Why would it need to be extended to Kauai? It's a different resort and a different island (and a different demand curve as well). What is your reasoning for thinking Starwood would have to apply the change to both islands?
Has the same level of high MFs as the Maui properties. It doesn't need to be extended to Kauai -- then again, Maui SOs don't need to be raised either. I guarantee a lot of WPORV owners would be upset if they didn't/couldn't get an equivalent exchange into Maui for their unit -- they already got the short end with the voluntary status.
I think it is unlikely Starwood would change any resort's StarOptions allotments without a new phase completed or resort under development. Historically, that is when they have bumped up the options at St. John. If Harborside got a new phase (which is highly unlikely) then an SO bump wouldn't be an unreasonable prediction, in my mind.
This logic is counter to the SVR 1-52 change that just occurred. Starwood can pretty much do anything they want for any reason.
Exactly. It benefits Starwood to bump up the SOs when they develop a new phase.
I agree this is the greatest reasoning for doing this. However, there is no new phase yet and no active sales that I am aware of. Things could get stalled again.
WSJ also has a mandatory phase (Virgin Grand/Hillside) which was not excluded from either SO bump. I would predict the same for Maui.
For fairness sake, they had to do it. How could they justify excluding it? BV wasn't excluded either -- again, it would be tough to justify. My point was that the number of units on Maui far exceeds the number of units at WSJ, and it would have a much larger impact because all of the phases are mandatory.
Why would Starwood have to do any such thing?
Note the IMHO in my OP... Starwood doesn't have to do anything which is why I think they won't revalue the SOs for Maui.
Keep in mind my original prediction of a Maui StarOptions increase is predicated on WKORV-NN becoming a reality. My guess is, in that situation, Starwood would much rather suffer a few headaches from existing owners than try to explain to a potential buyer why their brand new Hawaii timeshare doesn't trade for a similar unit in St. John.
I think a "few headaches" is understating. All of the people that bought at WPORV (under your assertion, they won't extend to Kauai), Harborside, WKV and SVV mandatory will not be happy (not to mention those who bought voluntary from the developer).
It's certainly possible that I'm wrong. But I think there are plenty of reasons why it might make sense for Starwood to do this, and I haven't heard any convincing counterarguments thus far.
Of course. It's possible all of us are wrong -- there are no guarantees and Starwood can change club rules at any time. We both agree that we don't find each other's arguments convincing, but that's what I love about this board.
)
SVR and WSJ were relatively low - Maui is the same 1-52.
