Tidbits of information

[Luckymommyx2]

Thanks Dean! Still being new to the DVC, it's good to have all of this information to sort through and read up on.

 

[lillasmom]

Thanks for all the info, Dean and others. I can imagine that location requests are a nightmare for MS, with everyone having a different opinion. Also having to complete with cash ressies and their requests, I would think, makes the prospect really difficult to manage. As for 2042, I know my daughter will want to know...

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by Granny
FWIW, I think every DVC resort (except possibly HH which I know nothing about) has some "preferred views" that are probably requested the most often. I'd like to see them split all DVC resorts into two classifications that can be guaranteed at the time of reservation (same points, different views like BWV Boardwalk view and Garden view).

To a certain extent all resorts have better and worse rooms. BWV was the most obvious example until the recent change of BWV booked directly. I think SSR will be a far larger issue than any other resort. Looking at each resort.

• HH there's not that much difference overall from one unit to another. IMO
• VB has the Inn rooms which are booked directly and I don't see that much difference otherwise except for a few units here and there.
• VWL, little difference overall, IMO.
• BCV has several areas that are different but I think there's a pretty good balance of demand for the different areas.
• BWV has three separately booked views so not nearly as much of a problem as previously.
• OKW - again I think there are those that prefer one vs another location but I think there's pretty good balance.
• SSR I see the haves and have nots. Hopefully enough people will really like the golf course views to even out the demand. If they upgrade the pools for those areas, that will definitely help.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Dean,

Thank you very much for posting this! Please allow me to add two comments...

Originally posted by Dean
Per their discussion it appears that Atlantis was removed due to lack of availability but that they are actively watching it and as soon as availability starts to show up in II, they will add it back. This was the plan all along from what they said.

Just to clarify, I think you're referring to the Harborside Resort at Atlantis, which is an II-affiliated Starwood Vacation Ownership resort. The actual Atlantis resort is now on the Concierge Collection list.

Originally posted by Dean
Regarding the end of the current resorts. I offered that I saw four options. These were keep the resorts open longer to allow people to use their points, a lottery, proration or a free for all. They agreed and didn’t have any others to add to the list. The issue apparently has been batted around but no decisions have been made or are even close, no big surprise as it’s still quite a ways away. I did get the distinct impression that BOTH banking and borrowing were likely to be restricted late in the course, again, no big surprise.

I could be wrong, but I see your "proration" option as the only legal way in which DVC can allocate points for partial-year use periods prior to the termination of the overall DVC resort usage term.

DCV points represent a direct correlation between declared timeshare capacity in relation to our deeded lease ownership over a period of time (which is normally 12 months, but which, for many members, will not be 12 months in the final period before January 31, 2042). If a DVC member owns 300 points, and that member's final "use year" will be only 6 months, then that member should only expect 150 points for that final, reduced period of time. Remember, we didn't buy points; we bought a real estate interest. The points are just a convenient way to define that real estate interest and to allow reservations to be made.

A lottery would, by definition, be unfair (and a violation of our contract) because it would deny some members their deeded ownership rights, for the benefit of others.

A free-for-all -- in which we all get our full points, even for a partial year -- would mean also mean that some members would be denied their legal ownership rights because others are able to grab more than they actually own.

Allowing members to "use their points" would mean that members would need to be able to stay beyond the end of the DVC term -- which also raises all sorts of issues about the operating budget, and how it would be funded beyond the end of the DVC term. Our contract does not provide for any use beyond the end of the DVC term, when our rights revert back to Disney.

 

[Dean]

Horace, you are correct regarding the Atlantis vs Harborside. Most people refer to Harborside as Atlantis when speaking of the timeshare but with the CC option and a previous II option, the distinction is helpful.

I'd agree with almost all of your assessment on the 2042 options. The only quibble I'd have is that the POS specifically allows for special season preference lists and lottery's for certain situations so I think those options are perfectly legal. My personal take is that some sort of proratiion is allowed with prorated fees consistent with the points used. I can see them blocking banking the last 2-3 FULL years and borrowing the 2041 use year. I could also see them allowing members to opt out that last year.

I don't see them keeping the resorts open as a freebie to let people to use their points. I also think a lottery is workable. The other option I thought of was like they did with the member cruise. Have a specific day or days to call and then when all is gone, it's done. Then those that don't get a room don't have to pay dues the last year. Regardless, I think they can get by with the legalities as long as everyone has a "fair" chance and anyone who can't use their points for something doesn't have to pay dues. But we shall see and have a lot of time to bat it around before the true answer is known.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Originally posted by Dean
The only quibble I'd have is that the POS specifically allows for special season preference lists and lottery's for certain situations so I think those options are perfectly legal.

There's a big differnce between a special season lottery that allocates a limited time period (such as Christmas week) and the type of lottery that you're suggesting, which essentially steals one member's ownership rights and gives them to another member.

In the case of a special season lottery, the "losers" can still use their vacation ownership rights at another time.

But you're suggesting a completely different situation: Let's suppose you and I both have a final use period of 6 months before OKW reverts back to Disney. Let's suppose you and I both own 300 points. The fair thing would be for each of us to get 150 points. But in your lottery scenario, we would each get 300 points, and a lottery would determine which one of us gets to use our points. Let's suppose I win. I get a nice OKW vacation; you get nothing. I don't see what's workable, fair, or "perfectly legal" about that (even if I'm compelled to pay your partial-year maintenance fees for your points).

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by Horace Horsecollar
There's a big differnce between a special season lottery that allocates a limited time period (such as Christmas week) and the type of lottery that you're suggesting, which essentially steals one member's ownership rights and gives them to another member.

In the case of a special season lottery, the "losers" can still use their vacation ownership rights at another time.

But you're suggesting a completely different situation: Let's suppose you and I both have a final use period of 6 months before OKW reverts back to Disney. Let's suppose you and I both own 300 points. The fair thing would be for each of us to get 150 points. But in your lottery scenario, we would each get 300 points, and a lottery would determine which one of us gets to use our points. Let's suppose I win. I get a nice OKW vacation; you get nothing. I don't see what's workable, fair, or "perfectly legal" about that (even if I'm compelled to pay your partial-year maintenance fees for your points).

As I said, I agree with you almost 100%. Still, I do think the rules would allow the lottery though I suspect a proration is the best option and MORE fair as you point out. But one thing is for certain, no matter what they do it will not please everyone so someone will be unhappy. IMO, the most fair way is to allow members to opt out if they wish. Then allow a prorated or maximum amount of points be used. But if they prorate me at over 800 points, that's much different than one who owns 150. Still, I can bet you I'd be borrowed to the hilt those last few years if I still am with it enough to do the planning.