DVC Club Level and Home Resort Survey

[J-Dog]

Exactly. And you have to admit, it's an awfully fun discussion and debate.

I agree. For me, it's fun and interesting but mostly because I don't really have interest in either the trust or PVB2. I could see how someone who is really banking on one of those things going a certain way could get a little worked-up about minor details and fuzzy hints about the future.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I agree. For me, it's fun and interesting but mostly because I don't really have interest in either the trust or PVB2. I could see how someone who is really banking on one of those things going a certain way could get a little worked-up about minor details and fuzzy hints about the future.

Totally get that. I'm actually in the same boat in that I'm not likely to buy points in either. I will feel bad for those folks who rushed out to buy PVB resale contracts, thinking that they'd have 11-month access at the Tower, if it doesn't pan out that way. And I don't think that it will. I think the units in Poly Tower are headed solely for the Trust.

 

[walt34]

If it is added to the trust, I don’t think anyone has a right be to that angry because it was not a confirmation. It was a Probcbly but subject to change.

Which would be ok if something actually changed. It's not a license to say stuff that you already know not to be true at the time of the statement.

As the trust model predates the meeting, the change cannot be the trust model itself. That was already known. But maybe, at that time, the trust was only intended for CFW and they decided later to add Poly2? But wouldn't it still be strange with a development project of this size if they make changes to the underlying model so late in the process? Why now and not earlier?

 

[Paul Stupin]

Again, they had no problem with saying it for VGF. Same laws applied if it is going to the same.

So, if they didn’t need to be careful about laws with BPK, then they didn’t need to come December.

If it is added to the trust, I don’t think anyone has a right be to that angry because it was not a confirmation. It was a Probcbly but subject to change.

Yeah, I agree, it was a probably but subject to change. But why get people’s hopes up with a
“probably” if there was a substantial chance the outcome would be otherwise? Why, then, say anything at all? It just doesn’t make sense.

Re BPK, that logic isn’t rock solid either.

As has been noted, at least all this keeps the discussion alive!

 

[BWV Dreamin]

So I’ll throw out another scenario…. what happens to PVB1 resale prices if Poly2 is declared into the Trust? After the flub by Chang in December, Poly 1 resales have been moving pretty good, prices slightly increasing. Do we see a deep dive in those resale prices if Poly2 goes into the Trust?

 

[Paul Stupin]

So I’ll throw out another scenario…. what happens to PVB1 resale prices if Poly2 is declared into the Trust? After the flub by Chang in December, Poly 1 resales have been moving pretty good, prices slightly increasing. Do we see a deep dive in those resale prices if Poly2 goes into the Trust?

I think they’d decrease, but Poly is generally well liked anyway so I’m not sure the prices would plummet. That said, I wouldn’t want to be a Poly owner and wake up every morning to see this very cool looking tower looming overhead that I would be shut out of booking.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I think they’d decrease, but Poly is generally well liked anyway so I’m not sure the prices would plummet. That said, I wouldn’t want to be a Poly owner and wake up every morning to see this very cool looking tower looming overhead that I would be shut out of booking.

I’m not sure how well the popularity would be for Poly1 with no 11 mos access to Poly2. My guess is they drop dramatically, similar the VGF.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I’m not sure how well the popularity would be for Poly1 with no 11 mos access to Poly2. My guess is they drop dramatically, similar the VGF.

If it were indeed a separate association, Poly2 might even have resale restrictions, so every Poly1 resale owner would not even be able to book it at 7 months.

You think Yvonne Chang wouldn’t take heat for that? No DVC exec would have even brought up the issue if this was a real possibility.

 

[KimMcGowan]

I am almost certain (but too lazy to search) that Amy Kreiger posted that after the meeting they spoke AND confirmed the statement with DVC.

 

[Sandisw]

See, that's why I think there are two options:

- the statement was well prepared and delivered: then I don't understand the purpose
- the statement was not well prepared or a mistake, at least in delivery: then we don't need to spend much time on interpreting it.

Because maybe rhe real answer is a shift to a land trust and to sell trust use plans instead of what they had done.

And that they wanted to keep secret so the safest answer, besides “no information can be shared” was the one she made

Those of us who have been cautious from that start know it could come out as the same and we are wrong.

However, anyone who took that statement and made decisions based on it should not have.

Maybe some of the people eho reported it are working on their sources and will comment soon!

 

[Sandisw]

I am almost certain (but too lazy to search) that Amy Kreiger posted that after the meeting they spoke AND confirmed the statement with DVC.

Yes, that was reported but I have read on other sites that other peiple ralked to Chang as well and she cautioned them because it could change.

I just really believe they didn’t want to tip their hand about the trust because they were still finalizing it all…and thst was still ok the tableFor the project.

And, while I think unlikely, I still believe there would be away for it to go to PVB and lock out PVB owners until 7 months. It would be confusing and make no sense but think there is a way

 

[SpaceMountain77]

Good to see the discussion and debate over Yvonne Chang's response to a question at the recent Association Annual meeting. Here's a link to an article from DVCNews.com directly quoting Chang as saying: "Our plans right now are for the new tower to be part of the existing Polynesian resort." https://dvcnews.com/wdw-resorts/pol...esian-tower-to-be-part-of-current-association

I can certainly understand why many may latch on to this response and believe it to mean, without a doubt, that the Poly Tower will be in the same association as PVB. Especially those who are reading it with confirmation bias. But nowhere in that statement does the word "association" appear. What she said was that it would be part of the same resort. Well duh, we can see that. I won't even touch on the standard waffle phrase of "our plans right now...." as that gives an out and means that things change.

If you stand back and view her response through a different lens, it's actually kinda brilliant. Here's why:

1. DVC had to know the question would come up and it's not good form to not provide an answer, so they answered.
2. They positively answered the question by saying it would be part of the existing "resort". They know it's a charged question that will upset some folks whichever way it goes, so why upset them now?
3. The response didn't disclose ANYTHING that we didn't already know, to wit, the Tower is "part of the same resort."
4. The article even acknowledges that it ain't a done deal by saying "the legal setup will not be fully confirmed until the condo association is amended to add the new tower" immediately preceding the quote attributed to Chang.

I have shared this same perspective in other threads. The response was a perfectly worded nonresponse.

Disney's Polynesian Villas and Bungalows is part of the Polynesian Resort. Kona Cafe is part of the Polynesian Resort. Pineapple Lanai is part of the Polynesian Resort. Yvonne said that the tower would be part of the Polynesian Resort.

Yvonne did not mention the existing association or reference Disney's Polynesian Villas and Bungalows. However, many DVC websites and forums, that are typically reliable sources, posted articles that Yvonne confirmed that the tower would be part of the existing association.

The tower is not a new resort on the monorail beam. It is part of the Polynesian Resort.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

I sincerely believe that the cabins are being sold through a trust because they are manufactured park models, which meet recreational standards and follow the ANSI A119.5 regulations. Because they are not mobile homes, which are built to comply with HUD standards for manufactured housing, DVC cannot sell a 50-year ownership interest in a structure with a lifespan of 30 years or less. The ground can be leased, upon which a park model is offered. All of the cabins, being park models, will need to be replaced at least once during the period of ownership.

 

[dioxide45]

I sincerely believe that the cabins are being sold through a trust because they are manufactured park models, which meet recreational standards and follow the ANSI A119.5 regulations. Because they are not mobile homes, which are built to comply with HUD standards for manufactured housing, DVC cannot sell a 50-year ownership interest in a structure with a lifespan of 30 years or less. The ground can be leased, upon which a park model is offered. All of the cabins, being park models, will need to be replaced at least once during the period of ownership.

Others and myself have stated the same. Thus I agree. CFW can't and won't be a leasehold condominium like the other resorts. DVD has secured a ground lease to the property where the cabins will sit. They have, so far, added a portion of that ground lease to the trust. They've allocated points to that portion of the ground lease and will sell those points as beneficial interests. The cabins themselves will not be in the trust.

The big question is, who pays for the new cabins when 25-30 years comes along and they need 100% replacement. Who owns the cabins? Does the association lease the cabins from DVD? If so, it is just a line item and the new cabins in 25-30 years should just fall under a new lease.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Maybe it's a completely new offering that has been floated before like DVC2. More a moderate offering. Who's to say that it couldn't be a 25 year offering instead of the 50 we've become accustomed to? Half the price to make it look even more attractive to a whole new market of buyers and add +-25% to that to make it even more profitable but appear much more accessible.

It's hard to ignore that DVC1 prices have skyrocketed over the past 15 years and something needs to change to increase sales.

There's no hard rule to 50 year leases. Like a lot of other things that may be changing, it's just another thing that may be changing.

Creating a new genre of DVC buyers isn't a bad idea. In fact, it's brilliant. For a new and younger generation, get in, get it on, get out, get on with your changing life. Hmmm...

 

[Paul Stupin]

I sincerely believe that the cabins are being sold through a trust because they are manufactured park models, which meet recreational standards and follow the ANSI A119.5 regulations. Because they are not mobile homes, which are built to comply with HUD standards for manufactured housing, DVC cannot sell a 50-year ownership interest in a structure with a lifespan of 30 years or less. The ground can be leased, upon which a park model is offered. All of the cabins, being park models, will need to be replaced at least once during the period of ownership.

Agreed. This explanation makes the most sense to me.

 

[walt34]

Agreed. This explanation makes the most sense to me.

This would certainly be the most benign explanation. In this case, the trust will primarily be used to replicate the workings of the existing DVC model with this type of accommodation. This seems to be possible within the rules described in the documents that were filed, I think.
In this case the rest of the provisions (e.g. allowing more than one use plan, combining different locations into one plan,...) could be provisions for future developments without specific plans to use them in the foreseeable future.

 

[dioxide45]

This would certainly be the most benign explanation. In this case, the trust will primarily be used to replicate the workings of the existing DVC model with this type of accommodation. This seems to be possible within the rules described in the documents that were filed, I think.
In this case the rest of the provisions (e.g. allowing more than one use plan, combining different locations into one plan,...) could be provisions for future developments without specific plans to use them in the foreseeable future.

With this setup, they could also add campsites at Ft Wilderness to the trust and sell them as DVC.

 

[J-Dog]

This would certainly be the most benign explanation. In this case, the trust will primarily be used to replicate the workings of the existing DVC model with this type of accommodation. This seems to be possible within the rules described in the documents that were filed, I think.
In this case the rest of the provisions (e.g. allowing more than one use plan, combining different locations into one plan,...) could be provisions for future developments without specific plans to use them in the foreseeable future.

I also tend to agree with this. I think most of the evidence points to this - The trust documentation that is specifically for CFW, RIV recently declaring inventory into "DVC1", Yvonne Chang's comment about PVB2, etc.

We can twist all of this evidence however we want to, i.e. "Chang was trying to consciously misdirect everyone because the trust wasn't finalized", but I think if we add it all together, then I think you're right.

But maybe we're totally wrong...

 

[walt34]

I also tend to agree with this. I think most of the evidence points to this - The trust documentation that is specifically for CFW, RIV recently declaring inventory into "DVC1", Yvonne Chang's comment about PVB2, etc.

We can twist all of this evidence however we want to, i.e. "Chang was trying to consciously misdirect everyone because the trust wasn't finalized", but I think if we add it all together, then I think you're right.

But maybe we're totally wrong...

I guess we'll have to wait and see. Once we know the outcome, it might be interesting to come back to this thread, reinterpreted the evidence and see how the pieces of the puzzle actually fit together.