I am so glad the rent/don't rent debate is back again. This board was really getting dry there for a while. Some views:
1. As to the official documents prohibiting receiving compensation for the "transfer" of points: "transfer of points" is a limited term that applies only to the physical transfer of points from one member's account to another's. If you rent by using your points to make a ressie for another, that is not considered a "transfer" of points and thus not subject to the prohibition. If you read through the documents you will see that "points" are legally just symbols that represent your real estate interest and have no intrinsic value. Prohibiting compensation for a transfer of points is designed to maintain that no intrinsic value concept and is there for that purely legal reason and really has nothing to do with whether you can or cannot rent. In fact if you simply agreed to rent your real estate interest for a fee and then agreed to complete that rental by a transfer of points you still would not be violating the prohibition of receiving compensation for a transfer of points as your compensation would be for the rental of the real estate interest and the physical transfer is just an act to carry out the deal.
2. The documents do expressly allow you to rent subject to a vague limitation that it cannot be for a commercial purpose and that repeated renting could be deemed a commercial purpose. Thus, there is a potential limitation that may prohibit someone from just buying points with the intent of simply renting all the time. Not likely a clause Disney would enforce absent widespread renting for a business purpose. Disney's idea was likely to assure that renting
DVC didn't become the norm controlled by enterprises that would truly be competing with Disney on the hotel level. Also, it has a protect Disney's a__ quality to it. A person or entitiy who is actually in the business of renting resort property in Florida is required to collect resort taxes (the 11% in the area) and pay them over to government entities. Failure to do so could result in a lien on the real property at issue. The Florida law does not apply to someone who has a vacation home, uses it sometimes and then rents it out the rest, but it does apply to someone who really does own resort property solely to rent. The Disney vague prohibition is a covenant attached to the property that effectively prevents a lien from being asserted on the property if, as likely, someone who is in the business of renting DVC is failing to collect that tax, i.e., the act that would lead to the tax is illegal under the property's covenants and therefore any lien would be ineffective with the government being limited to going after the individual who is renting.
3.
DVC rentals are a limited market with the interent being the only real available marketplace. Though we have seen on the internet (e-bay and other sites) those who appear to do nothing but rent DVC, it is really a very samll group that could not have much if any impact on other's use. As a result I do not consider it a problem.
4. What people rent for -- $10, $7 less, more -- is entirely up to them. In fact, I view it relieving that so many disagree with each other as to the amount to rent because if everyone got on this board and agreed to raise prices, a clever prosecutor could find a way to bring charges for illegal price fixing under state laws.
