Why not buy the cheapest home resort??

[Dean]

Originally posted by Desperado
lets elliminate the partly true part by improving the OKW pools and making them more desirable for kids and improve the OKW resort. Several posts above indicate pools as a decision factor. OKW needs to improve thier pools (IMHO) especially since SAB pool hopping is not available. It won't affect me, we don't stay at OKW, the condo feel isn't something we're looking for. But I think it addresses this issue in a constructive way and benefits OKW owners, (even if a couple of folks don't want change).

OKW owners voted they didn't want the other options so it will not happen. The vote was pretty overwhelming from what I recall, something like 69% against slides, lifeguards, etc. Just because a few non OKW owners think it would be better, that doesn't mean that most do, actually most don't and we have the proof.

 

[Dean]

I wrote:

The flip side of this arguement is that some have been convinced to buy off site (VB and HH) with the idea of buying points cheaper and using those point sot ONLY stay at WDW. IMO, that's a big mistake if they don't want to use their home resort at least part of the time.

Originally posted by Desperado
Doesn't the same logic apply for OKW ownership?

No and here's why. My reference was to practicality, not appropriateness in regards to the other members. Anyone can buy HH, VB or any other resort to stay at any DVC resort if they want. They problem is they are making a mistake if they buy off site with the sole purpose of staying at WDW. They are not saving money and are putting themselves at a disadvantage when there's no need to. It doesn't hurt anyone else, it's just a bad decision, and that's their choice.

Originally posted by KANSAS
i have foudn this thread, so interesting. I think someone posted that they stayed at BOardwalk, with non boardwalk points
and a boardwalk owner, accused them of "STEALING" THEIR ROOM.
IF true, this was very harsch
IF true, could Boardwalk owners, really have a hard time, with OKW Points, being used at Boardwalk at different times, next 38 years.

I get amused at some DVC members at times. There's no wonder that most of the rest of the timeshaing world see us as spoiled brats. It's because it's true for many as the idea of one stealing the room suggests. While that may be over the top, this mentality takes many forms.

• The idea of members at X resort shouldn't be allowed to exchange to other resorts.
• The idea that DVC shouldn't rent units because someone wants that time
• The idea that someone shouldn't rent that time because another DVC member wanted it.
• The idea that one resort gets a minor change to the better of those owners and another resort didn't is being unfair (BWV BW view issue).
• Certain members shouldn't be able to PH because the pools at their resorts aren't up to MY standards.

I find all of these attitudes petty, childish and inappropriate.

 

[crisi]

Dean,

That survey was taken when pool hopping was something that didn't seem as threatened as it does now. I wonder how the survery would work out if the pool hopping perk were discontinued?

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by crisi
Dean,

That survey was taken when pool hopping was something that didn't seem as threatened as it does now. I wonder how the survery would work out if the pool hopping perk were discontinued?

I don't think PH is any more threatened now than then, at least to me it's about the same. I doubt it would make any difference because I don't think (IMO) that OKW owners were saying don't upgrade, we'll just PH. Overall I suspect few owners PH on a percentage basis.

 

[Stitch 03]

I am new to DVC and bought into OKW (I am waiting to hear if DVC will exercise their ROFR). Based upon my non-expert observations I would expect that OKW would have more availability then the other resorts at the seven month window. The reson - the low dues.

If you are a indifferent to which property you stay at or want to sample different resorts with no real preferance then it makes sense to buy where the dues are cheaper. I expect to visit WDW every second year and will probably split my stay at OKW and one of the other resorts. This could translate into me staying outside of my home resort 50% of the time. And not because I do not like OKW. My theory is that a lot of DVC owners with similar preferances are doing the same thing. In otherwords, OKW may attract a lot of owners who want to resort hop.

As far as there being increased demand for BCV and BWV as a result of increased membership. I do not see this being significant. At slow times of the year when the parks close early I can see owners at other resorts fighting to get into SSR at the seventh month window. In addition, if the rumor is true of a DVC resort on the monorail then that resort would also draw a lot of owners from other resorts. The bottom line is that DVC will ensure a mix to all tastes.

Theses are just my opinions on what I think is a very interesting topic. By the way, if you should see me at the BCV one day. I did not 'steal' your points You gave up the right to those points when the seven month window opened up.

Here is hoping Disney passes on their ROFR and that it closes promptly. I will then be proud to call myself a OKW owner .

P.S. I do not care if their is a slide or not.

 

[Desperado]

Originally posted by Dean
[*]The idea that DVC shouldn't rent units because someone wants that time
[*]The idea that someone shouldn't rent that time because another DVC member wanted it.
[*]The idea that one resort gets a minor change to the better of those owners and another resort didn't is being unfair (BWV BW view issue).
[*]Certain members shouldn't be able to PH because the pools at their resorts aren't up to MY standards.
[/list]I find all of these attitudes petty, childish and inappropriate.

Well, if this list is meant to include the view that cherry-picking- prime-holiday-weeks-for-the-lowest-sunday-thursday-point-value and-auctioning-them-off-on-an-auction-site, then I would dissagree that expressing concern about these practices is petty, childish and inappropriate. I think this forum is an appropriate place to raise the concern and discuss the issue without infantile name calling. Given previous posts, I'm surprised to see it stooping to the level of using these types of descriptors, just because one dissagrees. Too bad.

Anyone can buy HH, VB or any other resort to stay at any DVC resort if they want. They problem is they are making a mistake if they buy off site with the sole purpose of staying at WDW.

Agreed.

DVC surveyed OKW owners about adding a slide a few years back, and it was resoundingly rejected. I remember it being something like 60% against.

60% is hardly "resoundingly". "a few years back" is what I'm suggesting is the problem. I believe "a few years back" was prior to BCV and WLV and SSR and pool hopping restrictions at SAB. I'm dissapointed pool hopping will not be offered at SSR so that OKW members could enjoy through a nice boat ride, although I doubt I'd take advantage of it.

My impression is that there is a difference in demand for resorts, with less demand for older OKW. I belive there is general agreement on this point, but not agreement concerning the cause. How much does the cause or combination of causes matter? Hasn't this trend occurred long enough that it makes sense to take some steps to even out demand that do not cause any limitations for others? I'm not suggesting restrictions, fees or limits, or changing fundamental 7 month windows, but some reasonble resort improvements.

On a personal level, I wish the older OKW seemed more attractive as an option so that we would be more interested in staying there. Don't have to, need to, nor am I complaining about it, but I see it as benefiting many members. We've got plenty of resorts to choose from and have no problem with others choosing based on thier own preferences, or those that love OKW. If a slide is a bad idea, then don't do it, but there's no harm in discussing it and calling people names for suggesting it is un called for.

Still don't see the harm in making some improvements at OKW so that it is a more desirable destination for a larger number of people to even out demand, even though it probably won't personally affect our vacation plans. to each his own.

 

[Desperado]

By the way, if you should see me at the BCV one day. I did not 'steal' your points

of course not, I don't know where this idea of "stealing points" ever came from, I haven't seen the specific poll this idea is referenced to.

DeeP, I wouldn't have guessed this thread you started would have brought out so many replies.

 

[tjkraz]

Originally posted by Desperado
My impression is that there is a difference in demand for resorts, with less demand for older OKW. I belive there is general agreement on this point, but not agreement concerning the cause.

I don't think that's the case at all. The only "general agreement" that I hear is that people say there are often rooms available at OKW when they call. According to this web site there are over 700 rooms at OKW. Do the first 200 rooms at OKW fill up as quickly as the 180 at VWL? I have no idea--you have no idea.

Even when a DVC CM says that there are "quite a few rooms left", how many is that? At 95 percent capacity, OKW would still have over 35 rooms unbooked. Is a 95% occupancy rate sufficient to detemine that OKW is no longer meeting the needs of its owners?

I've stayed at OKW twice, and feel that it has a lot going for it with which the other resorts cannot compete. Larger rooms, lower point costs, very cheap Grand Villas, separate laundry rooms, parking right outside of the resort, etc. NONE of the other DVC properties can claim these as benefits.

Frankly, the fact that you've never even stayed at OKW doesn't lend a whole lot of credence to your arguments.

Still don't see the harm in making some improvements at OKW so that it is a more desirable destination for a larger number of people to even out demand, even though it probably won't personally affect our vacation plans. to each his own.

The only problem is that it isn't your decision (or my decision) to make. In the same way that your neighbours can't tell you to trim your hedges differently, we (and I'm including myself) cannot force OKW to add a pool or a monorail station or a skeet shooting range.

It's up to the OKW owners, and if they see areas for improvement, I'm certain they will voice those opinions to DVC management in one of the many forums they provide.

 

[PamOKW]

The "fact" that OKW has availability does not automatically produce the "fact" that the resort is inferior and that's why rooms are available. I think tjkraz is looking at it with a more objective eye and may have hit the nail on the head -- the resort is larger. One consideration is that the level of availability, in my experience, is the same now as it was when there were no other on-site resorts and OKW was approaching sell-out. There has not suddenly become a lot of availability that didn't exist before. I said it before and I'll say it again -- without the actual information from DVC none of us can say what changes, if any, are taking place in use of the resorts nor can we say who is booking the resorts. Theoretically, every resort should be at 100% capacity every day of the year with the exception of the 4% that Disney retained.

 

[HumphreyBear]

Originally posted by Dean
OKW owners voted they didn't want the other options so it will not happen. The vote was pretty overwhelming from what I recall, something like 69% against slides, lifeguards, etc. Just because a few non OKW owners think it would be better, that doesn't mean that most do, actually most don't and we have the proof.

OKW owners don't want to pay the dues for a slide, but they don't mind calling up at 7 months to stay at the beach club and enjoy the water slide there that others pay dues for.

 

[tjkraz]

Originally posted by HumphreyBear
OKW owners don't want to pay the dues for a slide, but they don't mind calling up at 7 months to stay at the beach club and enjoy the water slide there that others pay dues for.

Nobody was ever forced to buy a home resort they didn't want, and we all knew the 11/7 month guidelines when we bought in.

Come on, you can do better than that...

 

[Desperado]

Originally posted by tjkraz
I've stayed at OKW twice, and feel that it has a lot going for it with which the other resorts cannot compete. Larger rooms, lower point costs, very cheap Grand Villas, separate laundry rooms, parking right outside of the resort, etc. NONE of the other DVC properties can claim these as benefits.

Sure, it does have alot going for it, but there's greater availability at OKW than other resorts. Regardless of all the benefits you mentioned, the demand for OKW given its size isn't as great as the demand for other resorts given their size. Check with MS when your making harder to obtain reservations and see for yourself. You have a much greater likelihood of getting into OKW now, with the additional DVC resorts on board than you had in years past, the demand is not as great. Talk with several MS reps and find out for yourself. Conduct a survey of members on this board regarding which resort has more availability and less demand for the number of rooms offerred. It's not an illusion, it's not a false assumption, its not make believe. Whether it's OKW owners trying other resorts more often, or whatever the reason, the other WDW DVC resorts fill faster and start wait lists sooner than OKW.

What's the harm in making some improvement in the resort????

of course the resort is larger. What about the posts above describing how OKW owners are choosing other resorts because of thier kids pool preferences? are people being disshonest with those reports? why can't the list of advantages that other DVC resorts offer be reviewed and some of those advantages included at OKW to improve demand? What's the harm?

The only problem is that it isn't your decision (or my decision) to make. In the same way that your neighbours can't tell you to trim your hedges differently, we (and I'm including myself) cannot force OKW to add a pool or a monorail station or a skeet shooting range.

Duh. I didn't say it was my decision. My neighbours could suggest that I trim my hedges differently if they want to, we talk all the time about our lawns. Of course this isn't a decision making group or approach. Why can't a fellow DVC owner suggest resort improvements at a fellow resort on a discussion forum? What's the harm?

Nobody was ever forced to buy a home resort they didn't want, and we all knew the 11/7 month guidelines when we bought in.

Agreed.

 

[RobDoc]

Originally posted by Desperado
Regardless of all the benefits you mentioned, the demand for OKW given its size isn't as great as the demand for other resorts given their size.

Opinion or fact?

If it's a fact, please reference the report stating this- if it's your opinion, please take full credit for the statement.

 

[DeeP]

Nobody was ever forced to buy a home resort they didn't want, and we all knew the 11/7 month guidelines when we bought in.

I think the part that makes this whole concept of: buying at the cheapest dues resort with the sole purpose of always staying at one of the higher priced DVC resorts that provide the superior locations to major parks and numerous restaurant choices, full deluxe resort amenities, enhanced pools with pool slides and even more importantly--life guards!, plus a superior location for park nighttime fireworks and shows, etc., and then never paying the higher dues price to enjoy these things; .........an oxymoron in regards to the term "home resort". Most people think of "home resort" as the resort where a member would want to spend the majority of their trips at. Not the cheapest resort to be had with absolutely no intention of staying there but full intentions of staying at a non home resort to enjoy their enhanced resort amenities but yet not paying for any of them.
I think the often repeated "Buy where you want to stay" should be amended to contain the words "buy where you want to pay".

 

[Jimbo]

OKW owners don't want to pay the dues for a slide, but they don't mind calling up at 7 months to stay at the beach club and enjoy the water slide there that others pay dues for.

OKW owners did not want a slide. Why? Because they like the resort the way it is. I just read a trip report from someone who stayed at OKW for the first time, absolutely loved it and is thinking about buying there. You may not understand it, but who cares?

A few pennies in dues wouldn't have made a difference to most (all?) of us.

 

[RobDoc]

Originally posted by DeeP
I think the part that makes this whole concept of: buying at the cheapest dues resort with the sole purpose of always staying at one of the higher priced DVC resorts that provide the superior locations to major parks and numerous restaurant choices, full deluxe resort amenities, enhanced pools with pool slides and even more importantly--life guards!, plus a superior location for park nighttime fireworks and shows, etc., and then never paying the higher dues price to enjoy these things; .........an oxymoron in regards to the term "home resort". Most people think of "home resort" as the resort where a member would want to spend the majority of their trips at. Not the cheapest resort to be had with absolutely no intention of staying there but full intentions of staying at a non home resort to enjoy their enhanced resort amenities but yet not paying for any of them.
I think the often repeated "Buy where you want to stay" should be amended to contain the words "buy where you want to pay".

Just curious why the obsession with "the cheapest dues resort" when there is only one resort with dues MORE than BWV- and many of those owners use their points at BWV since they want to stay onsite?

Why not include ALL of the other DVC resorts in the accusation instead of singling out just one resort? There have been many, many comments from VB and HH owners who use their points almost exclusively at onsite resorts, yet there seems to be no indictment of those owners in this rant ... er ... thread.

 

[DrTomorrow]

Originally posted by DeeP
Most people think of "home resort" as the resort where a member would want to spend the majority of their trips at.

Minor quibble - I personally ignore most comments where one person speaks for "Most people".

But here's some hard math. I just bought in to SSR. With approximately 50 years and 300 points, I plan on 2-3 trips a year. Let's assume 2 per year to be conservative; that yields 100 trips. So if I stay at SSR 51 times, I meet DeeP's "home resort" 'rule', yet that leaves me 49 trips at other resorts - still using up a lot of other people's dues-payed rooms.

I add my voice to the "OKW is oldest so more owners are simply shopping around" idea. I know that our first few years we'll be at SSR - we love the location, the feel and the style. After that I'm sure we'll get some wonderlust, both for other DVC resorts and maybe cruises, etc. But after that need is slaked, I see us primarily staying at SSR as our home resort.

 

[Desperado]

Originally posted by WebmasterDoc
Opinion or fact?

If it's a fact, please reference the report stating this- if it's your opinion, please take full credit for the statement.

Check with MS when your making harder to obtain reservations and see for yourself. OKW availability after other resorts fill has been reported on this forum repeatedly, for many months. Unfortunately with the search feature not enabled, it's difficult to poll out some of the older threads describing this where it was never challenged. Wait lists start for other WDW DVC resorts well before they start for OKW. If you honestly think OKW fills up faster than the other WDW resorts, then nevermind. Conduct a poll about people's reservation experiences on this forum and see, I'm not going to bother. I'm also not going to provide the names of MS staff that I've confirmed this with because it ain't worth it to cause them difficulty, and I don't see the need. I also don't feel that strongly about it. And most of all, whenever I've asked for references from some of the people discussing this issue above to support thier claim inother discussions, they haven't provided any, but continue pressing thier points, so I sure as heck don't feel any obligation to provide any in this discussion. If you honestly think OKW fills up faster than the other WDW resorts, then nevermind, ain't that big a deal to me.

Seems like a smoke screen because nobody has come up with a good reason why some improvements should not be made in the older OKW. Old out of date surveys provide old out of date information that was captured before WLV, BCV, SSR and SAB restrictions. What's the harm in making some improvements in OKW?

 

[Jimbo]

What's the harm in making some improvements in OKW?

You keep saying this. Who gets to decide what's an improvement and what isn't? Someone that doesn't own there and never stayed there? Or the owners, people that ponied up tens of thousands of dollars of own a piece of OKW?

The owners were asked, and they answered: Adding a slide woul not be an improvement. What do you care? And why are we supposed to care that you care?

 

[Desperado]