You dismiss any observations made and disparage it as “anecdotal” given the lack of hard data. You then presuppose that DVCMC must clearly have evidence and data that supports these changes; data that they refuse to share to support a reallocation that they chose not to release prior to a condo meeting just two weeks earlier. In so doing, you’re pitting what members see today and have observed for years against the very data inside a DVCMC imposed firewall that you’ve already accepted to have been acted on in good faith. Essentially, DVCMC is beyond reproach, absent evidence that proves otherwise, but the only evidence you will accept would be hard data which, again, only DVCMC has. That’s an impossible position to reason with.
The booking system is a reflection of exactly what the membership is dealing with when attempting to book a room. What bearing is there as to where the points come from to make a booking, whether people have borrowed, banked, or traded in points to get a room? When I go to book and I use the online booking tool and can’t get the room I want, it’s a reflection of present demand.
Why would it matter how a 1BR came to be, if a lockoff studio booking creates a surplus of 1BRs in excess of present demand and eliminates a 2BR from inventory? You’re still dealing with a surplus of 1BRs and a dearth of 2BRs. How does raising 1BRs and lowering 2BRs possibly make sense in that scenario?
It strikes me that absent ANY evidence or guidance from DVCMC, you will sooner accept at face value, and in fact provide possible rationale for their intentions, than consider any observations that have been historically and presently made by members. Any example pulled now, you’ll discount as non-applicable because DVCMC was looking back at a body of evidence as far back as 2013 up until 2018. If the justification can’t be made in the face of 2019 data, how is it supposed to be a logical reallocation that addresses present needs?
How you discount the information we can see presently and have been observed by members for years in favor of the word of a corporate behemoth who has a conflict of interest, as it pertains to profiting off these changes, is a bit puzzling.