Writing a letter
- Thread starter dthomas
- Start date
Originally, VB was supposed to be a MUCH larger resort. They had plans to expand it where it sits and on "the other side of the raod". The original dues were the lowest of all the DVC resorts after the subsidy was counted. Dosney subsidized the dues to put in the share for the unbuilt units. They did make original buyers aware that this subsidy might end of the extra construction never happens.
Several years ago, they announced the "shelving"(cancellation) of the plans for the extra construction and took the extreme move of ending the subsidy. The subsidy for original buyers either ends this year or next...I think, someone will correct that. For several years, new buyers at VB have had to pay the unsubsidized dues, just under $4 per point, this year.
DVC sales uses this as a lie also. They say "Sure VB dues are highest now, but they were lowest once, dues vary, they may be lowest again"
Someone may come up with some Clintonesque reason as to why that is not a lie, but without telling people that the only reason the dues were ever lowest was because of a subsidy that has ended because of disappointing sales, it is a lie by omission. A lie by any other name....
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx, pretty sick, huh?
Several years ago, they announced the "shelving"(cancellation) of the plans for the extra construction and took the extreme move of ending the subsidy. The subsidy for original buyers either ends this year or next...I think, someone will correct that. For several years, new buyers at VB have had to pay the unsubsidized dues, just under $4 per point, this year.
DVC sales uses this as a lie also. They say "Sure VB dues are highest now, but they were lowest once, dues vary, they may be lowest again"
Someone may come up with some Clintonesque reason as to why that is not a lie, but without telling people that the only reason the dues were ever lowest was because of a subsidy that has ended because of disappointing sales, it is a lie by omission. A lie by any other name....
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx, pretty sick, huh?
And yes, Disney could sell Vero, they could divest themselves of any of the DVC resorts. I think it is highly unlikely....especially with the backlash they would get from having sold so many points for use at WDW.
But it is clearly laid out in your paperwork that it could happen. I think farfetched and remote describe the possibility even better....but, if one of them had to go, I would say that VB would be first.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx, pretty sick, huh?
But it is clearly laid out in your paperwork that it could happen. I think farfetched and remote describe the possibility even better....but, if one of them had to go, I would say that VB would be first.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx, pretty sick, huh?
kamgen
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2000
- Messages
- 3,671
but it seems like you, richyams, imho, have some terrible grudge against VB.
And to call something "clintonesque"? give me a break. We were never told anything about the dues and as far as dues go, they are NOT a factor for us when we bought in. We will buy into a place we like, end of story.
Just mho.
Off site '94
AllStar-Movies '99
DxL '00 Honeymoon
DVC Member 4/00
BWV 9/00
VB 9/00
DCL-Wonder 1/01
OKW 1/01
Upcoming:
BWV 12/01
DCL-Magic 12/29/01
And to call something "clintonesque"? give me a break. We were never told anything about the dues and as far as dues go, they are NOT a factor for us when we bought in. We will buy into a place we like, end of story.
Just mho.
Off site '94
AllStar-Movies '99
DxL '00 Honeymoon
DVC Member 4/00
BWV 9/00
VB 9/00
DCL-Wonder 1/01
OKW 1/01
Upcoming:
BWV 12/01
DCL-Magic 12/29/01
TampaDisneyFreaks
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2000
- Messages
- 124
I have to ask some questions of Rich. I have read many of his postings and agree with many that his OPINIONS are usually presented zeallously and somties harshly and he sometimes makes me want to slap him upside the head, however they are a welcomed perspective b/c I feel that we should be able to hear ALL sides of every story. We are all entitled to our opinions (as long as we respect each others opinions). I also enjoy reading his opinions (even if I totally disagree) because it gets everyone fired up and gets some really good dialogue going here. Anyway, my questions for Rich are about his views of the value of the points diminishing. I guess I am probably missing something here, but I am not following his argument for the point values diminishing. Rich, could you explain (maybe even use numbers if need be) WHY you feel the point values are diminishing, or how you arrived at that? Also, I was wondering, do you have proof that DVC will never ever built off site again? This is strictly my opinion/conjecture/guess/wish, but I see that they have on site resorts, a golf resort (HH), and a beach resort (VB). I would like to see (and I think they COULD do this) Disney build a mountain getaway resort, maybe on a lake (maybe in TN, NC, NY, or out West). I think it would be viable and would be a great idea. Maybe we could write to DVC with our suggestions for new resorts as well.
There has never been another subsiduzed resort.
I think that the chances of them selling VB are quite remote.
Grudge???? I have described VB as one of the most besutiful resorts on the planet...how is that a grudge?
I have stated again and again that I am very happy to have it as an option for a vacation, how is that a grudge??
I like the term "Clintonesque" because it would describe a meandering means with which to support the statement "VB dues were lowest once, dues vary, they could be agian" as not being a lie by ommission.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx, pretty sick, huh?
I think that the chances of them selling VB are quite remote.
Grudge???? I have described VB as one of the most besutiful resorts on the planet...how is that a grudge?
I have stated again and again that I am very happy to have it as an option for a vacation, how is that a grudge??
I like the term "Clintonesque" because it would describe a meandering means with which to support the statement "VB dues were lowest once, dues vary, they could be agian" as not being a lie by ommission.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx, pretty sick, huh?
JudithM
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 5, 1999
- Messages
- 5,456
Pam. thanks for the DVC address - I didn't want to post a wrong number or something 
.
Dthomas, be sure to write to Terri. I have always found DVC management cast memebers (my phrase, not Disney's) to be willing to listen; to explain why, how, etc.
.Dthomas, be sure to write to Terri. I have always found DVC management cast memebers (my phrase, not Disney's) to be willing to listen; to explain why, how, etc.
There has never been another subsiduzed resort.
I think that the chances of them selling VB are quite remote.
Grudge???? I have described VB as one of the most besutiful resorts on the planet...how is that a grudge?
I have stated again and again that I am very happy to have it as an option for a vacation, how is that a grudge??
I like the term "Clintonesque" because it would describe a meandering means with which to support the statement "VB dues were lowest once, dues vary, they could be agian" as not being a lie by ommission.
The diminishing value of points....that is not wuite what I meant. I have stated this before and I do think it has merit.
When BWV opened up with its higher point schedule then OKW for the substantially smaller rooms, it is pretty easy to see that the location of the BWV is valuable. The entire Boardwalk area and the proximity to EPCOT are VERY serious pluses...now a point spent at OKW has roughly the same value as a point spent at BWV....obviously, these are judgement calls, but real estate has certain things that are inherantly valuable....size of the unit and location being to very basic measures. Larger size makes up for less desireable location....smaller units are made up for with more desireable location.
So it is very easy to support the idea that a point spent at OKW and a point spent at BWV have roughly the same value.
Now we get to VWL, VWL has the same small units as BWV. SInce VWL has NO standard view, the points for the average room are actually higher at VWL then BWV, only marginilly, but still at least the same. You also get a substantially less valuable location....some may argue which is more desirable, but city prices always command more then rural prices....now you have the same sized units as BWV with a less valuable location for the same or more points per night....ergo, a point spent at VWL returns less value then a point spent at either OKW or BWV.
If the trend continies and BCV has the same small units, it has the same loccation, and has even higher points per night, then you are getting the same thing as BWV for more points....again, a point spent at BCV returns less value then a point spent at BWV or OKW.....is BCV a more upscale resort then BWV??? I don't know, I never thought so until I heard that said here.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx, pretty sick, huh?
I think that the chances of them selling VB are quite remote.
Grudge???? I have described VB as one of the most besutiful resorts on the planet...how is that a grudge?
I have stated again and again that I am very happy to have it as an option for a vacation, how is that a grudge??
I like the term "Clintonesque" because it would describe a meandering means with which to support the statement "VB dues were lowest once, dues vary, they could be agian" as not being a lie by ommission.
The diminishing value of points....that is not wuite what I meant. I have stated this before and I do think it has merit.
When BWV opened up with its higher point schedule then OKW for the substantially smaller rooms, it is pretty easy to see that the location of the BWV is valuable. The entire Boardwalk area and the proximity to EPCOT are VERY serious pluses...now a point spent at OKW has roughly the same value as a point spent at BWV....obviously, these are judgement calls, but real estate has certain things that are inherantly valuable....size of the unit and location being to very basic measures. Larger size makes up for less desireable location....smaller units are made up for with more desireable location.
So it is very easy to support the idea that a point spent at OKW and a point spent at BWV have roughly the same value.
Now we get to VWL, VWL has the same small units as BWV. SInce VWL has NO standard view, the points for the average room are actually higher at VWL then BWV, only marginilly, but still at least the same. You also get a substantially less valuable location....some may argue which is more desirable, but city prices always command more then rural prices....now you have the same sized units as BWV with a less valuable location for the same or more points per night....ergo, a point spent at VWL returns less value then a point spent at either OKW or BWV.
If the trend continies and BCV has the same small units, it has the same loccation, and has even higher points per night, then you are getting the same thing as BWV for more points....again, a point spent at BCV returns less value then a point spent at BWV or OKW.....is BCV a more upscale resort then BWV??? I don't know, I never thought so until I heard that said here.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx, pretty sick, huh?
Garret, I explained the reason for the subsidy....it was to contribute for the rooms that weren't built yet. When sales did not support the building of the extra rooms, the plans were shelved and the subsidy ended.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx, pretty sick, huh?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx, pretty sick, huh?
All the DVC resorts are subsidized in their early days of development. The developer DVD kicks in a share of the dues monies.
Vero is being built as a phased condominium. Details are included in the Public Offering Statement a purchaser receives. I am working off of a 1996 POS where the expected completed buildout would be 436 Vacation Homes. At that time there were 35 DVC declared Vacation Homes. The reasoning is that the pool, infrastucture, etc. necessary to support the entire resort were being built prior to the build out of units. Here's the wording, "In an effort to afford all existing Owners and current Purchasers with a fair and equitable Annual Dues assessment, DVD has agreed to commit to the existing Owners and current Purchasers through December 31, 2001 that the net annual assessment for Common Expenses of the Vero Beach Resort imposed upon such existing Owners and current Purchasers shall be based upon the assumption that 436 Vacation Homes (5,571,000 Vacation Points) have actually been added to the Vero Beach Resort. Therefore, existing Owners and Current Purchasers will not pay in excess of $2.1018 per Vacation Point in 1996...." They go on to explain that as of 12/31/2001 the dues will be based upon the actual number of Vacation Homes. In 1996 dollars based on 35 Homes that would have meant $4.1174 vs. $2.1018. Giant bold letters advise a potential purchaser to consider the possibility of higher assessments before purchasing. For people purchasing after 1998 they changed the dues assessment. Not sure what if any subsidy they were given.
I can't find this year's budget but I do know that as of the 2000 Dues Statement they had 63 Vacation Homes declared into DVC inventory. Anyone with a new DVC POS might be able to get a better feel for what the future plans are for building out the resort.
Vero is being built as a phased condominium. Details are included in the Public Offering Statement a purchaser receives. I am working off of a 1996 POS where the expected completed buildout would be 436 Vacation Homes. At that time there were 35 DVC declared Vacation Homes. The reasoning is that the pool, infrastucture, etc. necessary to support the entire resort were being built prior to the build out of units. Here's the wording, "In an effort to afford all existing Owners and current Purchasers with a fair and equitable Annual Dues assessment, DVD has agreed to commit to the existing Owners and current Purchasers through December 31, 2001 that the net annual assessment for Common Expenses of the Vero Beach Resort imposed upon such existing Owners and current Purchasers shall be based upon the assumption that 436 Vacation Homes (5,571,000 Vacation Points) have actually been added to the Vero Beach Resort. Therefore, existing Owners and Current Purchasers will not pay in excess of $2.1018 per Vacation Point in 1996...." They go on to explain that as of 12/31/2001 the dues will be based upon the actual number of Vacation Homes. In 1996 dollars based on 35 Homes that would have meant $4.1174 vs. $2.1018. Giant bold letters advise a potential purchaser to consider the possibility of higher assessments before purchasing. For people purchasing after 1998 they changed the dues assessment. Not sure what if any subsidy they were given.
I can't find this year's budget but I do know that as of the 2000 Dues Statement they had 63 Vacation Homes declared into DVC inventory. Anyone with a new DVC POS might be able to get a better feel for what the future plans are for building out the resort.
I'm not sure whether new purchasers like yourself are receiving any subsidy. If not (as I suspect) then I would expect the dues for everyone to be approximately the same as new purchasers paid this year, somewhere in the neighborhood of $4/point. As you can see in the dues history I've got the dues have actually gone down:
Pre-1998
1996 $2.8182
1997 2.8987 +2.86%
1998 2.762 -4.72%
1999 2.8244 +2.26%
2000 2.8675 +1.53%
2001 2.7036 -5.72%
Post 1998
1999 3.9902
2000 4.0765 +2.16
2001 3.9726 âÂÂ2.55%
Pre-1998
1996 $2.8182
1997 2.8987 +2.86%
1998 2.762 -4.72%
1999 2.8244 +2.26%
2000 2.8675 +1.53%
2001 2.7036 -5.72%
Post 1998
1999 3.9902
2000 4.0765 +2.16
2001 3.9726 âÂÂ2.55%
Understand, all points have the exact same value. Home resort doesn't matter at all...except for the booking window. Someone could make an argument about higher dues really lower the value of a point, I don't really agree.
All points have the exact same value.
My thesis is that a point spent at BWV returns a higher value then a point spent at VWL.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx, pretty sick, huh?
All points have the exact same value.
My thesis is that a point spent at BWV returns a higher value then a point spent at VWL.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx, pretty sick, huh?
Totally disagree with your thesis. BWV had in place the exact same point structure as WLV has now. People complained and now they have two differnt view selections with point values. Too many people bought with the intention of only using the lower point calculation and with only 20% of the rooms at the lower level its not a good thing. Dvc did not want to make the same mistake again at the Lodge location. Staight point usage across the boards. The same amount of points as Boardwalk was initially for all rooms now called preferred view. Some have argued that it costs more to stay at the Boardwalk than at Wilderness Lodge, but your comaring WDW resorts and not DVC resorts. Boardwalk as a hotel charges more per night than Wilderness Lodge because thier rooms are larger. Not because it offers more amenities. Both are delux one has larger rooms hence the price increase. Now the DVC rsorts at these locations are both the smae size units so they are not valued differently. Location is another argument that you have used in your equation . You think that BWV has a better location. Purely subjective and really unsubstantiated when you look at the theme park attendance records. Magic Kingdom still beats Epcot by over5% every year and MGM by I think 7% therfor, most would benefit by being next to the most popular park where they frequent the most. Not to mention that Wilderness Lodge has been there most popular resort over the past 2 years as opposed to BWV. The point structure for WLV has not increased and it offers every bit of value that BWV offers and to me becuse it is a baot ride away from the Kingdom it is priceless. Sales are so fast there that many people are proving my point for me. The location is one of the most popular in all WDW.
Garrett I may look at it too simply but I feel my points are my "money" to spend on vacations. Some resorts or other options cost more and I'll be spending my money faster. I don't think spending them at the deluxe resorts is good value but I did enjoy my GF stay and didn't have to lay out any additional real cash to do it.
Okay...dare I tread on the 11th month issue again? If you have a specific time period, resort and accomodation that you must stay at then it is very important to call at the 11 month window to be guaranteed that you will get exactly what you want. This is compounded by busy and/or popular times of the year and for instances where you cannot wait to see if something will work out. The true importance is the actual day that is 11 months from when you need that resort. If you call at 10 months you do not have that guarantee (Hey, maybe that's where DVC got the idea to ask about going to only one month home resort advantage?)
However, there have been examples lately of people calling and asking about rooms on very short notice and being accomodated. I think on the resort board a DVC member remarked about calling for something next week and got it. She was very flexible as to which resort and which unit. For last minute trips it certainly doesn't matter what your home resort is. I think people are starting to book at the 11 month mark for what they think they want and then others will have to wait it out and see who cancels. (Maybe that's why DVC has the % amounts you can bank? That forces people to decide and free up things for others.)
Hmmm the more I start to think about things the more sense the whole DVC progam begins to make. Do you think someone at Disney has given this some thought, too? Do you think that they may have worked out a fairly decent exchange program that isn't totally reliant on home resort but instead offers a fluid exchange program? Nah!
Okay...dare I tread on the 11th month issue again? If you have a specific time period, resort and accomodation that you must stay at then it is very important to call at the 11 month window to be guaranteed that you will get exactly what you want. This is compounded by busy and/or popular times of the year and for instances where you cannot wait to see if something will work out. The true importance is the actual day that is 11 months from when you need that resort. If you call at 10 months you do not have that guarantee (Hey, maybe that's where DVC got the idea to ask about going to only one month home resort advantage?)
However, there have been examples lately of people calling and asking about rooms on very short notice and being accomodated. I think on the resort board a DVC member remarked about calling for something next week and got it. She was very flexible as to which resort and which unit. For last minute trips it certainly doesn't matter what your home resort is. I think people are starting to book at the 11 month mark for what they think they want and then others will have to wait it out and see who cancels. (Maybe that's why DVC has the % amounts you can bank? That forces people to decide and free up things for others.)
Hmmm the more I start to think about things the more sense the whole DVC progam begins to make. Do you think someone at Disney has given this some thought, too? Do you think that they may have worked out a fairly decent exchange program that isn't totally reliant on home resort but instead offers a fluid exchange program? Nah!
RobDoc
DIS Legend
- Joined
- Aug 14, 1998
- Messages
- 34,195
Pam- obviously you have spent way too much time thinking about this! Your comments are way too logical and rational to even warrant comment!
No way that that those ignorant folks at DVC could possibly have even considered something as straightforward and sensible as what you have suggested because their only mission is to mislead as many people as possible into joining this "obviously" flawed and failed program!
Thanks for your post!
Your comments are way too logical and rational to even warrant comment! No way that that those ignorant folks at DVC could possibly have even considered something as straightforward and sensible as what you have suggested because their only mission is to mislead as many people as possible into joining this "obviously" flawed and failed program!
Thanks for your post!
-
New Cupcake Flavors in Disney Springs with Berries & Cream
-
Save 10% on Mobility Device Rentals for Your Walt Disney World Trip!
-
New Food & Drinks in San Fransokyo Square at Disney California Adventure
-
Find the Perfect Disney Gifts tor Your Mother's Day
-
Get up to a $750 Royal Caribbean Cruise Line Shipboard Credit!
-
Disney's No-Bake Granola Bar Recipe From the Contemporary
-
There's NOTHING Like a Disneyland Churro & There Are NEW Ones Coming!
New Posts
- Poll
