DVC plans to target commercial renters

[Sykes]

IMO, restricting what rooms can be rented, how you rent, and where you find a renter would not be reasonable ways to define commercial enterprise, practice or purpose.

If they wanted to, I suspect that Disney could find cover to restrict the kinds of rooms that can be rented in the T&Cs as long as their intent is a genuine effort to combat non-personal use. I'm far less confident about that, though, and I can't imagine that they'd bother anyway--I don't foresee them implementing tactics that inconvenience more people than is absolutely necessary.

As for how you rent and where you find a renter, I think from a practical standpoint they can't really control that (although if they somehow did have that info then it could provide hints that the rentals constitute commercial activity). I am reasonably certain, however, that the intermediaries out there are violating SOME parts of the various T&Cs (be it using the Disney brand inappropriately, being a commercial entity and using the booking engine to identify availability, restrictions on the usage of all Disney websites, etc.) and Disney could choose to attack them if they really wanted. (I suspect that they also won't attack intermediaries early on, though, because doing so would also hamper the kind of rental activity that Disney really doesn't mind having around.)

I don't think that the definition of commercial practice for this purpose will ever be a hard line. Instead, I think there will be some internal criteria that gets you on their radar, and then someone will investigate and do a duck test (does it look like a duck and quack like a duck?). I am curious if the SSR policy has any real definition, or if it's just as vague as what we see elsewhere.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

I’m all for limiting commercial renters and walking. Commercial renters who are trying to reserve the highest demand rooms and then renting them for a profit should have the maximum penalty that is allowed. Those people suck.

I would be fine with a rule of “you can only modify a reservation one time if the dates include consecutive days” to limit walking. The reality is that most people plan out their Disney trip well in advance. And if someone is modifying their reservation to check in one day later than their original reservation and then they do it a second time, they are walking. So just let people do it once (in case they got the check in date wrong). If they want to change the reservation to an entirely new week, then go for it…do that as many times as you need.

 

[AstroBlasters]

I’m all for limiting commercial renters and walking. Commercial renters who are trying to reserve the highest demand rooms and then renting them for a profit should have the maximum penalty that is allowed. Those people suck.

I would be fine with a rule of “you can only modify a reservation one time if the dates include consecutive days” to limit walking. The reality is that most people plan out their Disney trip well in advance. And if someone is modifying their reservation to check in one day later than their original reservation and then they do it a second time, they are walking. So just let people do it once (in case they got the check in date wrong). If they want to change the reservation to an entirely new week, then go for it…do that as many times as you need.

I’m sure no family would ever lose a reservation completely by having to cancel and rebook in the event of a 2nd modification….

 

[Sandisw]

If they wanted to, I suspect that Disney could find cover to restrict the kinds of rooms that can be rented in the T&Cs as long as their intent is a genuine effort to combat non-personal use. I'm far less confident about that, though, and I can't imagine that they'd bother anyway--I don't foresee them implementing tactics that inconvenience more people than is absolutely necessary.

As for how you rent and where you find a renter, I think from a practical standpoint they can't really control that (although if they somehow did have that info then it could provide hints that the rentals constitute commercial activity). I am reasonably certain, however, that the intermediaries out there are violating SOME parts of the various T&Cs (be it using the Disney brand inappropriately, being a commercial entity and using the booking engine to identify availability, restrictions on the usage of all Disney websites, etc.) and Disney could choose to attack them if they really wanted. (I suspect that they also won't attack intermediaries early on, though, because doing so would also hamper the kind of rental activity that Disney really doesn't mind having around.)

I don't think that the definition of commercial practice for this purpose will ever be a hard line. Instead, I think there will be some internal criteria that gets you on their radar, and then someone will investigate and do a duck test (does it look like a duck and quack like a duck?). I am curious if the SSR policy has any real definition, or if it's just as vague as what we see elsewhere.

When you say non personal use, what do you mean?

I ask because I have seen it used before to mean owners only….or are you talking, owners, guests and renters who fall below the commercial purpose restrictions?

I think that it’s been said that the restricting access to certain rooms could run afoul with the FCFS clause since contract doesn’t give owners priority for being the actual guest.

Which is why I don’t see DVC doing it and like I have shared I did not get the sense at the meetings we are in for major changes other than more strict enforcement against the LLCs and large point owners whose pattern of renting is obviously crossing the line.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m all for limiting commercial renters and walking. Commercial renters who are trying to reserve the highest demand rooms and then renting them for a profit should have the maximum penalty that is allowed. Those people suck.

I would be fine with a rule of “you can only modify a reservation one time if the dates include consecutive days” to limit walking. The reality is that most people plan out their Disney trip well in advance. And if someone is modifying their reservation to check in one day later than their original reservation and then they do it a second time, they are walking. So just let people do it once (in case they got the check in date wrong). If they want to change the reservation to an entirely new week, then go for it…do that as many times as you need.

And DVC can certainly make new rules when it comes to walking. They just have to update them which is what they said they’d be open to consider.

As long as whatever they decide is part of the rules for the HRR, they have a lot of options when deciding how to do it.

They could make everything a cancel and rebook, go back to the old rules, or do something in beteeen.

The other thing they could do is simply add a limitation that says that changes that don’t support the intent of the word “desired check in date” defined as multiple modifications within the first month of booking, can result in a reservation being canceled.

It might not completely stop it but it would cut in down simply because owners may not risk it.

It also gives some leeway for those who do need to make adjustments for actual reasons that are not walking during that first month.

 

[JackosinDIS]

I don’t interpret that clause to mainly mean what happens in the room but that is part of it based on the statement “occupancy by an owner…” so it’s covering both ways personal use csn be definitely.

I just want to add that the SSR POS does say that the board as adopted a definition and it’s on file with the what association.

I intend to request it as an SSR owner. It certainly states they have one. If it has been changed or eliminated, then they should be able to tell me that.

ETA: at least we do agree that the rules needs to be reasonable and be able to support a commerical purpose.

IMO, restricting what rooms can be rented, how you rent, and where you find a renter would not be reasonable ways to define commercial enterprise, practice or purpose.

Here is what clause.

The BCV POS says that have adopted a definition as well, which is available on request.

I requested it 6 months ago (the last time there was a big discussion on this), but was never sent anything.

Let us know if you get anything!

 

[Dracula]

Reading this thread I am learning that there are some DVC accommodations at specific dates that provide outstanding value in terms of price per point, and a number of greedy, profit-motivated owners book those at 11 months and make them available to unsuspecting renters at $35 per point, so that other owners don’t get to book them for vacations with their families at, say, 10 months. Clearly the first owners, and the renters, both generate value, but a loss is supposedly borne by those members who could not make their mind fast enough.

If so, it seems some people discovered an arbitrage opportunity - the chance to buy something low and sell it high. One would think that, of all people, Americans would appreciate and respect someone who identified and exploited a business opportunity - this is what drove the colonization of the country in the first place. Except that DVC is not supposed to be for business, just personal enjoyment, with money flowing in a single direction, from the owners to Disney.

Business aside, I’m wondering why Disney does not adjust the point charts to make those accommodations that are so highly coveted, more expensive in points, so they would get to rent for $20 per point instead of $35. I thought point price changes, as long as the resort total remains relatively unchanged, is totally in Disney’s purview.

Many people have also asked for voting to take place, and some have pointed DVC is a condominium association. Because of the point structure of DVC, however, such voting would likely not take place by assigning each member one vote, but by assigning one vote to each point - similar to how voting in public companies take place. It would not make much sense, after all, to give the same voting power to a member holding a 25-point contract and another holding 4000 points (the maximum allowed per resort by POS) - they have not made a similar investment in DVC, and thus should not have equal say in its future.

 

[zavandor]

They just get to be the ones who decide what a pattern of rental activity actually looks like is and for pre RiV owners, that needs to be reasonable.

I do not think removing "reasonable" changes anything. Like writing "check-in if  after 4pm" doesn't change the fact we should expect rooms to be ready at 4pm.
DVCMC, who might change those rules, have a fiduciary duty toward the membership, that alone makes them making only changes that are reasonable.
Imagine if they're sued by a renter and they say to the judge: "yes your honor, we made a change it's unreasonable for RIV owners, but we've removed that word from the POS". It would be fun to watch the judge's face.

CFW on the other hand, that is a BIG change in rental rules. The POS for the trust has some big differences, in how points can be reallocated and rental rules specifically. I invite everyone interested in the cabins (and potentially LL) to read the POS very well to check they're happy to have fewer rights.

 

[Sandisw]

The BCV POS says that have adopted a definition as well, which is available on request.

I requested it 6 months ago (the last time there was a big discussion on this), but was never sent anything.

Let us know if you get anything!

I am going to be in Disney next week so I stated thst I would be available to go to the offices to review if it isn’t something that can be mailed.

I plan to follow up with a written letter to them with my request as well!

Will keep you posted!

 

[Sandisw]

I do not think removing "reasonable" changes anything. Like writing "check-in if  after 4pm" doesn't change the fact we should expect rooms to be ready at 4pm.
DVCMC, who might change those rules, have a fiduciary duty toward the membership, that alone makes them making only changes that are reasonable.
Imagine if they're sued by a renter and they say to the judge: "yes your honor, we made a change it's unreasonable for RIV owners, but we've removed that word from the POS". It would be fun to watch the judge's face.

CFW on the other hand, that is a BIG change in rental rules. The POS for the trust has some big differences, in how points can be reallocated and rental rules specifically. I invite everyone interested in the cabins (and potentially LL) to read the POS very well to check they're happy to have fewer rights.

I agree that just the removal of the word reasonable doesn’t absolve them of making rules that are, but rather that the elimination of that word certainly can give them some cover if they want to make a change that some might say is in a grey area.

Like this discussion, some believe that DVC can limit an owner from booking certain types of rooms for use based on who will occupy it and consider that to be a reasonable policy.

I personally do not and feel it violates the personal use clause which includes guests beyond the owner.

In truth, DVC isnt going to completely change the product to cut renting off at the knees when, IMO the average person reading the contract when buying can reasonably conclude that renting is allowed unless it rises to a pattern of rental activity that can constitute a commercial enterprise or practice.

Yes, I get they don’t have to include every little detail of what they can use because they gave themselves discretion to define it.

But if what they do give is misleading to buyers as to the purpose of the limitation, that’s not okay either.

I still believe the contract terms and words use matter and that some of the ideas people would like to see them add to the rules severely limit the rights…and IMO violate…the rights we are given under the contract…because we do have some.

In terms of CFW, I think those changes are huge. I just have to believe they did it because they wanted to severally reduce the rights of owners when it comes to renting and didn’t keep the current resorts language because they know it doesn’t allow them to implement certain things even with the level of discretion they enjoy.

It’s why I don’t get the position of wanting to see the contract changed to reduce our rights, regardless of whether one rents or not.

 

[Sandisw]

Reading this thread I am learning that there are some DVC accommodations at specific dates that provide outstanding value in terms of price per point, and a number of greedy, profit-motivated owners book those at 11 months and make them available to unsuspecting renters at $35 per point, so that other owners don’t get to book them for vacations with their families at, say, 10 months. Clearly the first owners, and the renters, both generate value, but a loss is supposedly borne by those members who could not make their mind fast enough.

If so, it seems some people discovered an arbitrage opportunity - the chance to buy something low and sell it high. One would think that, of all people, Americans would appreciate and respect someone who identified and exploited a business opportunity - this is what drove the colonization of the country in the first place. Except that DVC is not supposed to be for business, just personal enjoyment, with money flowing in a single direction, from the owners to Disney.

Business aside, I’m wondering why Disney does not adjust the point charts to make those accommodations that are so highly coveted, more expensive in points, so they would get to rent for $20 per point instead of $35. I thought point price changes, as long as the resort total remains relatively unchanged, is totally in Disney’s purview.

Many people have also asked for voting to take place, and some have pointed DVC is a condominium association. Because of the point structure of DVC, however, such voting would likely not take place by assigning each member one vote, but by assigning one vote to each point - similar to how voting in public companies take place. It would not make much sense, after all, to give the same voting power to a member holding a 25-point contract and another holding 4000 points (the maximum allowed per resort by POS) - they have not made a similar investment in DVC, and thus should not have equal say in its future.

The contract details the way that owners of a unit can vote. Each unit gets one vote and the contract allows DVD to choose the owner representing the unit and have chosen one person to be the voting representative for all units.

In order for the owners of any unit to have a say, 60% of the owners of that particular unit need to agree on what they want to vote….

So if I own part of Unit 1A, then I’d need to get 60% of all other Unit 1A owners to agree to want to vote a certain way. But that is just one vote. If you don’t have any other units who have 60% of their owners choose to vote as well, the chosen DVD owner reps votes will be what happens.

In the case of a material change to the contract, from my understanding, DVD must request a vote of owners to do it and in that case, all owner could get an individual vote

So, it comes down to really boils down to whether the contract give the owner the right and ability to rent, and if so, whether there are limitations to that right.

The language supports right to rent and the language supports limitations,,, and that limitation is commercial purpose.

So, now it comes back to what definitatons does DVC get to put in place to define that, beyond the definition that was was included.

I simply do not agree that the contract allows them to put in rules for owners booking rooms that treat the owner staying differently than a guest or renter unless that owners is clearly using the membership for a commercial purpose.

 

[Nabas]

One would think that, of all people, Americans would appreciate and respect someone who identified and exploited a business opportunity - this is what drove the colonization of the country in the first place.

Americans dislike cheaters even more. Try cutting a line and see the reaction.

The rules "expressly prohibit" renting for "commercial purposes". Those who are renting for commercial purposes are cheaters.

 

[Sandisw]

Americans dislike cheaters even more. Try cutting a line and see the reaction.

The rules "expressly prohibit" renting for "commercial purposes". Those who are renting for commercial purposes are cheaters.

I think that is the one thing we all agree on.

 

[tx911]

Americans dislike cheaters even more. Try cutting a line and see the reaction.

The rules "expressly prohibit" renting for "commercial purposes". Those who are renting for commercial purposes are cheaters.

If not cheating, it does feel cheating adjacent, doesn't it? I think walking too.
This is really at the core of why so many are opposed to them.

 

[Nabas]

If not cheating, it does feel cheating adjacent, doesn't it? I think walking too.
This is really at the core of why so many are opposed to them.

The POS (a.k.a. “the rules”) forbid renting for commercial purposes.

If someone is renting for commercial purposes, they are cheating.

 

[Willow Ufgood]

I would be fine with a rule of “you can only modify a reservation one time if the dates include consecutive days” to limit walking.

And yet, that would penalize members like me who are not walking but are patiently modifying a reservation to add days as the walkers move on by. It also has a lower impact on members with a large number of points because they can book 7 nights and then wait several days before modifying while someone with "just enough points" would be the loser. Walking will still occur. It will just be over a shorter period and those hard to get rooms during popular times will still be elusive to many members.

 

[Sandisw]

If not cheating, it does feel cheating adjacent, doesn't it? I think walking too.
This is really at the core of why so many are opposed to them.

Using your membership for a commercial purpose is a violation because contract expressly prohibits it.

It’s the definition of commercial purpose that is at issue.

Some of us believe the language that is included in the contract is what guides DVC and its ability to apply it at their discretion and others feel the only important word is commercial and thus anything that makes an owner money is prohibited.

We all have a different view of what actions by owners fall under that definition that is not clear as we all, draw the line differently. The only line that counts is DVC.

Walking is different because it is not expressly prohibited in the written rules where renting for commercial purposes is.

DVC can certainly expressly prohibit it by adding it to the HRR..but for renting for commercial purposes, they have already done it.

 

[Chuck S]

And yet, that would penalize members like me who are not walking but are patiently modifying a reservation to add days as the walkers move on by. It also has a lower impact on members with a large number of points because they can book 7 nights and then wait several days before modifying while someone with "just enough points" would be the loser. Walking will still occur. It will just be over a shorter period and those hard to get rooms during popular times will still be elusive to many members.

While I don't particularly like walking, I just don't think it would be the major problem many perceive it to be, if there were a fair way to curb commercial renting. I don't want to see DVC changing our booking rules to make them more difficult.

 

[Sandisw]

And yet, that would penalize members like me who are not walking but are patiently modifying a reservation to add days as the walkers move on by. It also has a lower impact on members with a large number of points because they can book 7 nights and then wait several days before modifying while someone with "just enough points" would be the loser. Walking will still occur. It will just be over a shorter period and those hard to get rooms during popular times will still be elusive to many members.

This is why I don’t think we are going to see DVC implement new rules limiting modifications as a solution to curbing walking, if they decide to amend the Home Resort Rules and Regulations for booking procedures.

The boards statements certainly appeared to recognize how important the flexibility that DVC offers is for owners.

I do believe that what we will see is a commitment from DVC to ensure that those memberships that are clearly being used for a commercial purpose are stopped from doing it and that the threshold or rules they use to define and enforce it will continue to be related to those who are running it at a business.

 

[walt34]

What I miss in the discussion about walking (and people wanting to get rid of it) is that the underlying situation remains the same: there are some room categories at some times of the year for which there is more demand than there is availability even during the home resort period. Walking - while unpopular - means, you can get an advantage if you put in the effort.

If you remove walking and everything else remains the same, first come first served is the mechanism. Whoever clicks the fastest when the window opens gets the room. Because programs can click much faster than humans can, this means commercial renters using the right tools would win most of the time. Is this really better?

What other alternatives are there? Everyone who wants the room could enter a lottery and then luck decides. Everybody would have the same chances but this would of course also mean that someone, who really depends on the room because of limited flexibility and is willing to work for this now has the same chance as someone who just wants to 'give it a try' and would have much more flexibility.

Which one is the least bad option? I really don't know, I just hesitate to ask for the removal of walking without understanding the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative.