Why Castmembers Hate DVC Members!

[Plus4206]

Bump just to be the 500th post to this thread.

 

[Plus4206]

...it was meant to be.

Know what the difference is between DVC and your local bar ? I don't have a deeded real estate interest in your bar. Also, smoking in the bar affects others who simply want to kill their liver, not their lungs. You're right. MK is dry. Always has.From day one. DVC was not.

And as far as I know.... we are not a voting membership. DVC controls everything. But if I understand what you're saying it sounds like the smoking rights of the few are not important enough for a lawyer to take the case. IMO, you're wrong.

 

[athenna]

...it was meant to be.

Know what the difference is between DVC and your local bar ? I don't have a deeded real estate interest in your bar. Also, smoking in the bar affects others who simply want to kill their liver, not their lungs. You're right. MK is dry. Always has.From day one. DVC was not.

And as far as I know.... we are not a voting membership. DVC controls everything. But if I understand what you're saying it sounds like the smoking rights of the few are not important enough for a lawyer to take the case. IMO, you're wrong.

Someone on my side?? Wow, I think I might faint!

 

[sjdisneywedding]

I just spent a week at the Boardwalk for the first time and I have to say, I do agree with the lobby behavior. I stayed at the Grand Floridian two years ago, and while it was a tad bit stuffy, it was how I pictured a very expensive hotel to be, and the people there in my experience acted accordingly. Before we bought into the DVC, we thought we would only have one chance to stay at a resort as nice as the Floridian but of course now, with our points, we can "afford" to stay at places like the Boardwalk. It was our first experience there and I was very surprised and even put off by people in the lobby and the way they just lazed about on the couches and yelled at their children at the top of their lungs. I won't even get into the behavior at the pool. I know manners have changed, however having stayed only at moderate resorts I feel it's a luxury and a privledge to be able to spend my one week in Floriday now in the "nicest resorts in Disney" and act accordingly, and based on what I saw just recently, wish others would do the same. Maybe the original poster was correct and although maybe it could be said a little better, people just don't realize that if they didn't have these points, that they or most people can't just up and stay at these level of resorts.

 

[Lady V]

That is what I am beginning to think.
Maybe he tried to purchase into DVC and was turned down

yes-must have been those easy financing terms-must not have been easy enough!! LOL

 

[Dean]

DVC can't start dictating lifestyles. If they can ban smoking, then they can ban drinking. They could make it heterosexual only. They could make married heterosexuals only.

And the idea of not finding a lawyer to take the case ? How's that possible ?

DVC is not dictating lifestyles, only behavior on their watch that is detrimental to those others around. No different than they'd ban public drunkenness or public sexual behavior (to use your analogy). As for a lawyer, the only way you'd get one to take a case such as this would be if YOU and any other plaintiff's agree to pay for it. Most cases of this type are done on contingency and I don't think you'd get a lawyer to take it on without payment guarantees as there would be little if any chance of success. Of course there's always the ACLU, seems right down their alley. Other resorts have banned smoking, DCL is no smoking except outside and in very limited areas. The parks are NS except designated areas. The political climate in FL is such that I think there's about a 50/50 chance the legislature could do it for all hotel rooms in the next few years and institute hefty fines. And while DVC would not necessarily fall under hotel guidelines (timeshares don't automatically for ADA), I'm sure they would follow suit given their situation. You do know that DVC has been steadily decreasing the number of smoking units over the years already.

 

[Plus4206]

***" You do know that DVC has been steadily decreasing the number of smoking units over the years already."***

Yes, and I think that's great. I also think that is the way to rid the resort of smoking.As the demand for it decreases, let it just drift away on it's own.

I find it interesting though that SSR wasn't made NS. SSR was a clean slate. If Disney/DVC really wanted to send a message, they would have done so.

Maybe they were afraid of losing sales to the smoking population.

 

[athenna]

Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot smokers have no rights, and shouldn't be allowed to smoke during their vacation, even though there are designated smoking areas. oh silly me.

 

[tjkraz]

Certainly if DVC is responsive to it's members and they conducted a survey, I think there would be plenty of support for the implementation of a non-smoking rule by the majority of DVC members.

You're probably right, and I think that's a pretty sad state of affairs. I'm neither a smoker nor do I consider myself to be particularly liberal. But a hotel room is intended to be an extension of your home. It is private living space. I have no problem with communities who want to prohibit smoking in PUBLIC areas. I have no problem with Disney creating designated smoking areas in the theme parks. But to try and mandate what people can and can't do in private is extreme, IMO.

Smoking is an addictive, destructive habit. But as long as the laws of our land do not prohibit smoking in private homes (or "Homes Away From Home" ), Disney should stay out of the middle.

Getting non-smoking guests into non-smoking rooms is DVC's challenge. There has to be a better solution than banding together the >50% of owners who do not smoke and declaring war on the <50% who do.

 

[Plus4206]

From what I've read here: ( read as if spoken by Richard Dawson) The survey says, "NO POOL SLIDE". Guess what the results were ?

 

[NMW]

I know for a fact that you can not smoke in any hotel rooms in San Fransisco, CA. Nor can you smoke in any bar or restaurant in San Fransisco. I assume that is true for the entire state of CA, but I'm not sure. Why could Flordia not also enact these laws? I'm sure CA gets a lot of foriegn travel too. I'm not saying that FL SHOULD do this, just that they probably easily COULD do this. I don't understand the confidence of those who say "it would never happen in FL/WDW." What is it based on? I remember when they were talking about banning smoking at all bars and restaurants in NYC, people said over and over "they will never ban smoking in bars". Well, they did, and everyone got over it, and that's that. Again, I'm not saying they SHOULD do this, just that they COULD do it if they wanted to.

 

[Beca]

You're probably right, and I think that's a pretty sad state of affairs. I'm neither a smoker nor do I consider myself to be particularly liberal. But a hotel room is intended to be an extension of your home. It is private living space. I have no problem with communities who want to prohibit smoking in PUBLIC areas. I have no problem with Disney creating designated smoking areas in the theme parks. But to try and mandate what people can and can't do in private is extreme, IMO.

But, that is not necessarily true. I can have as many people in my home as I feel comfortable....but, DVC "limits" how many people can sleep in a room that I only "rent". I can live with my cats and my dog...but, I cannot bring them to my DVC room. I can carve my initials in the arm of my chair if I want to, and no one will care (okay....just a point...I am not that "trashy")....DVC I HOPE would have a problem with this. I can paint my walls purple with pink polka dots, and no one (except my dh and my cats) will care. Now, if I was "renter" of the property, I would be limited in those respects. I don't think "not allowing me to bring my dog" is going to be the "slippery slope" that starts the "censoring" ball rolling.

What I am saying is, there are SOME aspects of DVC ownership which are like a true home that we own, and some that, because of the part-time usage. Need to be regulated by a management company (i.e. DVC). We, as owners submit to that when we buy our membership.

Plus4206 said, "DVC can't start dictating lifestyles. If they can ban smoking, then they can ban drinking. They could make it heterosexual only. They could make married heterosexuals only." I think you are "missing the point". DVC doesn't care if two people (how do I say this)..."have lots of fun" in their hotel room, as long as they don't leave the hotel room in an altered state upon checkout. They are not trying "dictate behavior"...they just want to maintain their property.

Once again, I cannot believe this thread has gone "yet again" to the side of smoking. It shows IMO, how much DVC really needs to do something about their policy regarding OUR property (at least, it is mine until 2042!!!).

If smokers were GUARANTEED smoking rooms, and non-smokers were GUARANTEED not to have them.....and, if NO smokers EVER took a non-smoking room and smoked in it (and, if DVC fined them HEAVILY if they did, this would NOT happen)....we would not be having this discussion YET again!!! But, then again....what WOULD we talk about??



Beca

 

[tjkraz]

DVC doesn't care if two people (how do I say this)..."have lots of fun" in their hotel room, as long as they don't leave the hotel room in an altered state upon checkout. They are not trying "dictate behavior"...they just want to maintain their property.

But the same applies to smoking. We all know when we enter a smoking room by the odor. But once that odor is present, there's really no further damage to be done. Other things being equal, smokers leave their smoking units in the same condition that a non-smoker leaves a non-smoking unit.

If smokers were GUARANTEED smoking rooms, and non-smokers were GUARANTEED not to have them.....and, if NO smokers EVER took a non-smoking room and smoked in it (and, if DVC fined them HEAVILY if they did, this would NOT happen)....we would not be having this discussion YET again!!!

No argument here. And I guess the point to my post is that DVC taking this sort of action seems a whole lot more reasonable than members banding together to outlaw smoking / smoking rooms altogether.

 

[Beca]

But the same applies to smoking. We all know when we enter a smoking room by the odor. But once that odor is present, there's really no further damage to be done. Other things being equal, smokers leave their smoking units in the same condition that a non-smoker leaves a non-smoking unit.

You're exactly right, and I was only referring to smokers who smoke in rooms that are designated for non-smokers. I didn't make that very clear.



Beca

 

[Plus4206]

***" I know for a fact that you can not smoke in any hotel rooms in San Fransisco, CA. Nor can you smoke in any bar or restaurant in San Fransisco. I assume that is true for the entire state of CA, but I'm not sure. Why could Flordia not also enact these laws? "***

The difference is that I didn't spend $30,000 to stay in a hotel room. I don't have a vested interest in Hotel Six, Joe's Bar and Grill or the state of Ca.

 

[Plus4206]

.... the difference is that when you purchased DVC you know that pets were not allowed. But what if pets were allowed and you specifically purchased at DVC because they did. And you ALWAYS travel with your pets. They're your family,your loved ones. Now suddenly DVC says "No Pets Allowed". How would you feel. What would you expect DVCto do to make it right for you.

Smokers aren't expecting anything more then they originally had. Taking away a lifestyle habit is wrong, regardless of our opinions on smokers.

 

[idratherbeinwdw]

.... the difference is that when you purchased DVC you know that pets were not allowed. But what if pets were allowed and you specifically purchased at DVC because they did. And you ALWAYS travel with your pets. They're your family,your loved ones. Now suddenly DVC says "No Pets Allowed". How would you feel. What would you expect DVCto do to make it right for you.

Smokers aren't expecting anything more then they originally had. Taking away a lifestyle habit is wrong, regardless of our opinions on smokers.

Although I'm not a smoker I think you're right Plus4206. If I bought into something that allowed something--whether it be pets, smoking or orgies on my balcony, I'd be pretty upset if the rules changed after I purchased.

I do agree with those who think rules such as no smoking in a no smoking room should be enforced more vigilantly. However, I'm not sure how this would be accomplished, since who would the "smoking police" actually be, and how could it be proved? Unless someone was caught with the door to their room open standing there smoking they will just deny having done it if they are accused. After all if they're inconsiderate enough to smoke in a non smoking room it shows they have no morals anyway, what's to keep them from lying if they're fined due to smoking?

Sad isn't it, that some people feel entitled to do what they want when they want regardless of how it affects others?

 

[sarhenty]

But, that is not necessarily true. I can have as many people in my home as I feel comfortable....but, DVC "limits" how many people can sleep in a room that I only "rent". I can live with my cats and my dog...but, I cannot bring them to my DVC room. I can carve my initials in the arm of my chair if I want to, and no one will care (okay....just a point...I am not that "trashy")....DVC I HOPE would have a problem with this. I can paint my walls purple with pink polka dots, and no one (except my dh and my cats) will care. Now, if I was "renter" of the property, I would be limited in those respects. I don't think "not allowing me to bring my dog" is going to be the "slippery slope" that starts the "censoring" ball rolling.

What I am saying is, there are SOME aspects of DVC ownership which are like a true home that we own, and some that, because of the part-time usage. Need to be regulated by a management company (i.e. DVC). We, as owners submit to that when we buy our membership.

Plus4206 said, "DVC can't start dictating lifestyles. If they can ban smoking, then they can ban drinking. They could make it heterosexual only. They could make married heterosexuals only." I think you are "missing the point". DVC doesn't care if two people (how do I say this)..."have lots of fun" in their hotel room, as long as they don't leave the hotel room in an altered state upon checkout. They are not trying "dictate behavior"...they just want to maintain their property.

Once again, I cannot believe this thread has gone "yet again" to the side of smoking. It shows IMO, how much DVC really needs to do something about their policy regarding OUR property (at least, it is mine until 2042!!!).

If smokers were GUARANTEED smoking rooms, and non-smokers were GUARANTEED not to have them.....and, if NO smokers EVER took a non-smoking room and smoked in it (and, if DVC fined them HEAVILY if they did, this would NOT happen)....we would not be having this discussion YET again!!! But, then again....what WOULD we talk about??



Beca

Man, Beca, you couldn't have said it better! Kudos...

 

[Kadorto]

.... the difference is that when you purchased DVC you know that pets were not allowed. But what if pets were allowed and you specifically purchased at DVC because they did. And you ALWAYS travel with your pets. They're your family,your loved ones. Now suddenly DVC says "No Pets Allowed". How would you feel. What would you expect DVCto do to make it right for you.

Smokers aren't expecting anything more then they originally had. Taking away a lifestyle habit is wrong, regardless of our opinions on smokers.

It goes way beyond opinions. Second hand smoke is a proven medical risk to non-smokers. Not to mention the extra expense members pay in annual dues to clean up and decontaminate the rooms after somebody has smoked in the resort. Its not a matter of IF DVC will be smoke free but rather how soon....I bet we see it within the next year.

BTW...how did this thread go from CM'S hating us to another smoking debate?

 

[Beca]

.... the difference is that when you purchased DVC you know that pets were not allowed. But what if pets were allowed and you specifically purchased at DVC because they did. And you ALWAYS travel with your pets. They're your family,your loved ones. Now suddenly DVC says "No Pets Allowed". How would you feel. What would you expect DVCto do to make it right for you.

Smokers aren't expecting anything more then they originally had. Taking away a lifestyle habit is wrong, regardless of our opinions on smokers.

I certainly understand your frustration with "bought this, got this"...and, in my opinion, that is why DVC is NOT going to go to this policy. But, I still think that if DVC wanted to change it...they could. If I bought a timeshare that allowed pets, and then the management company said, "Okay, because people are leaving their pets in the rooms ALL day, and not coming back frequently enough to let them out...we are going to have to go to a "non-pet" policy"...I think they could do that. It might have to go to a "vote", or other measures...but, I think it could be done. Still, I don't think it is very likely, and I think if DVC went to guaranteed categories....it wouldn't be needed. Non-smokers really don't care if people choose to smoke...trust me on this one. The fact that someone chooses to smoke bothers me no more than someone choosing to drink (something else I don't participate in). Now, if someone chooses to "drink and drive", I have a problem with that. If someone wants to smoke, and I have don't have to be around them when they do....I really don't care. It's only when I have to be booked into a smoking room, or walk into a room that is supposed to be non-smoking that reeks, that I get upset! And, DVC's answer is to spray the room with "deodorizer"....that doesn't work. And, if I ask DVC to remove all "cloth" things that can be removed...linens, towels, curtains, etc. to help alleviate the smell. Well, that is added expense...not only in time, laundry, and dry-cleaning costs, but also in "wear and tear" of the items. Plus, it is my valuable vacation time that I must "donate" because someone smoked in a place where they had been asked not to (or, I got placed in the wrong category of room). And, even after all this effort....the room would still smell because of the carpets and the sofa (and, if these items were cleaned...that would be a MAJOR inconvenience). Not to mention, the rule-abiding, non-smoking guest would most certainly end up on the "naughty DVCer's" list because of all the trouble "she" made the DVC staff go thru. When, in reality...that room should be taken out of service until it can be completely cleaned, and that fee should be charged to the previous guest. I know MANY hotels do this, and when I stay in a room that is supposed to be non-smoking, but smells of cigarette smoke, I immediately call the front desk to let them know. I request the note be made on the computer screen (and I have them put in there that I called upon arrival). I then get the name of the employee that I spoke to, and I request a copy of this printout be left under my door asap. I do this because, as a flight attendant, if we smoked in a non-smoking room and the hotel complained to the airlines, we were disciplined about this and fined $250 by the airline (which then paid the hotel).

And, to reverse your question. When I spoke to my guide about buying into SSR, he assured me that I could get non-smoking rooms upon request. How do you think it feels now for members with serious concerns about smoking (asthma, allergies, etc...my mom has BAD allergies to smoke) to know that there is NO way to guarantee this? Isn't that a "switch" from what we bought? My guide at no time told me what member services tells me, that "non-smoking categories are a request, not a guarantee". I was simply told that most rooms were non-smoking, and that it would not be a problem.

*I think that requesting non-smoking is fundamentally different from requesting a certain view.
*I think that smokers should be able to "smoke away" in smoking rooms.
*I think that smokers who want to smoke in their rooms should ALWAYS request smoking rooms (I only say this because I DO know some smokers who don't want to stay in smoking rooms because they say, "I go out on the balcony to smoke. *I don't want to stay in a smoking room because of the smell.)
*I don't think smoking should be allowed on the balconies of non-smoking rooms. Why should I be restricted from enjoying my balcony because of a smoker in a non-smoking section?
*I think that people who smoke in non-smoking rooms should be "fined", just as I think anyone who does anything that requires additional maintenance from a deliberate choice should be required to pay for the repairs of that room.
*I think DVC needs to guarantee these categories. I LOVE BCV (I'm sure everyone knows that now ), but I would rather stay at BWV, or some other resort if I knew that the only room I could get at BCV was smoking. I am sure that many smokers would love to be able to reserve a "smoking room" as well. It is just a win-win policy for all involved.

I think the thing to keep in mind is this: If smokers found non-smoking rooms (the normal smell of a room) offensive, we would see a lot more posts by smokers saying, "I requested a smoking room, and got a non-smoking room....and, boy was it awful. Those non-smokers...man, they sure know how to stink up a room." But, because a smoker can be happy smoking in ANY room...they are not bothered by this. When I was younger and drank...my mom could ALWAYS smell it on my breath no matter WHAT I ate to cover it up....I know people that ALWAYS seem to smell of B.O....they don't notice it, but I sure do (as do many others). My friend bought a car that had been owned by someone who ate a lot of curry. The car reeks of curry!!! The owner sold it for $5,000 below blue book!! It is a BEAUTIFUL 2003 Camry with about 10,000 miles on it. It took him many months to sell it, and he "could not" figure out why people weren't buying it. My friend bought it because she really needed a good deal on a car. My point is this: people are MUCH less bothered by their own smells than the smells of others. Smoking is an offensive smell to people who choose not to do that. All of the posts about smoke being offensive is not to say that smokers are offensive. People who smoke only become offensive when they are being rude and inconsiderate about when and where they choose to smoke.

I have a friend who "passes gas" a LOT (gosh, it seems like I have a LOT of stinky friends, doesn't it). When he "lays a bomb" we all clear the room!!! It's disgusting!!! I LOVE him dearly...he is a riot!!! But, even though his "gifts" as he calls them, leave no long term effects...I clear the room until "the coast is clear". I don't want to smell people's "gifts" of any kind...whether it is smoke, gas, B.O. or otherwise. I remember a thread awhile back where someone posted that they stay in a regular WDW hotel room, request a fridge, and bring an electric skillet to cook in. They cooked a lot of Asian food in this skillet, and the poster got SLAMMED by everyone!! I remember (in shock) reading posts where people said, "Why should I have to smell the smell of stinky asian food just because you are trying to save money. I don't stay in a hotel to smell "cooking"." And, this was in the hallway!!!

Sometimes, it seems to me that we are allowed to complain about lots of odors, but "don't touch smokers...it's their right". I KNOW it doesn't seem that way to you...but, I am just giving another perspective.

Sorry this is so long....I ramble!!!



Beca