Top of the World Lounge at Bay Lake Tower at Contemporary Resort - *2 New Parties Added! “Enchantment at the Top” & New “Bound to Be Bad” Dates Added

[hilltopper152]

Haha, I love it! Only "eligible" members can go but they have to climb the stairs!

I am being proved wrong by the DVC experts currently but trying to accept it. Doesn't mean I will be happy ha but if I can somehow win the argument for elevator being for all members maybe I can argue to ride up and look out and show my sad face lol.

 

[Jenglish13]

You beat me to it. The freight elevators that housekeeping and others use to service the guest rooms are maintained through dues, so I guess every maid's closet, every mechanical room, and the entire basement should be made accessible as well.

The difference is no one is allowed access to these areas and structures and they are used to service and support all guests. I mean this is all obviously pretty silly but then again so is restricting BLT owners from accessing the lounge!

 

[hilltopper152]

It was never declared as something owners had a right to use, and why dues can’t fund it. It’s not part of the vacation ownership plan.

It is a commercial space that is leased out to whomever they want and owners have no say in the agreement or need to approve who used it for what.

Here is what is in the POS.
View attachment 679241

Aren't they just wonderful! The terms are right there aren't they ha. Those pesky lawyers did it again and got one on us.

 

[Sandisw]

The difference is no one is allowed access to these areas and structures and they are used to service and support all guests. I mean this is all obviously pretty silly but then again so is restricting BLT owners from accessing the lounge!

It’s really not. As I just posted, it’s no different than Toppolinos at the top of RIV. I have no right to access that spot just because I own there.

Or, owners of any DVC resort having access to all things at their home resorts even if not staying there,

 

[hilltopper152]

It’s really not. As I just posted, it’s no different than Toppolinos at the top of RIV. I have no right to access that spot just because I own there.

Thank you for sharing this as now I see how they did make this decision. They sure will have a lot of people to explain this to though which still makes it seem like a silly decision to suddenly draw a hard line on. I do appreciate the information along with others I am sure even though we are upset.

 

[tjkraz]

It’s really not. As I just posted, it’s no different than Toppolinos at the top of RIV. I have no right to access that spot just because I own there.

Or The Attic at BoardWalk, or the concierge lounge at Jambo House if not staying in the designated rooms, or the Spa at SSR if not paying for spa services...

 

[Sandisw]

Thank you for sharing this as now I see how they did make this decision. They sure will have a lot of people to explain this to though which still makes it seem like a silly decision to suddenly draw a hard line on. I do appreciate the information along with others I am sure even though we are upset.

And I get why people are upset, especially those who really had no idea how it was structured.

I have a feeling we will start seeing more member only spots pop up around the resorts.

 

[Jenglish13]

It’s really not. As I just posted, it’s no different than Toppolinos at the top of RIV. I have no right to access that spot just because I own there.

Or, owners of any DVC resort having access to all things at their home resorts even if not staying there,

No I get it, I was just being goofy and talking about access to freight elevators and such, meaning no one is allowed access to those areas and they are used in support of the entire resort in general. I've acknowledged from the start they're within their rights to do this and made it more than clear how I feel about it!

Sandi is there a list of rights and amenities that are off limits and guaranteed to resale buyers for the duration of the contract? Pools, parking lots, restaurants, transportation, etc.?

 

[hilltopper152]

We

And I get why people are upset, especially those who really had no idea how it was structured.

I have a feeling we will start seeing more member only spots pop up around the resorts.

I agree and think this battle is not worth having but understand they have to figure out how to convince some people to spend thousands more. I just wish they see that adding an actual new place or club would be great for that and now just removing a benefit from current owners. Piss off one group and hardly adding anything "new" is so lazy. I bet Poly will have a new terrace club for it or maybe even a new area within the parks at AK like they have at Epcot.

 

[Sandisw]

No I get it, I was just being goofy and talking about access to freight elevators and such, meaning no one is allowed access to those areas and they are used in support of the entire resort in general. I've acknowledged from the start they're within their rights to do this and made it more than clear how I feel about it!

Sandi is there a list of rights and amenities that are off limits and guaranteed to resale buyers for the duration of the contract? Pools, parking lots, restaurants, transportation, etc.?

Each resort is different but some basic principles apply to all.

Transportation to the parks is something we get to take advantage of on whatever way it’s offered to cash guests. If they charge for that, then we pay too. It’s why we lost access to DME. It was something Disney offered and we got to be part of it, but only as long as it exists.

Any resort that has common elements like pools and such declared that way, owners pay dues for them so those are set

Same with parking lots at the resorts. Covered as a common element so it has to stay.

Pools are unique thought. At BLT, the feature pool is declared into the association so that can’t be changed for use of guests at BLt.

However, the pools at vGF, for example, are owned and operated by Disney and as owners we have right to use them, but technically that could be taken away.

So, you really have to read carefully each POS to know exactly what elements are part of the vacation ownership plan and how it can or can not be used.

The key with anything that is defined as an incidental benefit must be part of a program that is voluntary for owners to participate in and no dues can be used to fund them..it’s pretty detailed out in the FL timeshare law. It can be free or it can come with a few but no owner can be forced to cover it. An example was valet parking. It was a perk paid for by DVD but once the contract changed with who would provide it, DVD dropped it as a perk since they didn’t want to pay for it anymore.

But it is why DVD can lease spaces like the Epcot Lounge and now TOTWL to be exclusive spots for certain DVC owners.

The only true guarantee any of us has is the right to stay at our home resort and use the common elements declared for that resort when staying at that property.

ETA. And to put on DVDs hat..look at how upset some of those not eligible to visit TOTWL now are. It tells them, petty decision or not, it’s exactly what they want. FOMO to push that on the fence buyer right over to their side.

Just like no one buys direct DVD just for the perks , DVD knows that not every new buyer is going to buy resale now just because they don’t like that DVD made this move.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Its more the fact that we cover the cost of the real estatate but they are now allowed to discern who's money is more important when we have the same legal obligations. They are making money on our asset with discriminatory access and no return on our investment. It's exclusionary to the population there and takes advantage of the overall expenses we all share.

Because you (or we in general at all resorts) don’t own the building in total, the land, or the infrastructure. You own a percentage of the leasehold interest that encompasses the residential units within the building.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if DVD/DVC hasn’t actually granted the residential owners an easement to use THEIR elevators to access the residential unit and common area floors (with a pro-rata allocation of service and maintenance costs included in dues). Just like the VGF pools Sandi mentioned above.

 

[Jenglish13]

We


I agree and think this battle is not worth having but understand they have to figure out how to convince some people to spend thousands more. I just wish they see that adding an actual new place or club would be great for that and now just removing a benefit from current owners. Piss off one group and hardly adding anything "new" is so lazy. I bet Poly will have a new terrace club for it or maybe even a new area within the parks at AK like they have at Epcot.

Agree 100%. So crappy to take away an existing benefit even if they're legally entitled, especially when that place is housed within an actual resort. At least Riviera has had restrictions and exclusions from the start.

And earlier in this thread someone mentioned buying direct (at least 150 points) at Riviera instead to obtain perks and I thought it was a decent argument. But the more I think about it... You can get Riviera in resale for even far less, like $130-135, so you're paying an extra $70 per point for what exactly? In my 270 point BLT example, there'd also be an extra $350 in dues at Riv per year vs BLT . So for about $19k more for the contract and $13k more in dues for the life of the contract, we're right back to my original point. It's essentially tens of thousands of dollars more to obtain the perks, which makes no economic sense unless you have a ton of $ and can't be bothered with the headaches of resale.
And then you may argue that if you buy Riv on resale you're restricted to staying at Riv only, which actually furthers my point and explains why resale value at Riv is so cheap which sucks if you buy Riv direct and want or need to sell for whatever reason! These stupid policies hurt everyone in the long run in my opinion. Aside from VGF where the discrepancy between resale and direct is small enough to possibly justify the premium for perks the math just doesn't make sense. If they're going to make this distinction between direct and resale then make the premium worth it, it's just objectively not right now with the sole exception of VGF IMO.

 

[Jenglish13]

Each resort is different but some basic principles apply to all.

Transportation to the parks is something we get to take advantage of on whatever way it’s offered to cash guests. If they charge for that, then we pay too. It’s why we lost access to DME. It was something Disney offered and we got to be part of it, but only as long as it exists.

Any resort that has common elements like pools and such declared that way, owners pay dues for them so those are set

Same with parking lots at the resorts. Covered as a common element so it has to stay.

Pools are unique thought. At BLT, the feature pool is declared into the association so that can’t be changed for use of guests at BLt.

However, the pools at vGF, for example, are owned and operated by Disney and as owners we have right to use them, but technically that could be taken away.

So, you really have to read carefully each POS to know exactly what elements are part of the vacation ownership plan and how it can or can not be used.

The key with anything that is defined as an incidental benefit must be part of a program that is voluntary for owners to participate in and no dues can be used to fund them..it’s pretty detailed out in the FL timeshare law. It can be free or it can come with a few but no owner can be forced to cover it. An example was valet parking. It was a perk paid for by DVD but once the contract changed with who would provide it, DVD dropped it as a perk since they didn’t want to pay for it anymore.

But it is why DVD can lease spaces like the Epcot Lounge and now TOTWL to be exclusive spots for certain DVC owners.

The only true guarantee any of us has is the right to stay at our home resort and use the common elements declared for that resort when staying at that property.

ETA. And to put on DVDs hat..look at how upset some of those not eligible to visit TOTWL now are. It tells them, petty decision or not, it’s exactly what they want. FOMO to push that on the fence buyer right over to their side.

Just like no one buys direct DVD just for the perks , DVD knows that not every new buyer is going to buy resale now just because they don’t like that DVD made this move.

Thanks Sandi, that's very informative!

What about access to the other 12 or 14 or whatever number it is of original DVC properties that we can also book at 7 months out. Could that be taken away too theoretically?

 

[hilltopper152]

Agree 100%. So crappy to take away an existing benefit even if they're legally entitled, especially when that place is housed within an actual resort. At least Riviera has had restrictions and exclusions from the start.

And earlier in this thread someone mentioned buying direct (at least 150 points) at Riviera instead to obtain perks and I thought it was a decent argument. But the more I think about it... You can get Riviera in resale for even far less, like $130-135, so you're paying an extra $70 per point for what exactly? In my 270 point BLT example, there'd also be an extra $350 in dues at Riv per year vs BLT . So for about $19k more for the contract and $13k more in dues for the life of the contract, we're right back to my original point. It's essentially tens of thousands of dollars more to obtain the perks, which makes no economic sense unless you have a ton of $ and can't be bothered with the headaches of resale.
And then you may argue that if you buy Riv on resale you're restricted to staying at Riv only, which actually furthers my point and explains why resale value at Riv is so cheap which sucks if you buy Riv direct and want or need to sell for whatever reason! These stupid policies hurt everyone in the long run in my opinion. Aside from VGF where the discrepancy between resale and direct is small enough to possibly justify the premium for perks the math just doesn't make sense. If they're going to make this distinction between direct and resale then make the premium worth it, it's just objectively not right now with the sole exception of VGF IMO.

You nailed it 100% also. I can eat at California Grill for the rest of my life of DVC visits and watch fireworks and save money lol. Only way I ever consider buying direct is if I could buy a small contract extension for a favorite resort or BLT. Maybe for a brand new resort without resell restrictions. Resell restrictions is a hard pass for me. I personally wouldn't buy a resale contract at RIV for more than a $100 currently especially when considering a horrible point chart. Like the resort otherwise.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Agree 100%. So crappy to take away an existing benefit even if they're legally entitled, especially when that place is housed within an actual resort. At least Riviera has had restrictions and exclusions from the start.

And earlier in this thread someone mentioned buying direct (at least 150 points) at Riviera instead to obtain perks and I thought it was a decent argument. But the more I think about it... You can get Riviera in resale for even far less, like $130-135, so you're paying an extra $70 per point for what exactly? In my 270 point BLT example, there'd also be an extra $350 in dues at Riv per year vs BLT . So for about $19k more for the contract and $13k more in dues for the life of the contract, we're right back to my original point. It's essentially tens of thousands of dollars more to obtain the perks, which makes no economic sense unless you have a ton of $ and can't be bothered with the headaches of resale.
And then you may argue that if you buy Riv on resale you're restricted to staying at Riv only, which actually furthers my point and explains why resale value at Riv is so cheap which sucks if you buy Riv direct and want or need to sell for whatever reason! These stupid policies hurt everyone in the long run in my opinion. Aside from VGF where the discrepancy between resale and direct is small enough to possibly justify the premium for perks the math just doesn't make sense. If they're going to make this distinction between direct and resale then make the premium worth it, it's just objectively not right now with the sole exception of VGF IMO.

With the current incentives, people aren't actually paying $207 when buying Riviera points directly from DVC. The incentives vary based on how many points you buy, of course. People buy directly for a lot of different reasons, including the ease of the purchase, often getting more points in the first year than via resale, it's faster than resale, the points are completely unrestricted, and access to members-only benefits.

For many, it's more than just pure dollars.

 

[Sandisw]

Agree 100%. So crappy to take away an existing benefit even if they're legally entitled, especially when that place is housed within an actual resort. At least Riviera has had restrictions and exclusions from the start.

And earlier in this thread someone mentioned buying direct (at least 150 points) at Riviera instead to obtain perks and I thought it was a decent argument. But the more I think about it... You can get Riviera in resale for even far less, like $130-135, so you're paying an extra $70 per point for what exactly? In my 270 point BLT example, there'd also be an extra $350 in dues at Riv per year vs BLT . So for about $19k more for the contract and $13k more in dues for the life of the contract, we're right back to my original point. It's essentially tens of thousands of dollars more to obtain the perks, which makes no economic sense unless you have a ton of $ and can't be bothered with the headaches of resale.
And then you may argue that if you buy Riv on resale you're restricted to staying at Riv only, which actually furthers my point and explains why resale value at Riv is so cheap which sucks if you buy Riv direct and want or need to sell for whatever reason! These stupid policies hurt everyone in the long run in my opinion. Aside from VGF where the discrepancy between resale and direct is small enough to possibly justify the premium for perks the math just doesn't make sense. If they're going to make this distinction between direct and resale then make the premium worth it, it's just objectively not right now with the sole exception of VGF IMO.

RIV has use restrictions on resale but that’s it. If what you mean is that a place like Toppolinos was open to everyone from the start and not something taken away, it doesn’t really matter because the premise is the same.


Buying direct gets you more than perks. It does give you access to staying at RIV and all future resorts and that, IMO, is the important element.

So, for someone on the fence, spending more for direct gives you the option to take advantage of whatever extras DVD puts in place. Resale locks you out 100%.

Now, 270 points for BLT direct would never make sense with sold out pricing. But, it could if it was in active sales and priced like VGF and RIV…then the difference might make it worth it in the end.

In terms of RIV resale? It’s actually not that bad, on average…right now and if VDH and Poly tower come with them as well, then it will more than likely stabilize. I believe for May, it was $145 for contracts sold via DVC Resale Market.

Again I do get the disappointment that this is no longer what it was, but with the way prices are…both direct and resale…DVD is going to find ways to make what they sell seem superior to the average new buyer coming in during those WDW vacations.

 

[RanDIZ]

Honestly, I wouldn’t be too worked up about not having access TOWL. BLT is nothing but an average hotel tower that’s present in all big cities. It’s biggest perk is the walk to MK. There’s plenty of better viewing areas for fireworks elsewhere. I’d much rather stay at my AKV and enjoy the Savannas with exotic animals roaming around while I eat at some of the best restaurants on property.

Now they’re gonna nickel and dime members with an overpriced event. People need to stop feeding into the money grab at Disney by supporting their greedy hands dipping into everyone’s pockets.

 

[Sandisw]

Thanks Sandi, that's very informative!

What about access to the other 12 or 14 or whatever number it is of original DVC properties that we can also book at 7 months out. Could that be taken away too theoretically?

Technically, yes, but not on a resale vs direct basis. Each resort gets to trade to other resorts because they are part of BVTC….as long as a resort is part of that, owners get to book. What happens is that your home resort points get converted into DVC Resort points and those make them eligible for the booking. If you cancel, they revert back to home resort points…. They can amend the booking period and make it longer or shorter but as an owner, you get at least one month advantage. But nothing requires the 11/7 month timeframe to stay.

RiIV entered with different rules in which only certain points can be converted into DVC resort points for use there at 7 months...
and those are direct points or resale points purchased prior to Jan 2019.
In exchange for those rules, RIV resale is restricted from any trading.
,
If they remove a DVC resort from BVTC…and there are rules that govern how that can happen…then all owners of that resort would be restricted to their home resort.

 

[Sandisw]

Honestly, I wouldn’t be too worked up about not having access TOWL. BLT is nothing but an average hotel tower that’s present in all big cities. It’s biggest perk is the walk to MK. There’s plenty of better viewing areas for fireworks elsewhere. I’d much rather stay at my AKV and enjoy the Savannas with exotic animals roaming around while I eat at some of the best restaurants on property.

Now they’re gonna nickel and dime members with an overpriced event. People need to stop feeding into the money grab at Disney by supporting their greedy hands dipping into everyone’s pockets.

Except what you see as greedy, other people may not. Obviously, there were enough members who wanted to attend the party that it sold out all three nights quickly. It must have been worth it to them to indulge.

I certainly respect that some people are fed up with what all divisions of Disney are doing, but I also think it’s okay that other are not.

Just like you think AKV is better than BLT, other owners think the opposite. It is what makes DVC great…someplace for everyonr

 

[Maistre Gracey]

It was never declared as something owners had a right to use, and why dues can’t fund it. It’s not part of the vacation ownership plan.

It is a commercial space that is leased out to whomever they want and owners have no say in the agreement or need to approve who used it for what.

ETA: It would be like RIV owners demanding that they have to be allowed to go into Toppolinos and the outside viewing area simply because it’s part of the building. It’s the same thing for TOTWL.


But Here is what is in the POS.
View attachment 679241

I see, and understand the commercial unit aspect, but…

It says “available to owners & guests”.
It does not distinguish between direct or resale… both are owners.