Poly Room Category Thoughts?

[Dean]

Any idea on what units have been declared. Can DVD change the point requirements on the units not declared yet?

Bill

I haven't followed what is and isn't declared but technically they could change the points required if they chose to but within a framework. This is exactly wha happened at BWV though some feel it was a planned move. However, they'd have to change the mix of views in order to do so, they couldn't just change the numbers without accounting for the change in some way such as a different view type. As a rule it'd be much easier for them to lower points than raise them. They'd have to decrease the points tied to new declarations. One thing about the Poly is the limited room types very much simplifies any reallocation process. Once it's declared completely, they can't change the total, only the mix.

 

[Nanajo1]

I believe the ones complaining about a lack of one and two bedroom, are in the minority. Studios are the most popular booking category. You'll always find complaints magnified on forums because the ones upset are likely to be the most vocal about it.

We just bought at Poly a few days ago. I've always gone to Disney and had wonderful times in the standard hotel resort rooms. It suits our needs. Others might need or want a little more space. But for most people, the standard hotel sized room is just fine.

So for those reasons, I don't see either of those things changing.

I bought into DVC as my Home Away From Home. A standard room would not do. I like to vacation. I do not do commando park days. I like relaxing on my balcony, fixing an easy meal and just enjoying my space. I think a studio is fine for those who don't consider DVC as their second home and spend their time at the parks.

 

[Dean]

I bought into DVC as my Home Away From Home. A standard room would not do. I like to vacation. I do not do commando park days. I like relaxing on my balcony, fixing an easy meal and just enjoying my space. I think a studio is fine for those who don't consider DVC as their second home and spend their time at the parks.

I don't think we know what the relative demand is between different size units though we do have some vague idea of the availability between different unit types. Ultimately it comes down to preferences and cost. One of the problems is that DVC made the 1 BR double the studio, a formula I can't recall being repeated with other timeshares. Normally they are around 50% more (roughly). I doubt that the demand is more for studios than larger units but they do tend to fill up faster. Even for those that use studios, often this is a portion of their trips. IMO to end up with just the studios (as they sit) and the bungalows IS a mistake for the resort itself and an injustice to the system.

 

[dizfan]

Any idea on what units have been declared. Can DVD change the point requirements on the units not declared yet?

Bill

All 142 studios in Moorea have been declared. 10 out of 20 bungalows have been declared.

Undeclared so far...
All of Pago Pago (76 studios)
All of Tokelau (142 studios)
10 remaining bungalows

 

[wdrl]

As dizfan posted, 142 studios and 10 bungalows have been declared at PVB. These declared Residential Units have been allotted 1,641,604 points. When the remaining 218 studios and 10 bungalows are declared, PVB will have a total of 4,032,720 points.

There is a difference between the phrase "point requirements for a Residential Unit" and the phrase "points allotted to a Residential Unit." The former can change at any time if DVC switches view categories and/or shifts point costs on the resort's point chart. These changes, however, require that the number of points necessary to book all vacation homes for the calendar year remain the same. A number of such changes have occurred, such at BLT when DVC lowered the point costs of the weekend nights and raised the weekday nights, and then reclassified 10 vacation homes from Theme Park View to Standard View. However, BLT's total number of points remained constant despite these changes.

"Points allotted to a Residential Unit" are virtually set in stone and cannot change. Points are a representation of the real estate interest each owner has in a Residential Unit. Furthermore, once the points-to-real estate interest formula has been established for a resort, it cannot be changed.

At PVB, each of the declared studios and bungalows have been allotted 9,862 points and 24,120 points, respectively. When the remaining 218 studios and 10 bungalows are finally declared they, too, will be allotted the exact same number of points. DVD cannot allot a different number of points to the undeclared Residential Units because it would result in an inequitable distribution of common expenditures between the "old" Units and the "new" Units. Furthermore, it would cause an inequitable booking situation between the two classes of owners at PVB.

From time to time, Boardwalk Villas comes up as an example of DVD's ability to change the points allotted to a Residential Unit after a resort has been opened. However, DVD did not make any such changes. All BWV vacation homes, whether they were part of the initial declaration in August 1996 or in the 29th and last declaration in May 2003, adhered to the same points-to-real estate interest and were allotted the same relative number of points based on real estate interest. BWV Unit 01F and Unit 48A each have one two-bedroom vacation home and they are both allotted 17,340 points. Unit 01F was part of the initial declaration in August 1996, while Unit 48A was not declared until May 2003.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

So with BWV it has always sounded like they added the standard view after sales began (not certain if that was also done after it opened?). If so then theoretically it still could be done at PVB that, for example, a parking lot view be added for lower points and the difference reallocated to Lakeview and standard view studios or even the Bungalows.

 

[Dean]

"Points allotted to a Residential Unit" are virtually set in stone and cannot change. Points are a representation of the real estate interest each owner has in a Residential Unit. Furthermore, once the points-to-real estate interest formula has been established for a resort, it cannot be changed.

At PVB, each of the declared studios and bungalows have been allotted 9,862 points and 24,120 points, respectively. When the remaining 218 studios and 10 bungalows are finally declared they, too, will be allotted the exact same number of points. DVD cannot allot a different number of points to the undeclared Residential Units because it would result in an inequitable distribution of common expenditures between the "old" Units and the "new" Units. Furthermore, it would cause an inequitable booking situation between the two classes of owners at PVB.

I'm not sure this is a fixed in stone situation. While it would seem odd and would create some issues with interim declarations, I'm not sure there is any reason they couldn't declare units with less points into the system. As I've read the POS in the past, it would seem the points for a given "unit" for a year would have to be fixed but clearly DVC has not followed this interpretation. Certainly this could also cause an issue if part of the resort were later closed for some reason (fire, etc), but that still seems workable. Is it really any different than having a lower value for different view units such as an ocean front resort. Just because DVC has historically chosen to do it differently, I'm not sure that is absolute.

 

[wdrl]

I'm not sure this is a fixed in stone situation. While it would seem odd and would create some issues with interim declarations, I'm not sure there is any reason they couldn't declare units with less points into the system. As I've read the POS in the past, it would seem the points for a given "unit" for a year would have to be fixed but clearly DVC has not followed this interpretation. Certainly this could also cause an issue if part of the resort were later closed for some reason (fire, etc), but that still seems workable. Is it really any different than having a lower value for different view units such as an ocean front resort. Just because DVC has historically chosen to do it differently, I'm not sure that is absolute.

When has DVC not followed this interpretation? Can you give some examples?

Remember, a Residential Unit's view category has NOTHING to do with the allotment of points to the Unit. At PVB, the Residential Units containing Lake View Studios are allotted the same number of points as the Residential Units containing Standard View Studios. The only difference in the Residential Units at PVB are that some contain four Studios and some contain six Studios. However, the formula still holds true, each Studio is allotted 9.862 points.

The only way that DVC could change the point allotment formula for future Units is if it decides to establish multiple classes of membership within the condominium association. Members who own a real estate interest in the Units with larger point allotments would be in one class, while those who own a real estate interest in the Units with smaller point allotments would be in a different class. Each class would have a difference point chart and difference maintenance fee schedule.

So, you're right. Point allotments are not necessarily set in stone. But to change it, DVC would have to open a huge can of worms which would cause more headaches than its worth.

 

[Dean]

When has DVC not followed this interpretation? Can you give some examples?

Remember, a Residential Unit's view category has NOTHING to do with the allotment of points to the Unit. At PVB, the Residential Units containing Lake View Studios are allotted the same number of points as the Residential Units containing Standard View Studios. The only difference in the Residential Units at PVB are that some contain four Studios and some contain six Studios. However, the formula still holds true, each Studio is allotted 9.862 points.

The only way that DVC could change the point allotment formula for future Units is if it decides to establish multiple classes of membership within the condominium association. Members who own a real estate interest in the Units with larger point allotments would be in one class, while those who own a real estate interest in the Units with smaller point allotments would be in a different class. Each class would have a difference point chart and difference maintenance fee schedule.

So, you're right. Point allotments are not necessarily set in stone. But to change it, DVC would have to open a huge can of worms which would cause more headaches than its worth.

You may have misunderstood my statement. The way I've read the documents historically is that the points for a unit must stay the same for reservations, this is clearly what DVC has not followed so either I'm reading it incorrectly or they haven't followed the rules. I am not stating they changed the contractual points for a given unit. Still, I don't see any major issues if they simply declare a different "unit" with different points, esp if it's a "lower value" situation such as standard view. There are other timeshares that allot different values to different buildings/views.

 

[wdrl]

You may have misunderstood my statement. The way I've read the documents historically is that the points for a unit must stay the same for reservations, this is clearly what DVC has not followed so either I'm reading it incorrectly or they haven't followed the rules. I am not stating they changed the contractual points for a given unit. Still, I don't see any major issues if they simply declare a different "unit" with different points, esp if it's a "lower value" situation such as standard view. There are other timeshares that allot different values to different buildings/views.

I don't understand what you mean by "points for a unit must stay the same for reservations."

Here is an example of where different point allotments cause an inequitable situation: DVD builds a resort with only two Residential Units. Each Unit is exactly the same size and each contains a single studio. DVD initially declares one Unit, but delays declaring the second Unit.

DVD sells the first Unit to Member A, who now owns 100% of Unit 001. To represent the real estate interest, DVD allots 9,862 to the Unit. Thus, Member A owns 9,862 DVC points.

Subsequently, DVD declares Unit 999 but decides to only allot 4,931 points to that Unit. Member B buys 100% of Unit 999; thus, Member B owns 4,931 points.

Since the resort has only two Residential Units, the resort has 14,793 total points.

But here is the problem: Member A and Member B each own 50% of the resort. They should share equally in the maintenance of the resort. Yet, Member A owns two-thirds of the points and, under normal circumstances, would end up paying for two-thirds of the resort's annual maintenance fees. The only way to correct this inequity is to say that that Member A's points belong in a different class than Member B's points, and that Member A has a lower annual maintenance than Member B. Other problems would arise because Member B owns half of the resort, but only has enough points to book one-third of the resort's total accommodations.

 

[Dean]

I don't understand what you mean by "points for a unit must stay the same for reservations."

Here is an example of where different point allotments cause an inequitable situation: DVD builds a resort with only two Residential Units. Each Unit is exactly the same size and each contains a single studio. DVD initially declares one Unit, but delays declaring the second Unit.

DVD sells the first Unit to Member A, who now owns 100% of Unit 001. To represent the real estate interest, DVD allots 9,862 to the Unit. Thus, Member A owns 9,862 DVC points.

Subsequently, DVD declares Unit 999 but decides to only allot 4,931 points to that Unit. Member B buys 100% of Unit 999; thus, Member B owns 4,931 points.

Since the resort has only two Residential Units, the resort has 14,793 total points.

But here is the problem: Member A and Member B each own 50% of the resort. They should share equally in the maintenance of the resort. Yet, Member A owns two-thirds of the points and, under normal circumstances, would end up paying for two-thirds of the resort's annual maintenance fees. The only way to correct this inequity is to say that that Member A's points belong in a different class than Member B's points, and that Member A has a lower annual maintenance than Member B. Other problems would arise because Member B owns half of the resort, but only has enough points to book one-third of the resort's total accommodations.

I think we're on different streets. There are 2 issuesd, the points alloted to a unit contractually and the points required to reserve a given villa that sits within the unit. I 'm sure they can't change the points for a given unit once it's been declared. As I read the POS, the reservation points for a the total villas within a unit can't change but obviously either that's not correct or DVC has violated that provision in reallocations. At question here is whether they can change the points for a given new unit prior to declaration that is different than previous units. I'm still sorting out my thoughts but my first impression is there's no legal contraindication to lowering them. Using your example of 2 units, if unit A & B were identical in physical structure, say each had one 2BR villa. If they declared one at 100,000 points for sake of discussion, I'm not seeing an impediment to them declaring the second at 90,000 points. All buyers now own a slightly larger % of the total resort than originally anticipated but they all own the same % of the total resort at the same points no matter which of the units they own in. And if one unit is lost for some reason and not rebuilt (natural disaster), all of those members will cease to be owners in the system and the owners in the other unit would own 100% of the resort. Raising is more problematic but might be possible as well. Now if DVC tied reservations and future usage options to specific villas, then I'd have to agree that such changes would be more problematic. Since the POS specifically states that no guarantees are made for future additions, they cover themselves in this area.

 

[wdrl]

I think we're on different streets. There are 2 issuesd, the points alloted to a unit contractually and the points required to reserve a given villa that sits within the unit. I 'm sure they can't change the points for a given unit once it's been declared. As I read the POS, the reservation points for a the total villas within a unit can't change but obviously either that's not correct or DVC has violated that provision in reallocations. At question here is whether they can change the points for a given new unit prior to declaration that is different than previous units. I'm still sorting out my thoughts but my first impression is there's no legal contraindication to lowering them. Using your example of 2 units, if unit A & B were identical in physical structure, say each had one 2BR villa. If they declared one at 100,000 points for sake of discussion, I'm not seeing an impediment to them declaring the second at 90,000 points. All buyers now own a slightly larger % of the total resort than originally anticipated but they all own the same % of the total resort at the same points no matter which of the units they own in. And if one unit is lost for some reason and not rebuilt (natural disaster), all of those members will cease to be owners in the system and the owners in the other unit would own 100% of the resort. Raising is more problematic but might be possible as well. Now if DVC tied reservations and future usage options to specific villas, then I'd have to agree that such changes would be more problematic. Since the POS specifically states that no guarantees are made for future additions, they cover themselves in this area.

But they won't own the same number of points even though their ownership interest is the same. The first Unit's owners will share 100,000 points amongst themselves, while the second Unit's owners will have only 90,000 points to share amongst themselves. This will create problems if the two groups of owners try to use their points for any exchanges. If both groups wanted to switch to a different resort at the 7 month mark, the first group would have 100,000 points to use in exchange for their two-bedroom Unit, while the second group would only have 90,000 points to offer in exchange for their two-bedroom Unit.

 

[Dean]

But they won't own the same number of points even though their ownership interest is the same. The first Unit's owners will share 100,000 points amongst themselves, while the second Unit's owners will have only 90,000 points to share amongst themselves. This will create problems if the two groups of owners try to use their points for any exchanges. If both groups wanted to switch to a different resort at the 7 month mark, the first group would have 100,000 points to use in exchange for their two-bedroom Unit, while the second group would only have 90,000 points to offer in exchange for their two-bedroom Unit.

That part wouldn't matter because they would each own what they bought in terms of # of points even if they own a different % of a given unit.

 

[freediverdude]

Ok I think the most reasonable thing to do is this: the parking lot side of Pago Pago has approx. 38 studios, correct? And the top 2 floors on the lake side of Moorea that have the perfect castle view have about 48 studios, right? I think it would be fairly easy to work out the math to reduce the Pago Pago 38 studios by a few points per night, and increase the 48 perfect view Moorea studios by a few points per night. It's just a matter of some math and spreading over seasons.

 

[freediverdude]

A second comment to add- now yes what I just proposed might cause some odd pricing as far as, it would put the point cost of the Moorea studios higher than the VGF studios. And it would also put the point cost of the Pago Pago studios possibly lower than BCV or BLT, depending on how much the adjustment is. So it would be kind of an extreme range in point costs, and I'm sure it would create another category subject to walking, as far as trying to get the parking lot studios to save points and still be at the Polynesian (although not me, I don't want parking lot even for less points). But I still think it's the most reasonable way to go, because of the extreme differences in views at the Poly.

 

[kungaloosh22]

I personally think it's the right solution, freediverdude. It's highly subjective of course, but I think there are reasons to justify more points for Poly studios than Grand studios. Poly studios are bigger, prettier (IMO), have better storage, fireworks views, can connect, and are a short walk to TTC. (I absolutely love the larger Grand villas, but the Grand studios leave me cold for some reason.)

 

[ppiew]

The last time we were at the Poly was about 4 years ago and I was astounded at the larger size of the room from the experiences at the other hotels! Of course it has been back at the beginning of WDW about 1973? when we had stayed there several times. We LOVED the rooms then and we do now. In a couple of weeks we will be lucky enough to book a bungalow for 3 nights and then 1 night in a standard Poly room. We are looking forward to both!