like a no-brainer.

 

[Sandisw]

The pool looks very close to cash rooms.....I think it would be odd to make it for tower only?

I think they are with holding the details just so we have something to debate on disboards!

I agree and what I think will happen is an agreement like they did with BRV and WL when it was built.

The new pool will be part of the condo association…new or current…and be open to all guests of the resort no matter where they are staying…Poly Village Resort, PVB or the Poly tower.

 

[Jlo85]

So, two different situations because of who owns the pools. PVB owners dont own the Poly pools.

My understanding is that today CCV and BRV share dues with the hotel for all 3 pools. So, the situation is a little different if you think Poly2 will have an exclusive pool.

I think the 'Common Facilities Agreement' speak more generally to all common facilities and not just condo-specific elements. Like if my dues go to the Poly lobby, I have some say regarding changes to that lobby.

And I do understand that we really have no practical control over the condo association, but those managers get sued everyday for mismanagement. So, I do think Disney is at least cognizant of legal challenges.

 

[tidefan]

The big advantage of DVD using the same association is that they can sell less years on the contract. I believe that is what the real impetus behind VGF2 was. Everyone thinks VGF2 is a great deal b/c of the per point cost, but when you look at the per point cost only being over 40 years instead of 50 years, it makes a difference...

 

[Sandisw]

This is the best argument for the grandfathered points. It's pretty hard to argue RIV isn't a material chance in the ownership for those resale points, so everyone's resale contracts now say they can't book anything but O14. Thus, I bought knowing that I would never be able to use them.

I still think there's an argument here that flooding my resort with direct points from elsewhere with future properties could be a material change. And I don't think it's a flimsy argument.

If DVC were so confident in these restrictions, I just don't understand why VGF2 didn't use them. It seems like a no-brainer.

Trading is allowed only because your home resort is in an agreement with BVTC. It is part of the POS, but that agreement is subject to change.

So, anyone who bought post January 2019, entered into the POS with the new rules..so you didn’t experience a material change to what you bought because it was amended by the time you did.

Grandfathering points bought prior, under the old terms, prevents those owners from claiming harm since they have all the same access as before and yes, I know some don’t think RIV should have been allowed to enter with their own terms.

So, the new DVC Resort agreements with BVTC now say that resale points at any resort can’t trade into RIV, and RIV points can’t trade to them,

If restrictions stay, then it will include new resorts.

 

[CraigInPA]

I'm going out on a limb here, and putting on my Carnac hat...

The Poly2 tower will be a similar mix of rooms to that found in the original VGF, mostly 1 and 2 bedroom, with a few 2 bedroom lock offs and very few dedicated studios. They'll have rooms that are either "Pool View" or "Tower Theme Park View". Points required will be high.

Poly2 will be folded into Poly1. The DVC execs recognize that VGF2 was an opportunity to make some fast cash and deliver studios for the VGF resort that it sorely needed. Plus, running a small resort isn't much cheaper than running a larger resort, as they found out with the VGF1-VGF2 combination, SSR's Treehouse addition, etc... Plus, less legal work to put it into the existing resort. Plus, it's all new view categories, so no overlap with the existing Poly1. Higher point requirements mean that some Poly1 owners will immediately add on to stay in the Tower theme park view studios and the larger 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units. Plus, they'll be selling less than 50 years, which puts the resort back into play sooner. Plus, the Poly2 pool costs can be spread over the entire pool of Poly points, and be "exclusive" to Poly owners unlike the very crowded Volcano and quiet pools.

 

[RoseGold]

The big advantage of DVD using the same association is that they can sell less years on the contract. I believe that is what the real impetus behind VGF2 was. Everyone thinks VGF2 is a great deal b/c of the per point cost, but when you look at the per point cost only being over 40 years instead of 50 years, it makes a difference...

Sure, but they can do that anyway. They can do both less years AND resale restrictions.

 

[Sandisw]

My understanding is that today CCV and BRV share dues with the hotel for all 3 pools. So, the situation is a little different if you think Poly2 will have an exclusive pool.

I think the 'Common Facilities Agreement' speak more generally to all common facilities and not just condo-specific elements. Like if my dues go to the Poly lobby, I have some say regarding changes to that lobby.

And I do understand that we really have no practical control over the condo association, but those managers get sued everyday for mismanagement. So, I do think Disney is at least cognizant of legal challenges.

CCV and BRV owners do pay a share of the common facilities at the resort and the agreement between them and the TWDWC company who owns the resort defines that,

But, TWDWC is still in charge of those common facilities unless they are declared as a common element as part of the condo association. At WL, the pool at BRV is…none of the two pools at Poly are,

So, no, PvB owners do not have a say in what the hotel does with its facilities..like the main lobby…we simply pay a share so we have access to it.

Basically, when DVC resorts were added to existing hotels, DVD got into an agreement with the hotel to allow DVC owners to access all of the common facilities already there.

As I said, access to Poly tower pool will be decided based on how it’s defined in the POS. If they want it to be open to all guests, then it will be Written that way.

If they want it to be exclusive to Poly tower guests only, then it will be written that way,

My guess is that it will not be like BLT, but be like the BRV pool…part of the condo association.…new or old…with the hotel and DVD having the POS written like it was for CCV and for BRV with reciprocal agreements that each has access to the others pools.

Again, current PVB owners do not own any pool so they have no more or less right to use them than any other guest of the complex…and that will include Poly tower guests.

 

[Sandisw]

The big advantage of DVD using the same association is that they can sell less years on the contract. I believe that is what the real impetus behind VGF2 was. Everyone thinks VGF2 is a great deal b/c of the per point cost, but when you look at the per point cost only being over 40 years instead of 50 years, it makes a difference...

Except they are not limited to going with 50 years. We could see the same expiration as PVB, and it still be new with restrctions.

It is why that this can go either way and why DVD has not yet confirmed what they will do…because it doesn’t need to be decided yet and it gives them still another year to confirm one way or the other.

 

[Sandisw]

I'm going out on a limb here, and putting on my Carnac hat...

The Poly2 tower will be a similar mix of rooms to that found in the original VGF, mostly 1 and 2 bedroom, with a few 2 bedroom lock offs and very few dedicated studios. They'll have rooms that are either "Pool View" or "Tower Theme Park View". Points required will be high.

Poly2 will be folded into Poly1. The DVC execs recognize that VGF2 was an opportunity to make some fast cash and deliver studios for the VGF resort that it sorely needed. Plus, running a small resort isn't much cheaper than running a larger resort, as they found out with the VGF1-VGF2 combination, SSR's Treehouse addition, etc... Plus, less legal work to put it into the existing resort. Plus, it's all new view categories, so no overlap with the existing Poly1. Higher point requirements mean that some Poly1 owners will immediately add on to stay in the Tower theme park view studios and the larger 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units. Plus, they'll be selling less than 50 years, which puts the resort back into play sooner. Plus, the Poly2 pool costs can be spread over the entire pool of Poly points, and be "exclusive" to Poly owners unlike the very crowded Volcano and quiet pools.

If it’s the same, wont they just pick up cheaper resale points to do that?

Do you think that Poly resort will want to grant access to their pools still if DVD decides to prevent Poly guests from accessing the Poly tower pool?

I believe the current POS for PVB is written the same way it is for VGF…right to use the pools? I don’t have that POS so can’t confirm.

If they make it the same association but want to restrict access, the current language has to be changed and maybe TWDWC would decide to take away right to use pools? I know the VGF POS gives them the right to take it away at any time…not that I think they would.

So, I really believe no matter what, that all guests will have access to all pools.