Can't disagree with you more.
Hmm...let's see about that. Read below and you might.
These are lifetime deeds which means you are stuck with what you own forever (or take a 90% cut trying to resell it).
Huh? 90%? Where did that number come from? Didn't you buy resale? As others know based on my past postings, my purchase of both WMH and WKR were resale, and I expect I would get about what I paid, give or take a little, if I tried to sell today. Even if you were defending direct purchasers, they don't lose 90%. So, I'm confused.
Starwood allows older resorts to get dilapidated and then owners get a pleasant "assessment" that is above and beyond the ever-increasing MFs to pay to refurbish them (once they lose a crown or two of ratings).
Are you sure? Is it "Starwood" that allows resorts to "get dilapidated" or it is simply industry standard for resorts to require assessments over time to modernize their infrastructure. My home requires work now and then, doesn't yours? Many annual assessments (ie. maintenance fees) don't include enough of a reserve to pay all future expenses, which then results in the necessity of special assessments. Why would you assume Starwood is out to get us in this manner? And, for what it's worth, if that's the case wouldn't it be the resort Board that is doing this to us, and not Starwood? Of course, much of the Board may be made up of those indebted to Starwood in some fashion.
Owners who plan ahead and own for more than a few years are slowly but surely ripped off by an evolving system. That should not happen. The PRICE that they sell the resorts at should be increased for nicer resorts (Riverfront vs SMV) but the SOs should stay the same. Otherwise, my children will inherit a huge liability rather than a nice opportunity.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that new resorts should cost more to purchase but equal the trade power of older resorts. Sorry, that makes no sense to me. Honestly, I'd like it if it was true but I just can't see that happening over the long term. And, I completely disagree with your belief that your children would assume a "huge liability" - they would have every right to continue to use the property you purchased and any others they could trade into at that time.
What makes you think the system is going to remain static and not evolve with the economy and undoubtedly changing management at Starwood and elsewhere?
After reviewing the major t/s options, I elected to buy into Starwood's system for two main reasons.
1. I like the properties and the stated future development locations.
2. It was a new system, as compared to others. This meant that most of the resorts were relatively new.
I felt that because it was new I would be able to use my ownership for a longer period of time before any unfortunate change is introduced - such as the one we're discussing. I didn't believe it would last forever. And, I am thrilled that my ownership allows me to go to *all* of the new properties, if I wanted to, in at least some size unit. And, really, that's the reason I bought.
BTW, the gondola is ON SITE at Riverfront. Hence the insane price tag we are about to see compared to SMV.
Excellent. So - for some - that increases its perceived value as compared with other properties in the area.
I have to make a general comment here. I'd appreciate a bit more objectivity in these posts. I agree with your stated goal that future properties be valued the same as current, or past, resorts so that we can trade into them. But I think we're being quite short-sighted if we don't, objectivity, realize that this simply may not be a realistic viewpoint.
We all know not to believe the sales staff at *any* t/s resort. Likewise, I know my rights as a WKR owner is that I actually own at the "Scottsdale Sonoran Villas Owners Association" and not an entity called "Westin Kierland Villas", and that my rights to exchange within SVN are limited to SVNs approval based on various factors (which I believe include the upkeep of the resort over time). But, there may be a day where my SVN membership gets canceled because other "Sonoran Villas" owners decide not to vote in favor of a special assessment, and as a direct result SVN excludes the property from the internal exchange program. That is the reality as I know it. It is a limitation of the timeshare system which I accepted when I purchased - and which you accepted, as well - knowingly, or unknowingly.
Again, let's take a step back and objectively understand what it is that we own, our use rights, and a possible outcome that (shock) may not be what you believed when last spoke with the sales staff.
and Pat! 
