As Dean originally said, the only circumstances I can see when this would happen is if a resort ( non WDW resort is IMHO the only possibility) got sold off.
As far as the ideas that owners would be "up in arms" because they couldn't get into their home resort at the time they want. Well can you imagine how vexed those owners would be if they couldn't get into ANY DVC accomodation because the rules had changed. While there is an avenue to book other DVC accommodation the owners have a much better chance to get the dates they want at short notice. By removing that aspect the owners would be relying/hoping that the other owners of their resort didn't want to go at the same time of year ( and have booked before them). It could be an unmittigated disaster at peak times when for example BCV was fully booked while OKW,VWL,BWL and SSR sat at 50% occupancy. Where's the benefit to the owners then ? Crisi I see what you're saying, but IMHO you're expecting the owners of the resorts to put zero thought into a situation that has huge ramifications to their investment.
It's your idea, would you vote for increasing your chance of getting the hotel you wanted if it decreased your chance of getting the dates you wanted? IMHO #1 priority is usually getting the dates you want, resort is a secondary priority to most people.
DVC needs the flexibility of a number of resorts being available in order to allow for peaks and troughs in demand at individual resorts. Those owners at the smaller resorts would really be putting themselves in a major crapshoot for reservations if they declined the opportunity to take one of the other DVC resorts as a substitute when their own resort is full.
As far as the ideas that owners would be "up in arms" because they couldn't get into their home resort at the time they want. Well can you imagine how vexed those owners would be if they couldn't get into ANY DVC accomodation because the rules had changed. While there is an avenue to book other DVC accommodation the owners have a much better chance to get the dates they want at short notice. By removing that aspect the owners would be relying/hoping that the other owners of their resort didn't want to go at the same time of year ( and have booked before them). It could be an unmittigated disaster at peak times when for example BCV was fully booked while OKW,VWL,BWL and SSR sat at 50% occupancy. Where's the benefit to the owners then ? Crisi I see what you're saying, but IMHO you're expecting the owners of the resorts to put zero thought into a situation that has huge ramifications to their investment.
It's your idea, would you vote for increasing your chance of getting the hotel you wanted if it decreased your chance of getting the dates you wanted? IMHO #1 priority is usually getting the dates you want, resort is a secondary priority to most people.
DVC needs the flexibility of a number of resorts being available in order to allow for peaks and troughs in demand at individual resorts. Those owners at the smaller resorts would really be putting themselves in a major crapshoot for reservations if they declined the opportunity to take one of the other DVC resorts as a substitute when their own resort is full.
