Would you support the idea...

[Dean]

But you would have to address the legality. How can you possibly make an adult only building that is legally owned by members, most of which have kids? The timeshare never said you couldn't book a smoking room if you were a non-smoker, or a non-smoking room if you were a smoker, only that you could not smoke inside the non-smoking rooms. If you were not allowed to book at all into a building because there are children under 18yo in your party, I think there would be legal challenges. And who would pay for those challenges? The members. Who would pay the damages if they lost? The members. And if it is legal, who would pay to install a separate pool and other facilities? The members. Do you honestly think the owners of SSR should have their dues increased to pay for that, given that the majority of the membership have children and would be forbidden from booking/using those facilities?

Again, I'm certainly not opposed to an adults only area, but retrofitting an existing resort is not practical, and likely would not hold up to a legal challenge.

Chuck, I don't see any legal or technical rules that would contractually prevent this type of change. Just like the change in booking categories for OKW and BWV didn't require such a change. It might violate the spirit of the agreement and I could see that argument but I don't think it violates the technical components involved. I would see any legal challenge coming down on the side of who had the best lawyers.

 

[NewDCLGuy]

Chuck,

I wasn't trying to address every possible angle; just wanted to point out that in the real world, the booking issue you brought up would be much closer to "insignificant" than "nightmare".

I likewise think the notion of people suing Disney for the right to stay in the Caroseul is more a posting board theoritical than something that would actually happen in the real world.

But if I had to address the legal issue, I suspect the fractional unit ownership we have has almost no practial impact. My guess is that we aren't legally guaranteed the right to stay in our particular unit

 

[Chuck S]

Chuck, I don't see any legal or technical rules that would contractually prevent this type of change. Just like the change in booking categories for OKW and BWV didn't require such a change. It might violate the spirit of the agreement and I could see that argument but I don't think it violates the technical components involved. I would see any legal challenge coming down on the side of who had the best lawyers.

Except, Dean, that booking categories (view, etc.) may not be available because they are fully booked and there was no available reservation for any DVC Member.

However, even if there was availability in the adults only wings, owners with children in their party would be prevented from booking there. I don't think that would pass a legal challenge if there is availability, and an owner, that meets the occupancy limit, is denied because of having children under 18yo in their traveling party. That would be blocking a select group of DVC Members from otherwise available bookings.

 

[Chuck S]

But if I had to address the legal issue, I suspect the fractional unit ownership we have has almost no practial impact. My guess is that we aren't legally guaranteed the right to stay in our particular unit

But we are contractually guaranteed the same right to book as any other owner, based upon availability. If there are units available in rooms designated as adults only, that violates that right, if families are prevented from booking there because they have children. WHile you may never, ever, stay in the unit where you actually "own" your membership, they can't really prevent you from booking a room if there is availability.

 

[javamom]

I would vote no, simply because it would just create yet another "booking category" that people will get frustrated when they can't get it. Plus there are all the other Admin costs in adding the whole thing.

 

[Dean]

Except, Dean, that booking categories (view, etc.) may not be available because they are fully booked and there was no available reservation for any DVC Member.

However, even if there was availability in the adults only wings, owners with children in their party would be prevented from booking there. I don't think that would pass a legal challenge if there is availability, and an owner, that meets the occupancy limit, is denied because of having children under 18yo in their traveling party. That would be blocking a select group of DVC Members from otherwise available bookings.

As I said, I could see it going either way. There is no technical component of the POS, By-laws, etc that I see prevents such a change. I do think it violates the spirit of the program. In many ways this is the same as doing away with smoking. I don't think we'll see it but I do think it could be argued legally in the affirmative.

 

[Chuck S]

As I said, I could see it going either way. There is no technical component of the POS, By-laws, etc that I see prevents such a change. I do think it violates the spirit of the program. In many ways this is the same as doing away with smoking. I don't think we'll see it but I do think it could be argued legally in the affirmative.

But remember, the POS also ties other factors to your ownership of a specific unit within a resort. Like, if your unit is destroyed and not rebuilt, you lose your membership (in theory, because you have no usable interest to trade out for other units.) An argument could be made that if you can not book your family into the unit you own because it is designated as all adult, you also have no trade out power.

 

[Dean]

But remember, the POS also ties other factors to your ownership of a specific unit within a resort. Like, if your unit is destroyed and not rebuilt, you lose your membership (in theory, because you have no usable interest to trade out for other units.) An argument could be made that if you can not book your family into the unit you own because it is designated as all adult, you also have no trade out power.

The unit is not tied to reservations, only as representing ownership. If component were destroyed and not rebuilt, they'd simply have to revisit the booking category in question just like they'd do for VB for the BC or AKV, etc..

 

[NewDCLGuy]

Chuck, I'm still not getting this legal right you see... But it sure isn't worth arguing over. How about if Disney just designated an area to be adults only, but doesn't legal enforce it? If someone demands to be put there with kids, fine. You still objecting?

 

[jodifla]

No. Disney is for FAMILIES, and that includes kids.

I go back to Walt's original intent. He specifically opened WDW as a place parents could spend time with their children.

 

[NewDCLGuy]

No. Disney is for FAMILIES, and that includes kids.

But does that mean kids should be in every single square inch of the place - the bars, the spas, everywhere????? If it makes some members happy to have a few small areas set aside, why would you object?

PS - note that not all families have kids

 

[KYCruiseCrazy]

It seems much different than "smoking areas" to me. Care to elaborate?

Have you ever been on a DCL cruise? As a non smoker,I don't go out of my way to hang out in the smoking areas.(this is a hot topic) What the OP was saying before everyone has jumped on the "it's for kids too" wagon. We know WDW is for children. But "we" are parents should be allowed to (while on vacation) have an opportunity to also relax. I think as a person who works 40+ hrs a week and raising all girls , should have the opportunity to be able to relax poolside. Some people think we are talking a park or whole parts of resorts.(at least that's the way I see from what I've seen in many of the prior posts)

No one is trying to push away the children. They are just wondering(without starting a fight) is anyone else out there would like to see a pool area for adults only. It could be done. But from what others are posting, that it would be wrong to leave out kids. I don't see anyone is fighting to get kids in the adults only areas on DCL's ship. DLR closes it's park for GRAD nite. So it's not like it's some thing parents seem to enjoy one in a while.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

MG, No offense was intended. Indeed it is just my opinion and thats all it is.

No worries, but thanx for the clarification.
I was probably a bit over sensitive for some reason..

MG

 

[angelmav]

Have you ever been on a DCL cruise? As a non smoker,I don't go out of my way to hang out in the smoking areas.(this is a hot topic) What the OP was saying before everyone has jumped on the "it's for kids too" wagon. We know WDW is for children. But "we" are parents should be allowed to (while on vacation) have an opportunity to also relax. I think as a person who works 40+ hrs a week and raising all girls , should have the opportunity to be able to relax poolside. Some people think we are talking a park or whole parts of resorts.(at least that's the way I see from what I've seen in many of the prior posts)

No one is trying to push away the children. They are just wondering(without starting a fight) is anyone else out there would like to see a pool area for adults only. It could be done. But from what others are posting, that it would be wrong to leave out kids. I don't see anyone is fighting to get kids in the adults only areas on DCL's ship. DLR closes it's park for GRAD nite. So it's not like it's some thing parents seem to enjoy one in a while.

Completely different animal from closing for one night. Sure SSR isnt all that popular now, but what is to prevent some future attraction at DTD from making this a major draw?

Also, if owning at an adult only resort is such a priority, then you had other options rather than buying in at DVC. This was never a promised option (I realize the discussion is completely hypothetical).

DCL set up with the adult only section in mind, they didnt try and retrofit this as is the proposed idea with the resort. Also, none of the passengers own a share in any of the staterooms on DCL.

Agree with Chuck that any such change would have to come as an option with a new as yet unveiled resort to be feasable.

Anyway, if Disney was all that interested in catering to adults w/o children Pleasure Island would have never been shuttered so I dont see this happening in any form regardless.

 

[Chuck S]

Chuck, I'm still not getting this legal right you see... But it sure isn't worth arguing over. How about if Disney just designated an area to be adults only, but doesn't legal enforce it? If someone demands to be put there with kids, fine. You still objecting?

What good would such a designation do, if it is routinely ignored? It would be a waste of time, and be bad PR overall. How many complaints do we see now because most "requests" are not guaranteed. Imagine someone having a meltdown at the front desk because they booked an "adults only" room and there was a child in the room next door. Why create a problem for front desk CMs?

 

[Chuck S]

Have you ever been on a DCL cruise? As a non smoker,I don't go out of my way to hang out in the smoking areas.(this is a hot topic) What the OP was saying before everyone has jumped on the "it's for kids too" wagon. We know WDW is for children. But "we" are parents should be allowed to (while on vacation) have an opportunity to also relax. I think as a person who works 40+ hrs a week and raising all girls , should have the opportunity to be able to relax poolside. Some people think we are talking a park or whole parts of resorts.(at least that's the way I see from what I've seen in many of the prior posts)

No one is trying to push away the children. They are just wondering(without starting a fight) is anyone else out there would like to see a pool area for adults only. It could be done. But from what others are posting, that it would be wrong to leave out kids. I don't see anyone is fighting to get kids in the adults only areas on DCL's ship. DLR closes it's park for GRAD nite. So it's not like it's some thing parents seem to enjoy one in a while.

Actually the OP specifically mentioned setting aside some accommodation buildings. That is quite different from a small pool area.

 

[Chuck S]

The unit is not tied to reservations, only as representing ownership. If component were destroyed and not rebuilt, they'd simply have to revisit the booking category in question just like they'd do for VB for the BC or AKV, etc..

But it is tied to reservations. If your building is destroyed, or even out of service for prolonged repairs, you can not make reservations at any DVC, as you have nothing to trade. Your building has to be available for all members to use. Limiting reservations in specific buildings to adult only parties means that it is not available equally to all members on a first come, first served basis as stated in our POS.

 

[KYCruiseCrazy]

Bye

 

[Muushka]

How many here have going on a DCL trip and we pissed as an "adult" you couldn't ride the slide but you could on other cruise ships? How many wanted to hang out in the Oceaneer's lab and play only to find out "No adult's allowed"?

Not to hijack the thread, but I didn't know that adults could not ride the slide.
If the Dream is like that, I would not even bother cruising on her.

 

[Chuck S]

the OP isn't talking about talking about a block of rooms as a pool area free of children. It wouldn't be too hard to make a pool area Adult's only. There are some of those out there who don't have children and love Disney.

As for PI, most of the people who were going were CM's off duty just trying to let off steam(I guess WDW didn't like that. It was always packed). And most of the people I saw at PI were young(under the age of 30). When you spend all year working hard at your job(some jobs aren't easy) and raising three girls you figure to be able to relax once in awhile.

I bet if this post was put in the Resort board it would get a different result. In my opinion, it seems like people think that being able to "relax" poolside without having to hear children while at a DVC resort shouldn't be done.

No one is saying "adult only resort" just adult only pool areas. You always hear about someone complaining about the noise at the Allstar resorts poolside after 10 PM. I always hear that. Not so much at DVC.

How many here have going on a DCL trip and we pissed as an "adult" you couldn't ride the slide but you could on other cruise ships? How many wanted to hang out in the Oceaneer's lab and play only to find out "No adult's allowed"? Look,

I know Walt created all of this for family's, in my 6 trips to WDW I have taken kids on 4 of those trips. 2 have been kid free. And all of our trips have been amazing

I think I will post something like this post on the resort boards to see if it's just DVC.

Yes, the OP IS talking about setting aside specific buildings of resort rooms, not just a pool area.

This not a pro-child anti-child thing... its just a question....

Would anyone support an adults only section within a DVC resort? I was thinking something along the lines of, lets say the two buildings that make up the Carousel section of SSR. Those are the least popular locations of any DVC resort as far as I can see. They are way-out-of-the-way and don't have a view, a pool or anything worthwhile.

Let's say Disney was to take these two buildings, add a small no-frills pool and make them available to adults only. No one under 18. It would be the same concept as the Disney Cruise adults only pool area.

Would something like that make sense and would it be something you would be interested in?