Expansion Coming?

[HauntedPirate]

I have no idea as to the ins and outs of DVC, but would it be possible for them to convert the bottom floor of the waterside Carriage house buildings into retail if Springs ever wrapped around the lake (I have no knowledge of any plans along these lines, just curious)?

Except that owners are deeded to specific “units” within the resort.

Now those units could be a single GV, a specific building or a group of rooms within a building. The unit is specified in the owner’s deeds. So I don’t think they can simply demolish a timeshare building in which someone has an active ownership. They would only be able to do that if they managed to buy back all the contracts with a share in the unit(s) which make up that building.

I think this pretty much covers it. DVC units are "owned" by the deed holders, so to remove a building they'd have to buy back all the contracts that have an ownership stake in that building, or else build a new building of the same size/number of rooms and somehow figure out how to transfer those contracts to the new building. It all sounds like a lot of paperwork and legal mess that doesn't seem to be worth the headaches that would inevitably ensue - Those contracts would then own a newer building, so then member fees could be affected, which would anger the other owners, leading to lawsuits, etc.

 

[Kamikaze]

I think this pretty much covers it. DVC units are "owned" by the deed holders, so to remove a building they'd have to buy back all the contracts that have an ownership stake in that building, or else build a new building of the same size/number of rooms and somehow figure out how to transfer those contracts to the new building. It all sounds like a lot of paperwork and legal mess that doesn't seem to be worth the headaches that would inevitably ensue - Those contracts would then own a newer building, so then member fees could be affected, which would anger the other owners, leading to lawsuits, etc.

Except that owners are deeded to specific “units” within the resort.

Now those units could be a single GV, a specific building or a group of rooms within a building. The unit is specified in the owner’s deeds. So I don’t think they can simply demolish a timeshare building in which someone has an active ownership. They would only be able to do that if they managed to buy back all the contracts with a share in the unit(s) which make up that building.

As long as the replacement unit fits the definition as laid out in the deed, it can be replaced. It doesn't have to be the EXACT unit like a deed to a house would be. Else it would prevent things like structurally altering refurbishments from taking place. Or in the case of a 'disaster', what would happen? The owners would just be 'out' because their specific unit was destroyed? Its not how it works.

In other words, if building X got leveled in a hurricane, the replacement building X would be those owner's deeded spot. The only difference in the kind of situation where the timeshare operator was willingly replacing/changing buildings would be that the replacement building would probably have to be available before the closed/changed the old building.

 

[MickeyMouse10]

Was that resort a DVC property? Didn't think so. As far as I'm aware, they cannot simply demo existing DVC buildings that have active contracts without repercussions.

I honestly don't think that matters. Disney is creating new DVC buildings and redoing rooms left and right.

 

[HauntedPirate]

I honestly don't think that matters. Disney is creating new DVC buildings and redoing rooms left and right.

It does matter. Building new DVC resorts and renovating existing rooms is not even in the same galaxy as what you think should happen.

 

[larryz]

Or in the case of a 'disaster', what would happen? The owners would just be 'out' because their specific unit was destroyed? Its not how it works.

In other words, if building X got leveled in a hurricane, the replacement building X would be those owner's deeded spot. The only difference in the kind of situation where the timeshare operator was willingly replacing/changing buildings would be that the replacement building would probably have to be available before the closed/changed the old building.

Uh, actually, they could be...

"Chateau Charmant ​

https://www.redweek.com/resort/P991-chateau-charmant/reviews
Gulfport, Mississippi​

We are sorry to report that Chateau Charmant was completely destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. According to the resort's Website, this resort will not be rebuilt (Dead link -- http://www.chateaucharmant.com/index.htm)."

The land sat fallow until 2014, when it was auctioned off. I don't know how owners were reimbursed -- if they were. I don't know how many held separate insurance policies on their timeshares.

 

[nickys]

If anyone wants to read all 96 pages of the Florida licence on vacation and timeshare plans then here it is:

http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/lsc/documents/statutes/Ch721Printed.pdf

What I think gleaned is that any alteration involving the demolition and rebuild of specific unit(s) would require “DVC” to file an amendment to the public offering statement and, if accepted, to reiisue that to all owners with an interest in those units. Presumably those with a deeded interest would have recourse to object.

I don’t believe DVC would go to those lengths and risk the repercussions just to expand Disney Springs.

 

[Kamikaze]

Uh, actually, they could be...

"Chateau Charmant ​

https://www.redweek.com/resort/P991-chateau-charmant/reviews​

Gulfport, Mississippi​

We are sorry to report that Chateau Charmant was completely destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. According to the resort's Website, this resort will not be rebuilt (Dead link -- http://www.chateaucharmant.com/index.htm)."

The land sat fallow until 2014, when it was auctioned off. I don't know how owners were reimbursed -- if they were. I don't know how many held separate insurance policies on their timeshares.

Yes, if the company goes out of business thats a different story. Obviously.

 

[larryz]

Yes, if the company goes out of business thats a different story. Obviously.

Well, the company was doing just fine until Katrina turned their property into a parking lot.

 

[MickeyMouse10]

I'd love it if they could put a Skyliner station. But I'm sure Disney wouldn't want to do that. Because people could park at Disney Springs and get out of paying for parking.

Scary thought though, they could always start charging for parking at Disney Springs as well. So it wouldn't be possible to screw them over, and they would be creating something that makes money.

 

[marni1971]

I'd love it if they could put a Skyliner station. But I'm sure Disney wouldn't want to do that. Because people could park at Disney Springs and get out of paying for parking.

Scary thought though, they could always start charging for parking at Disney Springs as well. So it wouldn't be possible to screw them over, and they would be creating something that makes money.

Or you get x hours free parking.

 

[larryz]

Or you get x hours free parking.

Or you get free parking with a validated receipt from within the last hour.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

Or you get free parking with a validated receipt from within the last hour.

Or you put a Sunpass reader at the gate. All gates.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Or you put a Sunpass reader at the gate. All gates.

And every 250 feet within the Springs.

 

[MickeyMouse10]

Or you get x hours free parking.

Good idea, but that might be too much of a hassle for Disney. It's probably best to just charge them.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I'd love it if they could put a Skyliner station. But I'm sure Disney wouldn't want to do that. Because people could park at Disney Springs and get out of paying for parking.

Scary thought though, they could always start charging for parking at Disney Springs as well. So it wouldn't be possible to screw them over, and they would be creating something that makes money.

Every mile of Skyliner cable is a $1 million. They'd never do it.

 

[MickeyMouse10]

Every mile of Skyliner cable is a $1 million. They'd never do it.

They'd more than make up for it by adding a new tower at Saratoga. Much like they did at Caribbean Beach, with the new addition of the Riviera resort. They could even theme it to Disney Springs and incorporate that storyline.

 

[HauntedPirate]

They'd more than make up for it by adding a new tower at Saratoga. Much like they did at Caribbean Beach, with the new addition of the Riviera resort. They could even theme it to Disney Springs and incorporate that storyline.

Dear god... So you think they should demolish buildings at an existing DVC resort in order to build a tower to add a ton more rooms at what is already it's largest DVC resort? Plus extend the gondolas to a place they don't want to extend the gondolas to?

 

[HauntedPirate]

It's completely nonsensical to take out hundreds of timeshare rooms, for years, in order to build a tower. Rooms, I might add, that hundreds of Saratoga owners have a legal, titled deed for, and also at a time when there are a ton of points still needing to be used and getting a DVC room is more difficult than ever. That line of thinking has zero basis in reality. What that poster proposes wouldn't get past any planning commission, not to mention a single lawyer, as it's a massive lawsuit waiting to happen.

Disney has enough of a headache with the gondolas needing to stop during a thunderstorm, or during periods of high winds, on the two existing lines. Extending that system only intensifies the headache, not to mention the logistics of a gondola line that runs to a place where parking is free. Could they charge for parking at the Springs? Sure. It's a good way to reduce the number of people visiting the Springs, though. Many locals aren't going to go if they have to pay for parking. Many guests with a car aren't going to go if they have to pay to park. Which means reduced revenue for the stores and shops. Which means higher turnover as places can't make enough to justify the cost of staying open and paying the Mouse. Which means... you get the picture.

The entire premise has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.

 

[MickeyMouse10]

One thing you're not looking at is the ability to use "Electricity". Disney wouldn't have to have as many buses (and use as much gas) if they connected more resorts via the Gondola system. Which also benefits the environment as well.

Plus they could charge more money for the new resort's rooms and the new Disney Springs establishments.

 

[oogie boogie man]

I'm for the gondola's, but I think it's silly to charge people for parking at Disney Springs. Unless we'd get some kind of reimbursement.