The Vilification Of Renting?

[Y-ASK]

Just reading this definition of "personal use", and it's the only definition we have, it would seem to mean that speculative booking would not fall within the "personal use" definition.

I would disagree because this is not how I would define a "lessee".

Y-ASK

 

[Dean]

That's why I put the first part where I said it was only personal opinion and I am certainly not going to pass judgement on anyone that chooses to speculative rent, because with the current rules in place speculative renting is fine. Maybe I should have said it was inappropriate for me so I don't do it.

I disagree with Deb & Bill's interpretation of what constitutes a commercial renter. And that's why this new wording is really great for those of us who rent some of our points and are tired of feeling like a vilian for it. The rules are there for all to see and no where is there any written word that discusses speculative renting but they define what commercial renting is.

Y-ASK

It's fair that you don't prefer it or like it but maybe inappropriate isn't the best word in that situaiton.

BTW, nice score on your Maui accomodations...I swear I'd like to do a "Volcan Mind-Meld" (when Spock used to transfer information from other poeples brain into his own by touching them on the temple) on you about timeshares..

LOL, I share when I can but often people don't seem to listen. I'm always willing to try to help as many PM's and direct emails can attest.

The DVC Public Offering Statement makes it clear that DVC memberships are intended for personal vacation use. The Declaration of Condominium and the Membership Agreement for the Resort expressly limits the use of Ownership Interests to personal use.

The new POS amendment has a definition of "personal use":

for the use of accommodations by the DVC Member, the DVC Member’s family and/or the DVC Member’s friends (collectively, “Personal Use”)

Just reading this definition of "personal use", and it's the only definition we have, it would seem to mean that speculative booking would not fall within the "personal use" definition.

That information was included in the POS at the requirement of the State of FL and was intended as a disclaimer to let people know they shouldn't buy with the idea of renting or selling later at a profit. While DVC might try to twist it into this issue, that was never the original intent nor something that can be justified by the POS or FL statues 721, IMO.

 

[JimMIA]

I'm not sure if I follow your reasoning here regarding websites. First, Disney has addresssed the website issue. In the planner, it states that maintaining a website is clearly for commercial purposes.

Words on paper don't address a problem. I was talking about enforcing that new clarification. People who rent for a living aren't going to stop because of some piece of paper Disney publishes.

With regard as to whether or not, Disney could bring pressure to bear on the website operators, I believe that they can.

I don't think they would be able to actually shut down the websites. If there were copyright violations, they could address those, but as far as putting a website out of business by turning it off -- that's not happening, IMHO.

And who knows, a year from now Disney might start sending out letters to some owners (in the way that you outlined) stating that their accounts have been flagged for irregular behavior and will be subject to booking and reservatiopn restrictions. It could happen.

They already did that last year. They identified some accounts with more than 20 ressies and sent them letters.

My guess is some of those letter recipients snapped back at them and the new clarification and articulation of the 20-ressie rule is the result. And it also helps set the predicate for other actions later.

I believe that now that some rules have been put in place that Disney and DVC might be building up a case for shutting down these operations.

That's possible. But you have to remember that Disney doesn't really enforce much of anything. They promulgate rules, but they don't enforce them usually (e.g. - occupancy, smoking, pool usage, DDP, etc.)

Now...this is different. This is about money out of their pocket, so they might take a more aggressive approach. They have with transfers, maybe they will with commercial renters as well.

 

[JimMIA]

What if Rinkwide's owner is a widowed woman with kids who recently got laid off and needs to make ends meet while she finds another job? - she is trying to maximize all her assets - she figures speculative rentals over Christmas on eBay, followed by a sale of a stripped DVC contract will tie her over without the foreclosure notice arriving.

To each their own. This has nothing to do with my opinion of speculative booking, but if I were in that poor widow's shoes, speculative booking is the LAST thing on earth I would do.

If I thought my situation were very short-term, I might rent -- but I'd be wanting quick, short-notice rentals so I could generate some revenue NOW.

If I thought my situation was going to remain as bad as you've described for 11 months -- I'd sell.

I don't think she's in any position to book a ressie 11 months out, wait six months to rent it and 2-3 more months to collect all of the money, then put her stripped contract on the market, and then wait until the rented vacation is completed to close and get the proceeds of the sale! She's gonna be yelling, "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"

 

[JimMIA]

I'm not sure I see that as unethical under those circumstances.

I don't see speculative booking as unethical under any circumstances.

I'm not in favor of it. I think it violates what DVC is all about. But I don't think people who do it are unethical; they just have a different view of it than I do.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Can someone tell me what "villification" means?

 

[mjy]

Can someone tell me what "villification" means?

Howdy, BWV Dreamin!

vilification
noun
1. slanderous defamation [syn: smear]
2. a rude expression intended to offend or hurt; "when a student made a stupid mistake he spared them no abuse"; "they yelled insults at the visiting team" [syn: abuse]

 

[JimMIA]

deleted - duplicate of mjy's post.

 

[drusba]

Yes, the principal purpose of DVC is for your personal use but the documents provide you can rent subject to the commercial purpose language. That is of course a "little" vague although the docs always also provided that the term included a "pattern" of rental acitivity from which DVC could conclude that you were engaging in a "commercial enterprise." The sense of that seemed to be that they wanted to prohibit someone from renting a lot, with a lot being some unknown number but likely high. But the vagueness of the term left room for varying views.

Nevertheless there are extremes for which it is stretching things to say you are doing something for a commercial pupose. Simply doing a speculative rental (I am just starting to get use that addition to the terms applicable to DVC) is not itself a commercial purpose (note I don't do any rentals so I am either neutral on the issue or biased depending on how one views it when the person says he or she does no rentals); that would be the same as saying any rental is for a commercial purpose and therefore renting is prohibited entirely, which it is not. Do a lot of speculative rentals a year and you create the issue. For that great wasteland in between those extremes, who really knows for sure? I mean trying to nail down what "commercial purpose" precisely means is like calling Disney and asking for directions to WDW and they tell you it is pretty close to Georgia.

Disney's latest 20 reservation rule (and reverting back to the one transfer rule) indicates somewhat what Disney thinks "commerical purpose" means -- a fairly good amount of rentals. Disney used to do no enforcement and now it is doing it somewhat and put some concrete guidance out there. I thought it was a good move so people now have a "target" number (which itself is not absolute). The steps I see DVC taking are not designed to do away with renting but instead it is trying to slow down to an acceptable "normal" a situation that DVC concluded had become excessive. It is not likely to eliminate the professional renter but may temper it somewhat.

Now for an observation. We have all become quite pleasant in comparison to years ago when the usual monthlly thread on rentals would have members jumping up with guns drawn, teeth gnashing and vitriol flowing to the point that moderators after a while would shut it down for fear of a massacre. This thread is like a Sunday tea party in comparison. Ah, the good old days.

 

[mjy]

deleted - duplicate of mjy's post.

Woo Hoo . . . I beat someone to a post for a change!

There have been so many times that I've posted a response only to see that someone had done so while I was typing mine.

 

[rinkwide]

...members jumping up with guns drawn, teeth gnashing and vitriol flowing...

I'm wearing spurs, does that make you feel better?

Back on topic:

Should Disney Vacation Development be allowed to deem eBay auction pages to be websites and therefore a violation of their commercial purpose clause?

 

[disneynutz]

I'm wearing spurs, does that make you feel better?

Back on topic:

Should Disney Vacation Development be allowed to deem eBay auction pages to be websites and therefore a violation of their commercial purpose clause?

Disney/DVC/DVD is pretty much allowed to deem and do whatever they want. They designed it that way. Like I said before, the only reason they care about anything is if it takes money out of their pocket. I don't know if that's a bad thing, it's a business thing. If renting, personal, commercial, 20 per year, 10 per year, or maybe too many points, takes money away from Disney, they will change the rules or programs. They have done it before and I am sure that they will do it in the future.

 

[Sammie]

I'm wearing spurs, does that make you feel better?

Back on topic:

Should Disney Vacation Development be allowed to deem eBay auction pages to be websites and therefore a violation of their commercial purpose clause?

I was told any listing using the Internet can be considered commercial. As to whether that is enforced, no one except someone that it has happened to probably knows.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Howdy, BWV Dreamin!

vilification
noun
1. slanderous defamation [syn: smear]
2. a rude expression intended to offend or hurt; "when a student made a stupid mistake he spared them no abuse"; "they yelled insults at the visiting team" [syn: abuse]

Hi mjy!! Thanks for the clarification!

 

[DVC Mike]

I'm wearing spurs, does that make you feel better?

Back on topic:

Should Disney Vacation Development be allowed to deem eBay auction pages to be websites and therefore a violation of their commercial purpose clause?

Boy, rinkwide, you're really bringing up a lot of interesting questions on this thread!

 

[DVC Mike]

Now for an observation. We have all become quite pleasant in comparison to years ago when the usual monthlly thread on rentals would have members jumping up with guns drawn, teeth gnashing and vitriol flowing to the point that moderators after a while would shut it down for fear of a massacre. This thread is like a Sunday tea party in comparison. Ah, the good old days.

I view this as a philospohical question. It's been a very good discussion. I'm not sure I could even say what the definitive answer is regarding renting, commercial renting, and speculative booking. I know that renting is allowed and commercial renting isn't, but everything else is very vague. I'm certainly not ready to string anybody up if they don't agree with my personal opinion!

 

[DVC Mike]

Should Disney Vacation Development be allowed to deem eBay auction pages to be websites and therefore a violation of their commercial purpose clause?

Does advertising a rental, in any way, constitute a "commercial rental"? I don't think the specific media matters -- newspaper, web site, or whatever.

Does my holding a garage sale and advertising it make me a commecial seller?

 

[rinkwide]

Boy, rinkwide, you're really bringing up a lot of interesting questions on this thread!..

If a man stops traffic to allow a mother duck and her ducklings to cross, and the man chooses to do this because of his beliefs, and his beliefs are not in his direct control, does this person really have free will?

 

[DVC Mike]

If a man stops traffic to allow a mother duck and her ducklings to cross, and the man chooses to do this because of his beliefs, and his beliefs are not in his direct control, does this person really have free will?

Wow... deep! I vote we drop the discussion on renting so we can focus on this new philosophical issue that rinkwide has raised!

 

[mjy]

If a man stops traffic to allow a mother duck and her ducklings to cross, and the man chooses to do this because of his beliefs, and his beliefs are not in his direct control, does this person really have free will?

Well, I didn't stop traffic. However, as I was walking back from (the former) MGM to the Boardwalk, I stopped to let the little critters cross the sidewalk. And, from my free will, took their picture!