Poly DVC expansion coming 2024!

[MarkNC2Disney]

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.

Plus they can rebalance the bungalow points if they choose. That seems like it has been a boondoggle.

 

[Jlo85]

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,

I guess maybe it's semantics, because from what I can tell BRV's original Public Offering Statement listed the pool and everything else (hot tubs, etc) as 'Recreational Facilities'. It wasn't actually listed as a 'Common Element' until the Common Facilities Agreement was executed for CCV.

 

[Sandisw]

I guess maybe it's semantics, because from what I can tell BRV's original Public Offering Statement listed the pool and everything else (hot tubs, etc) as 'Recreational Facilities'. It wasn't actually listed as a 'Common Element' until the Common Facilities Agreement was executed for CCV.

I would have to go back and look at those specifically as I don not have access to POS handy....stay tuned after I review them. But, unless I misread, the PVB documents references pools in the same way that VGF does...RTU them....

 

[Sandisw]

Plus they can rebalance the bungalow points if they choose. That seems like it has been a boondoggle.

Depends...some believe the way FL timeshare law is written, as well as the POS, that points can not be spread across units...although they have done it as SSR with the treehouses. I don't see any reason though for them to move bungalow points to the Poly tower because to do that, it might require them to sell less points at the Poly tower to keep things in balance...

 

[Jlo85]

I would have to go back and look at those specifically as I don not have access to POS handy....stay tuned after I review them. But, unless I misread, the PVB documents references pools in the same way that VGF does...RTU them....

I do see where you're coming from in that BRV had recreational facilities declared as a part of the association. Though at least in that case, it's clear that Disney didn't want to have to deal with keeping CCV and BRV separate and exclusive. In some ways, this may be a referendum on if BRV / CCV was a good model at all...

PVB (and probably VGF) were instead granted easements to use the shared areas with 'reasonable access' expectations.

But if any of Poly2 will be exclusive, I think it will require some legal changes to Poly1's agreements due to the impact to the 'shared areas' and 'shared area expenses' portions. Even with Poly1 owners only having an easement interest, Disney will still need to define what Poly1 has access to and what they have to pay for.

It probably goes without saying, but I think an 'expansion' is just easier for Disney - legally, administratively, etc. Especially if the alternative is having to control some access to Poly2 or Poly1. And if it is looking at having 4-5 resorts actively for sale, ease might actually be worth something. But as with everything, all speculation.

 

[SLThomas318]

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

I don't know current incentives vs resale prices, but they can do that with VGF and VGF is still selling direct. It's not like everyone goes and buys resale. We continue to purchase direct because the whole process is easier (for us, everyone's opinion is going to vary on that). Even if it is a new association, it's only a matter of time before there will be re-sale poly2 contracts.

 

[Paul Stupin]

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.

Building a new resort tower is a considerably larger piece of business than flipping an old hotel wing in less than 4 months.

If Riviera continues its restrictions, and VDH has them as well, you can bet Poly2 will also. A new monorail resort is a big deal, and sales of restricted points in a separate association will probably go even quicker than VGF2. Poly1 owners can buy there just as easily as if they were adding on. Remember, that Carnac hat was always a joke!

 

[tidefan]

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.

While I agree with your comment, when is the last time a new association was formed that had less than 50 years on the contract?

 

[Cubbiefan1734]

I'm loving this thread. I read one post and think, "That's a great point...its going to be different associations." Then I read the next and think, "Well obviously its going to be the same association."

 

[Sandisw]

I do see where you're coming from in that BRV had recreational facilities declared as a part of the association. Though at least in that case, it's clear that Disney didn't want to have to deal with keeping CCV and BRV separate and exclusive. In some ways, this may be a referendum on if BRV / CCV was a good model at all...

PVB (and probably VGF) were instead granted easements to use the shared areas with 'reasonable access' expectations.

But if any of Poly2 will be exclusive, I think it will require some legal changes to Poly1's agreements due to the impact to the 'shared areas' and 'shared area expenses' portions. Even with Poly1 owners only having an easement interest, Disney will still need to define what Poly1 has access to and what they have to pay for.

It probably goes without saying, but I think an 'expansion' is just easier for Disney - legally, administratively, etc. Especially if the alternative is having to control some access to Poly2 or Poly1. And if it is looking at having 4-5 resorts actively for sale, ease might actually be worth something. But as with everything, all speculation.

I don't think you will see Poly tower exclusive in terms of use in anyway. I think what will happen is the same POS as what PVB currently has with Poly Village resort in that everyone at each has access to everything at the other one and that the expenses that are shared are shared in the same way that they are at all the current hotel/DVC complexes...

But, here is what it says for PVB in terms of Recreational Facilities:

There are no recreational facilities being declared as a part of the Polynesian Villas & Bungalows. Pursuant to the Master Declaration, Owners will have access to certain recreational facilities and other commonly used facilities that are made available to guests of the Polynesian Resort. Consequently, those facilities will be used by renters and guests of the Polynesian Village Resort, Club Members, their guests, exchangers and renters; by renters of Vacation Homes not yet declared as part of the Polynesian Villas & Bungalows; and potentially by owners of interests in property common to the Polynesian Villas & Bungalows under the Master Declaration or in adjoining properties. A portion of the costs of maintenance, repair and replacement of such facilities will be borne by the Owners and shall be assessed to the Owners, pursuant to the terms of the Declaration and the Master Declaration, There is a lien or lien right against each Ownership Interest to secure the payment of these assessments

It also includes this:

Recreational and other Commonlv Used Facilities located outside the Condominium Propertv, Pursuant to the Master Declaration, Owners and Club Members will have access to certain recreational facilities and other commonly used facilities of Dnney's Polynesian Village Resort made available to guests of Disney's Polynesian Village Resort have access to such recreationalfacilities. Those facilities will be used by renters and guests staying at Disney's Polynesian Village Resort, Owners and Club Members, their guests, exchangers and renters; by renters of Vacation Homes; and by owners of interests in property common to Polynesian Villas & Bungalows under the Master Declaration or in adjoining resort properties. Access to and use of these recreational and other commonly used facilities may be limited or closed to the Owners and their respective lessees, guests, invitees and licensees (e.9,, restricted access to a limited number of users during specific hours or during high occupancy periods or for special events) or cease at any time and is governed by the terms of the Master Declaration


Based on this, PVB, owners can indeed be restricted from the use of the current recreational facilities of the Poly as long as it follows the rules of the Master Declaration.

I actually don't think it is easier one way or the other because the shared and common expenses, as well as easements assigned to PVB owners via the POS are all things given to them by TWDC as part of being on their property. DVD only controls the easements, etc. related to the areas compromised in the grounds lease (if I am reading the POS correctly).

If Poly tower is to be a new condo association, like CCV , then the POS for this association will be written in a way that defines how everything will be treated. The only real aspect that has to be included would be the pool. If it is declared as part of the condo, then there needs to be language to discuss access to it, and how it is paid....will be it only for tower guests, or all guests of Poly resort, which would include PVB guests.

If it is not declared as part of the condo, like the other Poly pools currently are, then I would assume the language would be similar to what the current PVB POS says (posted above).

Now, if the tower becomes part of PVB, then the POS doesn't need to be amended at all, unless they declare the pool to be a recreational facility of PVB, and then it has to be updated to include a reciprocal use with TWDC, like it does now for the current pools at WL.

I don't see any situation where the pool at the tower, if rolled into the same association, no matter how declared, will be restricted, to any guest. I actually don't even see it being restricted to Poly tower guests under a new association because of its location to the two longhouses for the Poly Village resort.

I think since this has been announced and is being built at the Poly complex, these little things have already been decided in terms of access to guests, because its being built at a shared location, unlike places like RIV, SSR, and OKW which are stand alone DVC resorts.

That is why I have said that the association designation is not going to change the current and future access to everything that is currently at the Poly...it really makes no sense to have Poly tower pool be restricted to Poly tower guests only...no PVB and no cash guests...as then it would make 100% of the costs the responsibility of the running of it (like is currently the case at BLT...and why CR guests are prohibited).

In reality, it can go either way...even though I will be shocked if it is not designated as a new DVC resort....but even if that happens, the impact on PVB owners in terms of what they can and can not use at the resort now will not change.

 

[Sandisw]

While I agree with your comment, when is the last time a new association was formed that had less than 50 years on the contract?

It has been a long time, but they haven't ever built a ground up new resort, with pool, and other amenities at a shared hotel location that already includes a DVC component, which will be only 8 years old when the new tower is ready for occupancy. CCV and BRV had an 18 year spread.

They also didn't have a policy in place for resale restrictions either before building RIV. So, there are variables in place to consider now that they didn't have to consider before. That is why I don't think anything is off the table and no one should be assume they have to make it 50 years

 

[Jlo85]

I don't see any situation where the pool at the tower, if rolled into the same association, no matter how declared, will be restricted, to any guest. I actually don't even see it being restricted to Poly tower guests under a new association because of its location to the two longhouses for the Poly Village resort.

I do question whether Disney can justify charging PVB owners dues for a pool/amenities on the opposite side of the resort (if it is separate association). Just looking at a map, it does look like double the distance of that between CCV and BRV, and I bet the bungalows are even further. So, whereas somehow they snuck through sharing expenses for those 2 resorts. Not sure it's quite as easy with these 2.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I do question whether Disney can justify charging PVB owners dues for a pool/amenities on the opposite side of the resort (if it is separate association). Just looking at a map, it does look like double the distance of that between CCV and BRV, and I bet the bungalows are even further. So, whereas somehow they snuck through sharing expenses for those 2 resorts. Not sure it's quite as easy with these 2.

Its a 2 minute walk.

 

[Jlo85]

It’s a 2 minute walk.

I show it’s like 6 mins and I’m literally passing 2 other pools on the way. Why am I paying for another pool?

 

[Sandisw]

I do question whether Disney can justify charging PVB owners dues for a pool/amenities on the opposite side of the resort (if it is separate association). Just looking at a map, it does look like double the distance of that between CCV and BRV, and I bet the bungalows are even further. So, whereas somehow they snuck through sharing expenses for those 2 resorts. Not sure it's quite as easy with these 2.

They can if it becomes part of the Poly village resort with access to all guests and it’s expenses are shared like the other pools.

Doesn’t matter the distance. The only way PVB owners will not have to pay for the pool is if it a common element of Poly towers new association and that POS has it restricted to use for only those staying at Poly tower..then all expenses are paid by owners..but I would be surprised to see this happen.

If it is treated in the same way as the current pools.. recreational facility at the location..then the current PVB POS says owners there will share expenses for things they have access too.

The current PVB POS also gives DVD the right to build in and add recreational facilities to the condo association with owners picking up the cost for its operation.. DVD is required ti pay the costs for its build. So, if the tower is rolled into PVB, owners there have already agreed to pay for the costs to run it..how much will depend on whether or not it’s a shared expense with the Poly Village Resort.

Maybe a way to look at things is that Poly Village Resort is a landlord. PVB is renting from them right now and part of that rental is use of everything as long as they pay for a certain share.

If Poly tower is a new association then it’s simply another renter setting up shop and renting from them as well.

PVB owners have agreed to pay their share of expenses for common facilities which means Poly tower components that are deemed common for the complex would count.

The good news is that the amount PVB owners have to pay is determined by occupancy so it’s possible that current owners share of things like the pool and monorail will go down if Poly tower is its own association. as the new Poly tower owners will take on their share of those costs.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Plus they can rebalance the bungalow points if they choose. That seems like it has been a boondoggle.

I've seen this mentioned before, and TBH, know very little about the bungalows and the PVB point charts. Why would DVC have a need or interest in rebalancing the point chart, specifically for the bungalows? Just curious.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I show it’s like 6 mins and I’m literally passing 2 other pools on the way. Why am I paying for another pool?

You could always communicate your intense displeasure to your homeowners representative, circulate a survey for additional support, or perhaps even picket the new pool, with other like minded PVB owners you'd have to find, when it opens! That said, not sure you'd get much support, or that any strategy requiring an expression of even mild dissatisfaction would be the slightest bit effective.

Am not a PVB owner, but aren't those existing pools overrun most of the time, and swarming with kids? Another pool might A) be kinda fun, and B) relieve some of the crowds all around. And if I were an owner, I'd be more upset if I were shut out of a new pool area, especially if it were well designed and had some unique new features, like it probably will.

 

[Sandisw]

I've seen this mentioned before, and TBH, know very little about the bungalows and the PVB point charts. Why would DVC have a need or interest in rebalancing the point chart, specifically for the bungalows? Just curious.

Because the bungalows are so point heavy, they could lower the points required to stay there and move those excess points to the new Poly tower because the points have to go somewhere

Even if this was allowed, it would mean that the number of new points for sale at Poly tower can’t be as many because they have to consider what had already been sold at PVB, since total points at the resorts would still need to balance.

If the new rooms at the Poly tower are going to be more points already, it’d be hard for them to start that way if they want to shift bungalow points.

 

[Jlo85]

You could always communicate your intense displeasure to your homeowners representative, circulate a survey for additional support, or perhaps even picket the new pool, with other like minded PVB owners you'd have to find, when it opens! That said, not sure you'd get much support, or that any strategy requiring an expression of even mild dissatisfaction would be the slightest bit effective.

Am not a PVB owner, but aren't those existing pools overrun most of the time, and swarming with kids? Another pool might A) be kinda fun, and B) relieve some of the crowds all around. And if I were an owner, I'd be more upset if I were shut out of a new pool area, especially if it were well designed and have some unique new features, like it probably will.

No qualms that Disney will do want they want to do, just pointing out some challenges. I think if Poly2 increases Poly1's dues significantly, we could see a subsidized dues situation similar to Aulani. And in that light, I think Disney may be afraid of pushing the envelope with regards to what they can get away with. The conservative (safer) options would be to make it an expansion.

Pools are overrun, but I think they'll be just as bad with a new pool and tower.

 

[Frugal Fairy Tales]

Pools are overrun, but I think they'll be just as bad with a new pool and tower.