OK, back from the Bahama's taking my wife on a short cruise for her Birthday. I must say that 10¢ a minute wasn't a bad price to pay, on the ship the $6 or so (including a tip) would have gotten me maybe 12 minutes. You guys gave me a lot of ammunition the past few days. I'll apolize in advance as I know my response is a little muddled and at times repative. It's also gotten kind of long. Read it if you dare.
I don't understand the rudeness issue with one using their points as they see fit within the rules. I can see that some uses or strategies may be more detrimental than others but that's the way the system is set up. I cant see that anything that a member does within the rules is rude. Change the rules to prevent things that are overly detrimental.
I haven't seen a company renting. I have seen someone who works at a company renting the points they own and do know that occasionally some of the brokers that specialize in DVC assist owners trying to sell in renting their points.
With the wait list, anyone will get what they would have gotten once the unused portions are let go by the OWNER of those points. Sure there may be times when this isnt enough like trying to get air fare or make other plans.
Back to the commercial vs private renting issue for a moment. From a contractual and a legal standpoint I would think this would be a very difficult area to police for the simple reason is that there is not definition of commercial within the documents. So even if the idea of preventing commercial" were legally applicable otherwise (which it truly isnt) without a definition, theres no way this would hold up in a legal challenge. To add one would take I believe a 2/3 vote of the actual members themselves and I think this would be of the total members not just of the one who voted.
Of course I don't know all 70,000 members. There are quite a few reasons, top on my list: shrinkage from non members, which we pay for as members and because of this shrinkage we now have lost some of the nice things, like placemats, coasters, napkins, etc. We now have to call for hand mixers, something that was in the unit before. I am sure that members contribute to the shrinkage, but, not to the degree someone without a vested interest does.
I would disagree that non members had anything to do with it. I doubt even DVC knows for certain but would certainly expect that far more than 90% of this issue is due to members themselves. The premise that members take better care than non members I find an erroneous one. I would suspect that renters take as good or better care than members and that those that rent through CRO are the least likely to take care of what we own but like anything else, there are all kinds out there (members and renters both). Comparing how one family takes care of their vacation home compared to renters is a totally and I would say unrelated issue compared to DVC. Some owners do take great care, I am one, other do not. Same is true for all type of renters (CRO and private)
To compare with another timeshare I own. I own at HHs Marriott Grande Ocean resort. I own Platinum time and went out and bought a second unit. Why, because I can get an extra months booking priority if I book concurrent or consecutive weeks. Ill use 2 weeks EOY and rent the off years. I will likely book July and most years 4th of July and rent it out. Its mine, I own it but it will reduce the availability for the highest demand week for other owners. I could even do this then later give it to Marriott directly to rent out which they do at $400 and $425 per night (one is ocean front, the other ocean side). I see it as no difference than in the discussion we are having and Ive never ever in all my years of timesharing heard anyone from any other system complain about other members renting out what they own. Its never even come up that I recall and yet its a common topic on this board.
As I noted earlier, if a member makes duplicate reservations for a potential renter, they are only tying the rooms up a few days at most. Hardly likely to make any dent in availability.
The reason mixers are no longer available have nothing to do with this issue. Only OKW had them and they took them away to make the inventories the same for all resorts.
As I have said many times before including earlier in this thread (but it bears repeating), there are rules of usage and while the rules may work out well overall, they are not perfect. Any attempt to change the issues in question in this thread will result in negative changes for all owners. Things like requiring a min stay of up to 5 days, in order to increase it to 7 days, it would require an actual vote of members. Requiring Friday-Monday and Mon-Fri would also take away a lot of flexibility.
I would agree with those that have equated all renters (CRO and otherwise) in the same vein. While DVC doesnt make any money on this venture, Disney in general does as Im sure they get a significant fee for doing so. So to prevent renting (even if it could be legally done) would stop all outside options that require a cash basis like
DCL, CC, DC, etc. That would only leave II and other trades. Taken to it's logical end point, one could even make the case that DVC themselves could not rent out the units as this is without question a commercial venture.
But if someone has the resort I would like to stay at as THEIR home resort and at the 11 month window they book two or more rooms for someone they are renting to, then I have a greater possiblity of getting, at the very least, waitlisted. And I agree with KNWVIKING, I would be a nervous wreck unless and until I got off the wait list.
So youre saying that you should have a higher priority at a resort you do not own at than someone who owns there, I simply cant see that. I can see there are negatives to the system in general and know that the very things many of us like about DVC are the same rules that cause these situations to happen. I ask again, is it worth changing the rules to prevent some of the perceived problems? I am still amazed by the concept that any owner owes it to other owners to go beyond the rules and laws applicable and sacrifice themselves for the potential good of others. I just dont see that duty when it comes to timeshare availability as long as there are no under the table issues.
I can understand someone avoiding weekends like the plague. I think they do all members a disservice by throwing the occupancy rates off, but I understand it and thier right to do it.
Rich, you could apply this statement to a lot of things including renting, weekend/weekdays, points rebalancing just to name a few. I can accept the fact that one doesnt like it but they understand its within the rules. I can think of many examples in the timeshare world that this idea could be applied to.
If the weekend occupancy is indeed as low as some of us suspect it is, Im sure a rebalancing will take place at some point. I hope this board still exists at that time because that topic will eclipse this thread in no time.
This is the heart of the problem- too many DVC owners think we're part of some "exclusive" club and inherently better than anyone who isn't part of it. This is why people have a problem with renters.
I personally would agree there is a certain amount of this attitude. Like many Ive been around here a long time and have no doubt this basic attitude is shared by many in one form or another. And thats not to say its wrong as long as its not a personal feeling but more of a my system is better than your system idea. It is never stated openly but it is stated clearly at times by a number of people. Personally I dont think I am better than anyone else but feel that DVC is better for myself and many others than other timeshares but for others it wouldnt work at all.
Originally posted by CaptainMidnight
Nope, I dissagree. DVC was not intended for large rental use, it is intended as family vacation ownership. Those setting up skewed and multiple reservations for renting purposes as a private business are doing so at the detriment of DVD members making reservations for family vacations. To set up "charges and penalties to prevent this type of behavior" would be a further example of how rental practices are hurting DVC members causing additional limitaitons and detrimental modification to the current structure caused by those using thier purchase for the intended purpose of family vacations. The above is an example fo the problem the growth of renting could cause, it's not the solution.
I disagree. It is the way the system is set up. To change it requires changing the system, nothing more and nothing less. As I noted earlier, this is a strategy used by many in several forms and frankly the person renting out the points causes far less strain on the system than the member trying to wait and decide what size unit they want or if they can go. The person reserving 2 units will only keep them a few days at the most while a member may keep them up until the 31 day cutoff. And its not ANY different than booking extra days just in case or booking a time you may or may not be able to go. They all tie up rooms that may or may not be used by the member or the guest of a member and I would definitely include renters in this group.
I get a kick out of the " I own it, I can do what I want with it crowd ". They believe that no one can tell them what to do. That they have no responsibilty to anyone but themselves. Try to get them to understand what responsibility to someone other than themselves means and you get called an elitist snob.
l
I'll tell you what, if you own your own home try adding an addition on to it without getting a permit. Try building right up to the road you live on. You will find that there can be all kinds of restrictions on what you are allowed to do with what you own. Many of the restrictions are there because reasonable people have gotten together and decided that even when you own something you may have a responsibilty to those around you whose interests you may be infringing upon.
WDWMom, your example is totally unrelated to this issue. One must follow the rules and if you add on to your home there are rules, permits and the like. As long as those are followed, the neighbors have little if any recourse other than to petition the rule makers. I dont think Ive ever heard anyone on this board say they could do anything they wanted, only that they had rights under the rules and Laws. We all have certain responsibilities but to say that one has a responsibility above the rules as it pertains to DVC is just plain crazy. To say one should anticipate what others may want and hold back or avoid a certain choice because someone thinks they might need something or want to stay at a resort they dont own at is just plain wrong and IMO inappropriate. A lot of this is simply what feels right to you or me. I say that is not the proper way to judge. We should judge by the rules in place, the Laws of the state in question and the morals of a society. I cant see any of these being violated in renting, booking 2 units (for any reason), booking Xmas at 11 months out to rent on Ebay, etc. I look at anything else as simply a realization by many that what they bought into has flaws and that some of the best parts of the system are some of the riskiest to the members.
The phrase "I understand that DVC membership is not an investment and is not intended for commercial use", or something to that effect appears many times in different places on the contracts, disclosures, and papers that we all signed. I also recall "DVC is intended as family vacation ownership" being stated pretty clearly in more than one place.
Actually the reference to commercial renting is included once with no definition, hardly an enforceable issue. The other references are more of a warning that a DVC owner is at a disadvantage competing with Disney. OTOH, there are multiple references stating specifically that renting is OK.
Maybe occasional renting, but the Product Understand Checklist says:
#5. You acknowledge that your purchase of an Ownership Interest is for your personal use as a vacation experience and not for the purpose of acquiring an income or appreciating investment.
Captain, I will assert that this is not intended by DVD to address renting, simply an acknowledgement that the buyer understands there are limitations. To understand this one needs to know that in the rest of the timeshare world a common sales tactic is to promise one can rent for big bucks. DVD is simply getting one to state that there were no promises made of renting for big bucks or selling for a profit at a later date. It is not in any way directed at controlling renting regardless of what side of the debate one is on.
