DVC plans to target commercial renters

[xdan0920]

Let’s say that you are one of those owners who has the 4000 points and decide to rent 1000 every year to offset the dues…if you do a lot of one or two night rentals, you might end up with a lot more than 20 reservations but I don’t think it’s reasonable for DVC to conclude you are running a business when that amounts to renting only 25% if your ownership each year.

This will always be the point of contention. What % of yearly points being rented puts you in violation? 30? 40? 50? 75?

 

[New Mouse]

Or they could kill off the competition and make renting risky enough that more people book their hotel rooms at insane prices that are almost all profit. That sounds like a way better benefit for Disney than the rental market on which they just bring people into the parks. And frankly, there are lots of cheap non-Disney hotels and rentals. It isn't like the killing the rental business is going to have a huge impact on gate.

You only capture a small percentage by doing that. Those folks aren't all of a sudden going direct through Disney one time or DVC when they stay. I'd bet most are going to values, or more likely looking off property.

 

[lowlight]

This will always be the point of contention. What % of yearly points being rented puts you in violation? 30? 40? 50? 75?

By the time you’ve gone after and dismantled those who rent 100, 90, 80, and 70 percent of their points, the rest will be self correcting. They will dismantle themselves.

 

[xdan0920]

By the time you’ve gone after and dismantled those who rent 100, 90, 80, and 70 percent of their points, the rest will be self correcting. They will dismantle themselves.

I hope they do, and I hope you’re right

 

[Sandisw]

This will always be the point of contention. What % of yearly points being rented puts you in violation? 30? 40? 50? 75?

And that is why I think when Disney used to”20” as a hard number, owners found a way around it.

So, I think and would expect DVC to do is not define it that narrowly.

Because when you set a percentage, then you are back to the same situation.

50% of 100 is 50…but 50% if 8000 is 4000. Do we really think DVC will conclude that your 100 point owner is a business for 50 points of renting a year…especially when might be just one rental…but if your 8000 point owner rents 3750 they are not?

I don’t…I want common sense and reasonable enforcement as to what makes you an owner running your DVC as a business

Now take RIV and VDH? IM0 They have a lot more leeway with those owners to enforce because they included those in the POS before they began selling it.

Own at CFW, and it’s even stricter. However; for your pre RIV, IMO, their hands are legally tied to what they included when they opened the resort.

I just don’t agree that they can add things, like room type when enforcing that clause if they can’t reasonably conclude it without that element.

If they need to use advertising to make their case, then if you own pre RIV, that for me and what I understood when I bought isn’t me isn’t in line with the term “pattern of rental activity”.

Also why I think the board stated several time “large poin owners”…I’d say that is their target.

 

[Sykes]

How you advertise your rental is part of your rental activity.
What kinds of rooms you rent is part of your rental activity.
What resorts you rent is part of your rental activity.
Who you rent to is part of your rental activity.
How far in advance you book is part of your rental activity.
How often you rent is part of your rental activity.
How many points you own and how many of them you rent is part of your rental activity.

All of that and more can be used when determining whether or not a pattern of rental activity constitutes a commercial enterprise.

Every once in a while I think we're getting closer to being on the same page (even if there are some places where we would still disagree), but then we introduce a new interpretation that requires such a bastardization of the English language that the entire thing becomes incomprehensible again.

 

[Cyberc1978]

we are now on page 82.

A lot a talk about renting. Have we established when something is actually a rental and not just you gifting away a stay to friends and family?

You can’t say just because of a name change that it’s a rental - even though it could be.

 

[lowlight]

How you advertise your rental is part of your rental activity.
What kinds of rooms you rent is part of your rental activity.
What resorts you rent is part of your rental activity.
Who you rent to is part of your rental activity.
How far in advance you book is part of your rental activity.
How often you rent is part of your rental activity.
How many points you own and how many of them you rent is part of your rental activity.

All of that and more can be used when determining whether or not a pattern of rental activity constitutes a commercial enterprise.

Every once in a while I think we're getting closer to being on the same page (even if there are some places where we would still disagree), but then we introduce a new interpretation that requires such a bastardization of the English language that the entire thing becomes incomprehensible again.

Pretty much this. Like a FICO score is not just based on if you pay our bills on time. It’s a collection of data about your lending risk.

 

[Brian Noble]

That line of thinking is bonkers to me. None of those other developers are also a lifestyle brand that wants you to see their movies, pay for their streaming service, go to their theme parks, etc.

But it is relevant. DVC is, at its root, just a timeshare. Yes, there are plenty of knock-on benefits to the other parts of the company when DVC points are sold, but still: the point of DVC is to sell points. (See what I did there?)

Everyone likes to talk about how Disney Is Different. And, in a lot of ways, it is. But, those differences are not fundamental. There is no reason why Disney cannot do things that other timeshare developers have done successfully. In this instance, there is no reaosn why high resale values are fundamental to Disney's ability to sell points, and that's partly because points are sold, not bought.

Present company excepted, of course.

And before anyone says "Oh, those timeshares have horrible reputations," I'd encourage you to sit in the hot tub at one of them. There are plenty of e.g. Wyndham owners who are perfectly happy with their ownership, because they use it for vacation and vacation is fun. The people who are upset are those who decide shortly after buying, for whatever reason, they don't want it anymore, and discover that there is no tangible resale market. Surprisingly, people who make that decision far down the road are fine with it, as long as that decision happens long enough after they bought, because they figure they got their money's worth.

And: they probably did.

 

[Brian Noble]

Have we established when something is actually a rental and not just you gifting away a stay to friends and family?

Our ability to establish it is irrelevant. What matters is what Disney thinks. That's because, if Disney follows the pattern that other developers have established, they will shoot first and ask questions later---and they might not ask questions.

You keep trying to find reasons why Nothing Should Change. And, maybe nothing will. But it won't be because someone on the DIS found the Golden Argument Against It.

 

[Sykes]

A lot a talk about renting. Have we established when something is actually a rental and not just you gifting away a stay to friends and family?

You can’t say just because of a name change that it’s a rental - even though it could be.

The Home Resort Rules and Regulations require owners to notify Disney at the time of reservation any time that a reservation is a rental. Disney is not currently enforcing that requirement, but could choose to start enforcing it (and perhaps also enforcing the prohibition on using banked or borrowed points for rentals). For now, though, I would expect Disney to make educated guesses using all available data to determine what reservations are rentals.

 

[nalababybear]

Yeah 82 pages on talking about what is defined as commercial enterprise and renting.

Disney as a business has tolerated the practice of moms and dads making a few dollars to finance their Disney addiction through the secondary market. That's a smart practice.

What Disney or any other business do not want is a business within a business that clearly is siphoning away sizable business. Like side street hustle vendors at venues. They serve a purpose. But if they setup a huge pop-up and start selling anything entire menu, the venue vendors will probably start hurting more with decreased revenue and margins. The venue will pretty quickly squash that pop-up vendor.

I believe this is what Disney is going to do. Shut down those big vendors.

Those wanting Disney hit mom and dads trying to pay for their own addiction aren't really living in reality. Every business would let that customer be forking over their money.

 

[tx911]

Our ability to establish it is irrelevant. What matters is what Disney thinks. That's because, if Disney follows the pattern that other developers have established, they will shoot first and ask questions later---and they might not ask questions.

You keep trying to find reasons why Nothing Should Change. And, maybe nothing will. But it won't be because someone on the DIS found the Golden Argument Against It.

Well, maybe "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

 

[xdan0920]

we are now on page 82.

A lot a talk about renting. Have we established when something is actually a rental and not just you gifting away a stay to friends and family?

You can’t say just because of a name change that it’s a rental - even though it could be.

The only people concerned with this are the ones worrying about how to continue to get away with being landlords.

 

[muppets3d]

The only people concerned with this are the ones worrying about how to continue to get away with being landlords.

bingo

 

[tx911]

bingo

To be fair though, I think there are a sizable number of people who just rent occasionally and/or commonly gift points to friends or family, that are concerned about losing that in the event of a draconian crackdown.

 

[muppets3d]

To be fair though, I think there are a sizable number of people who just rent occasionally and/or commonly gift points to friends or family, that are concerned about losing that in the event of a draconian crackdown.

Reasonable people know those benefits of DVC are protected in the contract and are not going away.

What likely has its days numbered is rental clearing houses like those we all know that sponsor podcasts etc.

I would be polishing up my resume if I worked for them, frankly.

And if I owned points simply to rent them on boards like this or with those clearing houses, I'd be selling them now versus waiting for everyone dumping their contracts at once and flooding the system.

All this is coming in the next 12-24 months, I'd say.

 

[Tatebeck]

Which proves my point…if the pattern of rental activity is based on quanative measure…which can look different when reviewed …then both members get flagged

I only suggested that one might flag by room type because you mentioned it.

If you and I both have 900 points and we both have 10 reservations, then we both are flagged.

If they look at my account and see in the past 12 months my 10 reservations are 300 points but none are high demand.

You do the same but all yours are high demand. Both of us are renting 300 out of 900 a year.

Do you really believe you should be called out for running a business and me not?

That is why I don’t think the type of room matters. Right now, when they want to clean up the market, and can see so many high demand rooms being rented, it might be something they decide to use to help find owners

But, isn’t it just easier to try to find those commercial renters by setting a number to start? no need to take to any farther.

Which is why I hope DVC never adopts any rules that doesnt set the pattern of rental activity based on the quantity of points being rented yearly and one that makes it clear you are in it for something other than vacation.

As long as renters can be under the personal use umbrella, they have to include some in that group as acceptable guests in any of those rooms.

If an owner can stay in a BWV rooms say 5 times a year, then I don’t see any way to say that an owner can’t put a renter in that same room 5 times a year.

If they use only the number/% of points a a determining factor, then it wouldn't matter as you say. But we are just saying that they CAN use other factors like the type of room being rented if they wish to use them as a factor. They can even use it to change the quantitative measures used depending on resort owned and which rooms are rented.

They may decide that a member who owns at VGF who owns 2000 points but rents out an average of 1000 per year is fine.

They may decide that a member who owns at BWV who owns and rents the same amount of points is NOT fine..

They may also decide that another owner who owns at BWV who owns the same number of points, but rents out a smaller percentage per year, but consistently does so in ONLY Standard View rooms at very popular times is NOT fine.

They can choose to look at different resorts and different booking/renting behavior in different ways.

If they see it as being easier to make a big profit if you own BWV vs owning VGF, then they may look at BWV owners more strictly

AND if they see it as being easier to make a large profit when you book and rent standard view rooms vs P/G rooms, then they may be more strict with owners doing that as well. If you try to send them a lawsuit, their lawyers will say that these rooms are historically more likely to bring a larger profit and led us to feel that they were being used in a commercial enterprise.

ANYTHING you do when you buy/book/rent can be used as a data point. And if they look at a membership and decide it is likely being run as a commercial enterprise, then that is the end of it. DVC gets to decide the different parts of the pattern they want to look at, not us.

You may be able to argue that it could easier for them to just look at point totals/percent rented to decide who they feel is running a commercial enterprise, sure. But it is VERY hard to argue that they CANNOT use the other parts of the patterns if they wish to.

What they CAN do and what they WILL do can be very different lists.

 

[Cyberc1978]

You keep trying to find reasons why Nothing Should Change. And, maybe nothing will. But it won't be because someone on the DIS found the Golden Argument Against It.

Honestly I like how things are right now. I can get the reservations I want, I can rent if I need. The obstacles I’ve faced I have overcome.

So yes I don’t want things to change. I don’t know what will change or how it will impact me. I don’t even get a say. But that’s how it is.

I know what I have I don’t know what I will get.

 

[muppets3d]

Honestly I like how things are right now. I can get the reservations I want, I can rent if I need. The obstacles I’ve faced I have overcome.

So yes I don’t want things to change. I don’t know what will change or how it will impact me. I don’t even get a say. But that’s how it is.

I know what I have I don’t know what I will get.

It's not all about you or me, it's about the membership at large and what is best for all interested parties - including, yes, DVC and Disney in general.