Can we stay at one resort and relax at another?

[Katieanndy]

My husband and I are planning a return trip to WDW after our honeymoon 3 years ago. On our honeymoon we stayed at a moderate resort but are not in the same position to put out the extra funds this time. We thoroughly enjoyed the relaxing environment of the POR resort last time and would like to visit it and reminice.
Does anyone know if it is possible to stay at a value resort, but relax by the pool of another nicer resort?
When we were thinking about it we thought that it might just be as easy as getting on a bus back to another resort and then staying by the pool with their towels and maybe even eating at their resturant. Anyone tried it?

- Katie

 

[luckyeye13]

Wouldn't posting a CM at the entrance to the pool requiring a room key put an end to pool hopping?QUOTE]

Every so often (at least when I was still working at WDW), there would be shifts on the Extra Hours Hotline for doing exactly that at a particular resort. I never got to work those myself because they conflicted with my schedule, but they did seem fun.

 

[fosse76]

Unfortunately, I think you're wrong on that. There are judges out there who have actually awarded damages to a criminal, who had the monumental gall to file a lawsuit, because he was injured while in the process of breaking into a building. With total imbeciles like that sitting on the bench, I have no problem believing that there are idiots out there wearing black robes, who would uphold a ludicrous ticket like that as well. And I also just realized the irony that a criminal breaking into a building to commit a crime can be awarded money for his misdeeds because the owners didn't make the premises safe for burglars. Yet, a person can be fined a hefty amount of money simply for trying to help out a fellow human being in need by rushing him to the hospital! :brick::shrug:

Those judges are following the law. If you are injured on somebody's property, the owner is liable. Doesn't matter how they got on the property. And it's not about making the premises safe for burglars. It's about safety in general.

 

[mickey2008.1]

Those judges are following the law. If you are injured on somebody's property, the owner is liable. Doesn't matter how they got on the property. And it's not about making the premises safe for burglars. It's about safety in general.

Well, some laws just are not right. that is the unfortunate situation. But you should know if you are doing right or wrong.

 

[dizzney]

As a DVCer we have the right to pool-hop pools except BCV and AKL, personally we have not done so, we use hte pool at the resort we are staying at, that being said, I would be annoyed to get to the pool at my resort and find no chairs/lounges etc avaialble and find out that people were there pool hopping, I know this occurs at BWV and it sometimes seems to be extremely crowded, perhaps they should allow access there by room key.

We pay for the privilage of being DVC members and should be able to use the pool at our resort without pool hoppers - and this is probably a bigger issue in peak times

Actually happy that BLT which we also purchased has a pool with key card only, it will be interesting to see how crowded that pool is in peak times.

 

[durangojim]

Four years ago I couldn't have cared less someone pool hopped. After staying at the BC for the last couple of years and having some experiences with people trying to or actually pool hop I can say without reservation that I HATE POOL HOPPERS! Go back to your resort and take you cigarettes, wife beaters, and poorly mannered kids with you! Pool hoppers are right up there with able bodied people who apply for Social Security disability. As for most other things, I don't really care. But pool hopping really pi$$e$ me off.

 

[durangojim]

I think if you ask people why they stay at the YC/BC a lot of them will say the pool. So in essence they are paying more for the pool.

We go to the YC every December and for the last 4 years, even though we stay during the value season, they check IDs for everyone and you get a bracelet. If you don't start checking ID before the pool gets crowded, then resort guests who are entitled to use the pool still may not be able to get chairs because others are already using them. Of course you are never guaranteed an empty pool or even chairs, but it's a lot easier to take when you know that it's crowded with your fellow hotel guests who are paying for the use of the pool too. Just my opinion...

This is exactly one of the reasons we stay at the BC, and I love the fact that they give wristbands. Actually I wish all of the resorts would do it (although I think only the deluxes need it).

 

[sbkline]

Those judges are following the law. If you are injured on somebody's property, the owner is liable. Doesn't matter how they got on the property. And it's not about making the premises safe for burglars. It's about safety in general.

And that idiot cop that will give a ticket to someone speeding to the hospital is just following the law, too. But that's my whole point. Things aren't black and white, and other things must be taken into consideration, not just legal technicalities.

By the way, at least one of the stories I'm referencing has to do with a burglar climbing onto the roof of a school and falling through the skylight while attempting to break in. So unless the roof of the school is open on a regular basis to the general public, then there is no reason to have any expectation that a person isn't going to accidentally fall through the skylight. Because, unless you're a maintenance worker or some such thing, you have no business on the roof in the first place. And if you DO have business on the roof, it's your responsibility to be careful and watch where you are going anyway.

 

[wdwfan100]

I find it disheartening to see how people respond in ethical situations. I tend to think that rules and laws are more black and white than grey. There is no reason why someone staying in any resort other than their own should be using an other resorts pool. I can understand why they would want to, but it is not right. The ameneties of the resort are there for the paying guests of that resort. It should not matter if it is empty or full. If my neighbors go out of town it does not make it right for me to use their deck/patio to spend my time. Maybe even grill on their grill. Heck invite some friends over while I am at it. I cant go over and use their lawn mower even though they are not using it at the time. I have a usable one in my garage. Isnt it reasonable to expect me to use my own. Is it right for me to use their water to keep my grass green? No. It is not right because they paid for all those things I did not. Even if it does not inconvenience them one bit, I do not have the right to infringe on their property. The same applies to someone from a value resort going to a moderate or deluxe. How can there be an expectation to use something that you did not pay for? Now Disney has the right to make the rules as they see fit. If they want to allow pool hopping than that is their call. At this time though it is not allow. What happens if a non resort guest arrives at the pool and it is not busy, but then gets busy later on, do they leave? More than likely they would stay. Rules are black and white because most peoples sense of what is right and wrong only go as far as how it impacts them. I would also like to ask, what happens if you kid is hurt or injured. so you throw them in a car and start driving like a bat out of you know what to the hospital. Then lets say on the way you collide with a vehice that has my child in it and he/she is killed? Do we absolve any responsibility because you had an emergency too. No. You may not agree with rules or laws. But they provide order in society. Cops are not idiots for writting people tickets that break the law. People are for thinking that there determination of the situation should override that order of society. As long as they don't have to be stuck in line for 5 minutes longer and they can use what others have paid for they dont really care. Sorry if this comes of angry, it has been a very poor week. I will probalby be back tomorrow and wish I had though before I typed.

 

[luckyeye13]

I find it disheartening to see how people respond in ethical situations. I tend to think that rules and laws are more black and white than grey. There is no reason why someone staying in any resort other than their own should be using an other resorts pool. I can understand why they would want to, but it is not right. The ameneties of the resort are there for the paying guests of that resort. It should not matter if it is empty or full. If my neighbors go out of town it does not make it right for me to use their deck/patio to spend my time. Maybe even grill on their grill. Heck invite some friends over while I am at it. I cant go over and use their lawn mower even though they are not using it at the time. I have a usable one in my garage. Isnt it reasonable to expect me to use my own. Is it right for me to use their water to keep my grass green? No. It is not right because they paid for all those things I did not. Even if it does not inconvenience them one bit, I do not have the right to infringe on their property. The same applies to someone from a value resort going to a moderate or deluxe. How can there be an expectation to use something that you did not pay for? Now Disney has the right to make the rules as they see fit. If they want to allow pool hopping than that is their call. At this time though it is not allow. What happens if a non resort guest arrives at the pool and it is not busy, but then gets busy later on, do they leave? More than likely they would stay. Rules are black and white because most peoples sense of what is right and wrong only go as far as how it impacts them. I would also like to ask, what happens if you kid is hurt or injured. so you throw them in a car and start driving like a bat out of you know what to the hospital. Then lets say on the way you collide with a vehice that has my child in it and he/she is killed? Do we absolve any responsibility because you had an emergency too. No. You may not agree with rules or laws. But they provide order in society. Cops are not idiots for writting people tickets that break the law. People are for thinking that there determination of the situation should override that order of society. As long as they don't have to be stuck in line for 5 minutes longer and they can use what others have paid for they dont really care. Sorry if this comes of angry, it has been a very poor week. I will probalby be back tomorrow and wish I had though before I typed.

Makes sense to me!

 

[sbkline]

If my neighbors go out of town it does not make it right for me to use their deck/patio to spend my time. Maybe even grill on their grill. Heck invite some friends over while I am at it. I cant go over and use their lawn mower even though they are not using it at the time. I have a usable one in my garage. Isnt it reasonable to expect me to use my own. Is it right for me to use their water to keep my grass green? No. It is not right because they paid for all those things I did not.

But what if you're the one who went out of town and your neighbors did these things and, in the process, they somehow got hurt on your property and decided to sue you. Do you want a judge that sees the law in black and white and awards them damages simply because the fine print of the law says that you're liable? Or do you want a judge who will sympathize with you that these people were trespassing and using your stuff without permission and that you shouldn't be liable for their misfortune while doing these things? I'd almost be willing to bet my house that you would want a judge who doesn't see things in black and white.

 

[sbkline]

I would also like to ask, what happens if you kid is hurt or injured. so you throw them in a car and start driving like a bat out of you know what to the hospital. Then lets say on the way you collide with a vehice that has my child in it and he/she is killed? Do we absolve any responsibility because you had an emergency too. No.

*sigh* Amazing. Absolutely amazing that people can be so simplistic and black and white about things without leaving any room to allow for extenuating circumstances.

To answer your question, in the case of colliding with someone, then the obvious right of way, and safe driving issues would come into play and the responsible party would be held responsible. But we're not talking about that, are we? I'm simply talking about rushing someone to the hospital. Under those circumstances, no, they should not be given a ticket by some overzealous idiot cop just because they were trying to get someone to a hospital. Now, if they got someone else killed in the process, then you examine that particular situation and come to a reasonable verdict, which would probably include citing the driver for unsafe driving. But that's just it...yes, we have laws in place, but the writers of the law can't possibly foresee every possible scenario and circumstance. So it then becomes imperative for the cops and the judges to use a little common sense and judgement to weigh the law against the particular circumstances of that situation and see whether a ticket is warranted, or if overlooking the law in that instance is warranted. Things are not black and white. To repeat THINGS ARE NOT BLACK AND WHITE

It's kind of like falling asleep at the wheel. There is no law against driving while tired. But you still need to be careful doing so because, even though there is no law which says you can get a ticket for being drowzy behind the wheel, if your drowziness causes an accident, then yes, at that point, you're held liable. So, while you should not be bound by speed laws in the case of someone needing emergency medical care, you should still be cautious while rushing there. You are not absolved of your responsiblity to look both ways. Before blowing through that red light, you still need to look both ways to make sure that it is safe to do so, then if it is, by all means, blow through it at 80 miles an hour. But if you aren't careful and cause an accident, then you are rightly held liable. Judgement is the key; the ability to weigh the facts of a particular case to come to a reasonable course of action. Not just blindy applying the black and white letter of a law.

I don't know, maybe I'm just in the minority in thinking it's in rather poor taste for a cop to go up to a person at the hospital and say "I'm really sorry to hear about your wife's accident. I hope she will be alright. Oh, by the way, here's a 75 dollar citation for breaking the speed laws in order to get her here. Appear in court on this date to pay the fine, or a warrant will be issued for your arrest." Call me silly, but I just expect a little more understanding an compassion from a public servant. :shrug:

 

[yankspy]

We are still talking about pool hopping right.

 

[wdwfan100]

But what if you're the one who went out of town and your neighbors did these things and, in the process, they somehow got hurt on your property and decided to sue you. Do you want a judge that sees the law in black and white and awards them damages simply because the fine print of the law says that you're liable? Or do you want a judge who will sympathize with you that these people were trespassing and using your stuff without permission and that you shouldn't be liable for their misfortune while doing these things? I'd almost be willing to bet my house that you would want a judge who doesn't see things in black and white.

It seems rather evassive to answer a question with a question. However I will respond to yours, and I hope you have a nice house. I would want the judge to rule according to the law. The reality is that personal property injury laws are different where ever you are. In some places if there is even as little as 1% responsibility on the trespassing party than the homeowner will have no assigned liability. Most states laws look at percentage of liability and will rule based on that. If I have done something wrong than I will accept resonsibility for it. I would tend to think the judges ruling in those thief hurt on property instances are operating more in the grey area. So they are saying "sure this guy should not have been there, but it just seems wrong to give him nothing. Heck, he is in a wheel chair and all. A lot of those initial rulings are dismissed on appeal as well. So what I would want and expect is for the judge to rule according to the law. Not by how he feels that day. You seem to assume that the grey area always falls on the ethical, common sense side of things. Regretably it does not.
Now back to my question. Is it right for my neighbors to use the items I paid for, even though it does not impact me? Can they just come in and watch my satelite TV for a while since I have more channels than they do and they don't want to pay extra for the sports package? Is it really unreasonable for me to expect that since I have bought and paid for my home, and they have theirs, that we use our own amenities? I still reserve the right to invite them if I so choose. But they should not take those liberties on their own. Much like pool hoppers should respect the fact that they do not pay for the amenities at a resort other than their own.

 

[sbkline]

Now back to my question. Is it right for my neighbors to use the items I paid for, even though it does not impact me? Can they just come in and watch my satelite TV for a while since I have more channels than they do and they don't want to pay extra for the sports package? Is it really unreasonable for me to expect that since I have bought and paid for my home, and they have theirs, that we use our own amenities? I still reserve the right to invite them if I so choose. But they should not take those liberties on their own. Much like pool hoppers should respect the fact that they do not pay for the amenities at a resort other than their own.

I'm not disagreeing with you there. I have already acknowledged in a previous post that no, they should not pool hop. I had attempted to clarify that I'm not necessarily condoning pool hopping...just that I don't understand why some people get so worked up about it. Yes, you paid for that resort room and the ammeneties that come with it, but it's not your personal property and the pool hoppers using that pool are not trespassing on YOUR private space. I agree with you that they shouldn't do it, but ultimately, I don't care, as it really doesn't affect me any. Except in that highly unlikely "what if" scenario that everyone keeps bringing up, of "everyone" doing it. When "everyone" starts doing it, thereby imparing me from using the pool at my resort, then yes, I will be upset. Until that happens (and I don't ever see that happening), I don't fret about pool hoppers. Again, I'm not saying that I condone them doing it, just that it's of no interest to me if they do or not and if they do, I don't get upset about it.

And yes, I agree with you about trespassers in your house and your yard. I have actually had to deal with that here where I live. I own the empty lot next door. But since it's right next door to my house, I view it as my yard, rather than "that empty lot". It seems, however, that the neighbors initially viewed it as "the empty lot" and thought they were entitled to play there without permission. Since I view that as my yard, yes, I viewed it as a violation of my personal space and, on more than one occassion, have had to nicely ask the mother not to let her kids play there. It's mine, I mow it, I pay the taxes on it and no, I don't want other people helping themselves to it. And there are a few reasons why I feel that way. But as far as the "black and white" issue with the law, I'm not totally sure what the law in Illinois says about injury on someone's property. But, based on what I've heard others say (which may or may not be accurate), I understand that if those kids got hurt on my yard, they could sue me. Which I think is bullcrap. They weren't invited there. They have been told not to be there. And if they get hurt, that's their own darn fault. And even if the law clearly says, without exception, that I am liable, I don't want a judge that is going to deal in black and white. I want a judge who is going to agree with me that those kids have no business there and that they have been told not to be there and therefore, I am liable for nothing, even if the black and white of the law says that I am.

 

[ajrwdwgirl]

I don't understand why some people get so worked up about it. Yes, you paid for that resort room and the ammeneties that come with itQUOTE]

I think you answered your own question.

Pool hopping is not cool. If those people wanted to use a certain pool they should have shelled out the bucks to stay there and use that pool. You get what you pay for really.

 

[_Scar]

We plan on doing the same thing, sort of. We are going to check in on December 4th and instead of wasting half of a day at the parks, we want to get checked in and then wander around the resorts taking pictures. That shouldn't be a problem, should it?:shrug:

Same day as me and my family I'm staying at the Swan! Are you a Florida Resident?

 

[Disneykidder]

Holy heated debate Batman!!

I have to say that I just don't get pool hopping. It is water in a big area to swim in...big deal. Every pool has water...in a big area. Some are more cool to look at and may have a slide or two but it is a pool...a way to cool off and have a little fun. I just don't get packing stuff in a bag and traveling to different resorts to use another pool. I think hopping would be the waste of time. Like I said before, I only usedan another pool one time because my entire family was doing something at POR and I was waiting for them by the pool.
Sorry but I just don't get the need or urge to hop.

 

[sbkline]

Holy heated debate Batman!!

I have to say that I just don't get pool hopping. It is water in a big area to swim in...big deal. Every pool has water...in a big area. Some are more cool to look at and may have a slide or two but it is a pool...a way to cool off and have a little fun. I just don't get packing stuff in a bag and traveling to different resorts to use another pool. I think hopping would be the waste of time. Like I said before, I only usedan another pool one time because my entire family was doing something at POR and I was waiting for them by the pool.
Sorry but I just don't get the need or urge to hop.

I'll definitely agree with you there. That's pretty much my sentiments exactly.

Again, to re-iterate, in case some people misunderstand me, I don't necessarily condone pool hopping. It's just not something for me to get all upset about. Yes, it's against the rules, but to me, that's between the offending party and Disney. It's none of my concern. Until it adversely affects me, which is unlikely.

It's like trucks parking at the back of the lot at the Walmart where I work. Officially, it's forbidden. But apparently, management isn't overly concerned about it, because they're always there. I work in Garden Center and I was outside the other day and had a trucker asked me if he's allowed to park in the back corner of the lot to sleep overnight. I told him, officially, the answer is no. But I also told him that I don't know how concerned management is about it, since people do it all the time, and there's a good chance he would get away with it. It's against the rules, so I don't necessarily condone them doing it, but I really don't give a rip. I just go to work, clock in, do my work, clock out and go home. It's not my job to worry about whether the truckers are parked in our lot overnight.

Now, when the spring season is approaching, and I need a section of that lot to use the forklift and set up all the mulch, soil and rock for the season, and a bunch of vehicles are parked where I need to set up the product, then yes, at that point, I get honked off. But until then, I couldn't care less.

Same way with pool hopping.