Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

[Wakey]

The sales center is still private property, AND is located at an operating resort that has both DVC and cash guests and their families, so nope, it would not only be inappropriate, you would be removed and likely permanently banned from WDW property. Disney, and no other company, has any obligation to provide you with a protest venue. It is NOT public property, it is private property and in most states, property owners have the right to control what goes on. Remember neither DVC nor DVC Members OWN the actual property the resorts are built upon, it is a right to use lease from The Walt DIsney World Resort.

Good luck with preventing someone with a leasehold interest in a property from accessing it because they’d decided to do a bit of a lawful protest on (as in the case of an SSR owner near the sales centre) a road or sidewalk which forms part of the property they have a leasehold interest in- unless you can point us to the part of the lease/ declaration which would allow them to do this?
Disney is not above the law.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

Good luck with preventing someone with a leasehold interest in a property from accessing it because they’d decided to do a bit of a lawful protest on (as in the case of an SSR owner near the sales centre) a road or sidewalk which forms part of the property they have a leasehold interest in- unless you can point us to the part of the lease/ declaration which would allow them to do this?
Disney is not above the law.

If it's public property and you've either gotten a permit or checked to make sure You don't need one, and you're not blocking people's entry, being violent, etc you are within your constitutional rights and I don't think any contract - even one with the almighty Disney in its name, can supersede that.

If you don't get arrested, how will they know who you are?
(pro tip: Don't wear your magicband!)

 

[skier_pete]

So help me understand. I bought poly. I, like many others, bought for studios because well thats pretty much all there is outside of bungalows which who really can afford? So do they raise points based on dvc as a whole (all resorts) or just particular resorts? If the thought was to get more people from studio to 1 or 2 bed at the poly there is no 1 bed and there is still no way to stay in the bungalow. Just having a hard time seeing how at this particular resort it helps those who have bought in. We thankfully bought a little more than we needed. I would have hoped they would have added views and raised points that way. I would not mind knowing I would be getting a garden or pool view and spending a few extra points for it.

As far as lawsuit I have read a lot about the lockoff premium which Poly does not have. Would there be a point for poly owners to even attempt to fight it?

So, they have not done any redistribution of points between resorts, and since there's no lockoff premium at the Poly you are safe from that. All they have done at the Poly is reallocate points from the bungalows to the studios. There is some arguments being made on here that this is against the law - that they can only move points across seasons, not across units - but DVC has done this dozens of times over the years so I severely doubt this.

So the reason they are OK to do what they did at the Poly is that the bungalows were so far overpriced that they do not get occupied by members, meaning they get sent the breakage/cash sales. Disney can easily argue that this harms all the members at the Poly because unoccupied rooms mean that not all owners can have access to the rooms at the resort. Lowering the points on the bungalows will get them rented more, and that benefits DVC as a whole.

Now you are correct that it means you get less nights/more expensive rooms, which don't seem very beneficial. Unfortunately, this was inevitable when they built the bungalows and sold so many points on them. (And they may eventually do it even more.) This is corporate greed, which is not illegal in any way- and in fact encouraged by our financial system.

 

[Dean]

So help me understand. I bought poly. I, like many others, bought for studios because well thats pretty much all there is outside of bungalows which who really can afford? So do they raise points based on dvc as a whole (all resorts) or just particular resorts? If the thought was to get more people from studio to 1 or 2 bed at the poly there is no 1 bed and there is still no way to stay in the bungalow. Just having a hard time seeing how at this particular resort it helps those who have bought in. We thankfully bought a little more than we needed. I would have hoped they would have added views and raised points that way. I would not mind knowing I would be getting a garden or pool view and spending a few extra points for it.

As far as lawsuit I have read a lot about the lockoff premium which Poly does not have. Would there be a point for poly owners to even attempt to fight it?

I don't think anyone believes they raised points at one resort for the benefit of a different resort. However, they almost certainly used community ratings to look at the information and make judgements. Translation the needs may have been more obvious at one resort than another. For Poly I think most felt an increase of studios and a decrease in 2 BR was very possible and many felt it inevitable.

If it's public property and you've either gotten a permit or checked to make sure You don't need one, and you're not blocking people's entry, being violent, etc you are within your constitutional rights and I don't think any contract - even one with the almighty Disney in its name, can supersede that.

If you don't get arrested, how will they know who you are?
(pro tip: Don't wear your magicband!)

SSR is not public property and as an owner in DVC, you do not have guaranteed access when not staying on points.

 

[Chuck S]

Good luck with preventing someone with a leasehold interest in a property from accessing it because they’d decided to do a bit of a lawful protest on (as in the case of an SSR owner near the sales centre) a road or sidewalk which forms part of the property they have a leasehold interest in- unless you can point us to the part of the lease/ declaration which would allow them to do this?
Disney is not above the law.

That would be the same as saying a stockholder has the absolute right to protest on Disney property because they have a legal financial interest in the company.
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. SSR and the sales center are private property. Being a DVC Member/minority leaseholder does not guarantee you unlimited access to the property. Just like BCV owners can not freely access the pool at their resort unless they are staying there.

 

[skier_pete]

SSR is not public property and as an owner in DVC, you do not have guaranteed access when not staying on points.

More than likely you would have to do it just off of property. SSR/DS might still be the place to do it, though - as the road right by there is I believe off property.

I don't think anyone believes they raised points at one resort for the benefit of a different resort. However, they almost certainly used community ratings to look at the information and make judgements. Translation the needs may have been more obvious at one resort than another. For Poly I think most felt an increase of studios and a decrease in 2 BR was very possible and many felt it inevitable.

Yes - this is exactly what I'm saying. Disney would argue that raising the lock-off premium across all resorts benefits all members across all resorts. Shifting points away from the Poly bungalows reduces overall breakage, which improves cricumstances for all members - including Poly members. (Remember - Poly members are not locked into only being at the Poly, we all can move around to all resorts - at least for now.)

 

[OKW Lover]

I wonder how many people buy points at a specific resort with the intent on staying only (or primarily) at that resort as opposed to those that buy points at any resort (perhaps on price or just what Disney is selling at the time) with the intent to use points at various properties. When I originally bought DVC in 1995 it was only the resort now known as Old Key West. As the system grew I mostly stayed at OKW, but did regularly also try the other resorts. Now, having moved to the Orlando area 5 years ago, I pretty much use my DVC points (which now include HH, AKL & Aulani) for Aulani so it really doesn't matter to me which resort my points are associated with.

So, what's the point? I guess its the way a person looks at reallocation. If reallocation at one resort results in a too high point cost per night in the category room you are looking at you can look at a different resort. Sure there is the home resort preference period (11/7) issue, but personally it hasn't been an issue. From reading posts above I get the impression that people are approaching this as a "buy at one resort, stay at one resort" situation.

If you bought x points at one resort based on the number of points it would take for a week in a certain size unit, then I can see how reallocation might affect you adversely. Or positively. But, do members actually calculate how many points to buy precisely on that basis? Or do they realize that their visits might change over the years as family sizes grow or decrease and buy points based on that? Or that a member might want to stay for 4 days one year, but 10 the next?

It just seem to me that most of the arguments (on both sides) above are based on the premise that people buy points for one week at one particular resort which is causing the angst.

 

[Chuck S]

More than likely you would have to do it just off of property. SSR/DS might still be the place to do it, though - as the road right by there is I believe off property.



Yes - this is exactly what I'm saying. Disney would argue that raising the lock-off premium across all resorts benefits all members across all resorts. Shifting points away from the Poly bungalows reduces overall breakage, which improves cricumstances for all members - including Poly members. (Remember - Poly members are not locked into only being at the Poly, we all can move around to all resorts - at least for now.)

I believe the closest "off-property" road is actually International Drive, near the old Crossroads Shopping Center.

 

[Dean]

More than likely you would have to do it just off of property. SSR/DS might still be the place to do it, though - as the road right by there is I believe off property.



Yes - this is exactly what I'm saying. Disney would argue that raising the lock-off premium across all resorts benefits all members across all resorts. Shifting points away from the Poly bungalows reduces overall breakage, which improves cricumstances for all members - including Poly members. (Remember - Poly members are not locked into only being at the Poly, we all can move around to all resorts - at least for now.)

You'd still have to have a permit I believe to be legal, good luck getting that. I doubt DVCMC would argue they changed Poly points for SSR members, what they'd likely argue is these are trends across resorts but each resort has it's own nuances. It's actually very clean at Poly in that there are no 1 BR and no lockoff's. One can argue the was predictable and they overpriced the bungalows which I think we all agree on regardless of the reasons behind it. Some would even argue that it was done purposefully for sales or cash rental purposes though I doubt that's the case. Still, it's DVD, not DVCMC that made those determinations.

Regardless, I don't think we can argue they're inept and made changes without data and at the same time argue they did it to generate breakage inventory. Personally I doubt either is true but they are basically counter opposed positions.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

I was referring to the part about a sidewalk or road. I realize SSR is not public property. I am a property manager. I hire people to remove people or their vehicles from our properties all the time.

I would assume the adjacent roads and sidewalks (prior to the access road that has a gate / gatehouse) are public and not maintained by Disney.

If all of those roads ARE owned by Disney, then you obviously have to take it to the first road prior to leading onto Disney property. Which is why I said ...

"If it is public property..."

My point is that, like it or not, people have the right to protest and shouldn't be afraid to do so.[/QUOTE]

 

[cruisin5]

If you bought x points at one resort based on the number of points it would take for a week in a certain size unit, then I can see how reallocation might affect you adversely. Or positively. But, do members actually calculate how many points to buy precisely on that basis? Or do they realize that their visits might change over the years as family sizes grow or decrease and buy points based on that? Or that a member might want to stay for 4 days one year, but 10 the next?

It just seem to me that most of the arguments (on both sides) above are based on the premise that people buy points for one week at one particular resort which is causing the angst.

This.

When we purchased HH in 2001 the flexibility of DVC was stressed as the biggest selling point and feature. It was not the typical timeshare, we could change the accommodations and time of year as it suited us. Family vacations have ebbed and flowed over the years. From 1bd in the summer to a 2bd (for 4 people) for Food and Wine, to a studio tour for DH and me. With the exception of Aulani, we've stayed at every DVC location multiple times. The allocation to me is not a big concern and it was always my understanding that points could change but would the total number of points for a resort per year were set.

However, the 7 month crunch and DVC2 putting more pressure on that crunch is my concern. But fortunately, we really enjoy HH. There is almost no draw the the parks any more, we usually do a 4 or 5 night stay with one park day. The new "lands" so far are a big disappointment for me. More and more resorts adding to the crowded parks and transportation is only going to worse. HH sounds better and better!

 

[4luv2cdisney]

You'd still have to have a permit I believe to be legal, good luck getting that. I doubt DVCMC would argue they changed Poly points for SSR members, what they'd likely argue is these are trends across resorts but each resort has it's own nuances. It's actually very clean at Poly in that there are no 1 BR and no lockoff's. One can argue the was predictable and they overpriced the bungalows which I think we all agree on regardless of the reasons behind it. Some would even argue that it was done purposefully for sales or cash rental purposes though I doubt that's the case. Still, it's DVD, not DVCMC that made those determinations.

Regardless, I don't think we can argue they're inept and made changes without data and at the same time argue they did it to generate breakage inventory. Personally I doubt either is true but they are basically counter opposed positions.

Why good luck getting one? The purpose of a permit is simply to be sure everyone knows what is allowed.... Sometimes there are restricted hours, etc. Not to enable the blocking of your constitutional rights.

I'm not trying to rally a protest or cheer on a lawsuit but the comments suggesting people cannot do either of those things rub me the wrong way.

 

[Donna M]

It just seem to me that most of the arguments (on both sides) above are based on the premise that people buy points for one week at one particular resort which is causing the angst.

I believe that is the case for many people. We bought 500 points direct because we didn't know about resale, and we initial bought enough for one week in a 2 bd at SSR which is what they were selling. I think there are a lot of buyers who believe that the points can be reallocated, but they would only have to travel in a different season to be able to use the amount of points they have. Now they can't go at all with the points they own; they need to get more points, or travel for less days. Not the original understanding.

 

[Dean]

Why good luck getting one? The purpose of a permit is simply to be sure everyone knows what is allowed.... Sometimes there are restricted hours, etc. Not to enable the blocking of your constitutional rights.

I'm not trying to rally a protest or cheer on a lawsuit but the comments suggesting people cannot do either of those things rub me the wrong way.

I'm just saying there's a process to do so and it's not necessarily an easy one plus I suspect there's a fee to do so. When we have all this turmoil and no one has even reported going to sit down with them in person, getting a permit and formal demonstration together is a stretch.

 

[Madame]

If reallocation at one resort results in a too high point cost per night in the category room you are looking at you can look at a different resort.

This is not how it works for people who travel during peak DVC times and are truly confined to home resort for the most part.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

I believe that is the case for many people. We bought 500 points direct because we didn't know about resale, and we initial bought enough for one week in a 2 bd at SSR which is what they were selling. I think there are a lot of buyers who believe that the points can be reallocated, but they would only have to travel in a different season to be able to use the amount of points they have. Now they can't go at all with the points they own; they need to get more points, or travel for less days. Not the original understanding.

also I think many are more concerned about the potential of more changes even if these "aren't so bad"

 

[skier_pete]

I of course can't know this - but I would guess most people buy with the thought that they will at least switch out of their home resorts some of the time. The two biggest parts of the sales pitch are "luxury stays at large savings" and "ability to exchange to other resorts/cruises/ABD/Concierge collection". This is why they keep taking THAT away from re-sale - if they didn't think it was a selling point then why take it away.

(Off topic to this thread - but it still blows me away that they can really limit resale to a single resort. Imagine if it was a resort with popularity of VGF and you only had enough points for a studio - you could easily get locked out of even being able to USE your points.)

 

[OKW Lover]

Imagine if it was a resort with popularity of VGF and you only had enough points for a studio - you could easily get locked out of even being able to USE your points.)

...unless you banked/borrowed points

 

[Wakey]

That would be the same as saying a stockholder has the absolute right to protest on Disney property because they have a legal financial interest in the company.
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. SSR and the sales center are private property. Being a DVC Member/minority leaseholder does not guarantee you unlimited access to the property. Just like BCV owners can not freely access the pool at their resort unless they are staying there.

Nothing like a stockholder. I have a lease that allows me to book and stay at my property. Unless there's something in the lease which states if I do a protest they can cut off my leasehold rights, they cannot stop me exercising the rights and staying in the property. I was talking in response to the suggestion a protestor could be banned and prevented from returning.
So unless there's something in the lease preventing me from holding up a placard when I'm there staying on points, I could do it.
Then I could go back.
Talk of permits doesn't apply to private land.
https://www.aclu-il.org/en/news/when-can-government-require-permit-protest
Not suggesting a protest is a good idea, I was just responding to the posts that suggested you could be removed and effectively banned. Only if there's a term dealing with it in the declaration/ lease. There may though be I haven't read it in this context.

 

[Dean]

Nothing like a stockholder. I have a lease that allows me to book and stay at my property. Unless there's something in the lease which states if I do a protest they can cut off my leasehold rights, they cannot stop me exercising the rights and staying in the property. I was talking in response to the suggestion a protestor could be banned and prevented from returning.
So unless there's something in the lease preventing me from holding up a placard when I'm there staying on points, I could do it.
Then I could go back.
Talk of permits doesn't apply to private land.
https://www.aclu-il.org/en/news/when-can-government-require-permit-protest
Not suggesting a protest is a good idea, I was just responding to the posts that suggested you could be removed and effectively banned. Only if there's a term dealing with it in the declaration.

Owning does not give you access to the property unless you have a reservation so ownership is not part of the equation.