Poly Tower decision and RIV restrictions

[Chili327]

You would hope.. but at the same time this is Disney I wouldn't put it past them to mess it up..

If they removed restrictions from VDH, it would go to the top of my list of "add-ons".

 

[intamin]

If they removed restrictions from VDH, it would go to the top of my list of "add-ons".

I think I'd still prefer VGC but I would like that I'd be able to use my VDH points at RIV.

 

[Genie+]

If they were to remove restrictions they would have to remove them from all resorts,, right??
There is no way they would bother taking them away from RIV, but still leave them at VDH.. Right?

Good question. I’m not sure.

The optics likely not good because removing restrictions from only one resort could harm their credibility. Outside the one resort getting them lifted, I think the rest of the community reacts in the neutral to aggravated range. Not a net positive reaction.

Removing them all seems like it would be better received. I think the community would have an easier time accepting that than the thought of DVC creating winners and losers within the restricted properties.

Restrictions are likely part of a plan to eventually open profit from point washing. They also motivate direct purchases. It would be a big day in DVC history if they decide to scrap it.

 

[Royal Consort]

The optics likely not good because removing restrictions from only one resort could harm their credibility.

I perceive adding the brand new build to the existing association as tantamount to removing restrictions from one property (if they decide not to restrict it).

We were told we needed developer points for new resorts (sorry, the tower is a new resort that shares almost nothing with the existing poly other than name).

I don't like restrictions but I like them playing jiggery pokery with it all less. Choose a business path and stick to it.

 

[kilik64]

It’s not a new resort though, it’s an addition to an existing resort with an already established association that isn’t resale restricted.

it’s not flip flopping, it’s not changing course on resale restrictions, and it’s not them being nefarious in any way.

They are being consistent in that any new resort will be resale restrictions, cfw included. Which is a wholly new resort with a new association. And guess what when they come back around and do reflections 2.0 A Lakeside Lodge and Cabins that builds on to the existing cfw association, it’s gonna be restricted resale because that’s how the original association was…

 

[Royal Consort]

It’s not a new resort though, it’s an addition to an existing resort with an already established association that isn’t resale restricted.

it’s not flip flopping, it’s not changing course on resale restrictions, and it’s not them being nefarious in any way.

New build, completely new architectural style, new parking, new pool, new restaurant, new porte cochère, new landscaping. "Same" resort in name only. Easily able to stand on its own, and could. Absolutely flip flopping Disney (unless it's in the trust and restricted.)

 

[Chili327]

New build, completely new architectural style, new parking, new pool, new restaurant, new porte cochère, new landscaping. "Same" resort in name only. Easily able to stand on its own, and could. Absolutely flip flopping Disney (unless it's in the trust and restricted.)

They should call it something else then if it’s not going to be the same resort.

 

[walt34]

New build, completely new architectural style, new parking, new pool, new restaurant, new porte cochère, new landscaping. "Same" resort in name only. Easily able to stand on its own, and could. Absolutely flip flopping Disney (unless it's in the trust and restricted.)

I agree. Also, the BPK expansion at VGF was just studios - it would have made a very incomplete standalone offering. The Poly Tower seems to have a decent mix of room types and would work perfectly standalone.

Standalone would be consistent with the story DVD has been telling since Riviera. But I would not see a need to add it to any kind of trust. A standalone, traditional style DVC association would work just as well. I still see a chance that the trust was necessary at CFW because of the building type and the rest of the language (preparing a multi-site trust) is just to have options for future use.

 

[New Mouse]

I agree. Also, the BPK expansion at VGF was just studios - it would have made a very incomplete standalone offering. The Poly Tower seems to have a decent mix of room types and would work perfectly standalone.

Standalone would be consistent with the story DVD has been telling since Riviera. But I would not see a need to add it to any kind of trust. A standalone, traditional style DVC association would work just as well. I still see a chance that the trust was necessary at CFW because of the building type and the rest of the language (preparing a multi-site trust) is just to have options for future use.

By your standard the original Polynesian offering of basically just studios is very incomplete.

 

[Sandisw]

It’s not a new resort though, it’s an addition to an existing resort with an already established association that isn’t resale restricted.

it’s not flip flopping, it’s not changing course on resale restrictions, and it’s not them being nefarious in any way.

They are being consistent in that any new resort will be resale restrictions, cfw included. Which is a wholly new resort with a new association. And guess what when they come back around and do reflections 2.0 A Lakeside Lodge and Cabins that builds on to the existing cfw association, it’s gonna be restricted resale because that’s how the original association was…

They didn’t use the word new, they said future and you can say it’s not new but it is a new DVC project being built from the ground up. Put that in a vacant lot and no one would even question it’s a new resort.

So, yes, it’s a flip flop because they are not required to add it to the existing condo association. It’s simply their choice to take that route.

And, as long as it was a choice to do it, then DVD could have…and still could…go the other way, make it new, or add to the trust, and give it restrictions.

Which means, they flip flopped for this project in terms of restrictions if it indeed gets added to PVB as was implied at the condo meeting.

 

[Sandisw]

They should call it something else then if it’s not going to be the same resort.

They actually haven’t called it anything. Look at the new earnings report. It still just says DVC at the Poly resort…poly resort being the cash hotel name

Meaning no official name and so far, nothing in writing officially naming it part of PVB.

 

[walt34]

By your standard the original Polynesian offering of basically just studios is very incomplete.

Compared to most (but not all) DVC resorts, it is.

 

[kilik64]

Put that in a vacant lot and no one would even question it’s a new resort.

But they are not so it’s not.

 

[Genie+]

I don't like restrictions but I like them playing jiggery pokery with it all less. Choose a business path and stick to it.

Agreed. They were perfectly happy letting buyers think restrictions were the future of DVC when RIV went on sale. Now maybe only 1 of the following 3 WDW projects will have restrictions. The notion that direct had an important distinction over resale because resale would be ‘locked out’ and then the next 2 monorail additions are not lol.

Nature of the beast I guess. Not much different from them letting people think resale is less valuable because those can’t book the concierge collection, when reality is most would choose not to after seeing the point exchange. Restrictions are on a much larger scale of importance though.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

New build, completely new architectural style, new parking, new pool, new restaurant, new porte cochère, new landscaping. "Same" resort in name only. Easily able to stand on its own, and could. Absolutely flip flopping Disney (unless it's in the trust and restricted.)

Are you talking about Kidani?

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

Are you talking about Kidani?

I think for this to be a fairer conversation we can’t really bring up DVD decisions before the 2019 restrictions. We’re in a different era of DVC, so what they did with Kidani and Jambo is irrelevant to the tower and PVB.

At this point, I’d be disappointed if they didn’t make it the same association with all the benefits that come with being part of the same association because they’ve put it out there and never rescinded that quasi-vague statement, but I still think it is a bizarre move to not restrict the tower.

 

[Sandisw]

But they are not so it’s not.

Is the land part of the current PVB or part of the hotel?

If it’s not within the boundaries of PVB, then it’s not part of it.

It would be like saying the GCH is part of PvB when it’s not.

Which comes back to the main point. Deciding to roll it into PVB was a choice because they didn’t have to do that and it would function exactly the same way for people who bought it.

All the same amenities offered to PVB Owners as being part of Poly would have been there for Poly tower owners.

So, they are choosing to not to add restrictions if that is what the actually end up doing.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Is the land part of the current PVB or part of the hotel?

If it’s not within the boundaries of PVB, then it’s not part of it.

It would be like saying the GCH is part of PvB when it’s not.

Disney doesn't have property boundaries like that, however, they tore down an existing show/dining pavilion for at least some of the land.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I think for this to be a fairer conversation we can’t really bring up DVD decisions before the 2019 restrictions. We’re in a different era of DVC, so what they did with Kidani and Jambo is irrelevant to the tower and PVB.

At this point, I’d be disappointed if they didn’t make it the same association with all the benefits that come with being part of the same association because they’ve put it out there and never rescinded that quasi-vague statement, but I still think it is a bizarre move to not restrict the tower.

Fair is reading the POS. There are very few definites in it. The word of a timeshare sales person is not contract nor definitive. It's all in the contract.

My point is that the post I quoted said everything new was a qualifier for it being separate. That was the same thing done with Kidani. When it happened doesn't matter for that argument.

The final point that has always existed....Do not purchase DVC based on any future plans. DVC can change them and it doesn't mean simply not building them. Hopefully people are purchasing direct if the price and resort make sense for them and not based on other items that DVD/DVC can change.

 

[Sandisw]

Disney doesn't have property boundaries like that, however, they tore down an existing show/dining pavilion for at least some of the land.

The PVB documents do indeed define the current boundaries of the condo association.

And, as of today, that land is not within those boundaries.

Just like the BPK building was not and it had to be added to the boundaries of VGF property.