History of Mandatory vs Voluntary

I have both, with Hyatt and SVN. I actually like the combination. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. I much prefer the weeks approach if you're going to use II. For example, I have used my small side at WKV to snag a 2BR at Marriott Ocean Pointe for a week. This would not be possible using the points system.

YYJMSP said:

I don't really like the idea of a week-for-week trade like what we have with II now, so I'd be in favour of something that gives us some kind of points, based on what we own (property, season, unit type, etc), that we can use against other suitable properties which would be given their own relative point values.

That would effectively just be SVN under another name but with more options to trade in to...

Click to expand...

lizap said:

When II acquired Hyatt, I looked these up, but wasn't impressed with any of them, so I didn't make a note of them.

Click to expand...

I do like some of their properties. Much more appealing than any is the Sheratons in SVN, with the exception of Steamboat and Mountainvista to some extent...

lizap said:

I have both, with Hyatt and SVN. I actually like the combination. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. I much prefer the weeks approach if you're going to use II. For example, I have used my small side at WKV to snag a 2BR at Marriott Ocean Pointe for a week. This would not be possible using the points system.

Click to expand...

In some cases, the current system works. I used to own a 2 BDLO at SVV and exchanged the studio side for Marriott 2BDLO and 3 BD multiple times. That is harder to do now. Last minute exchanges are more likely.

lizap said:

I definitely hope this is not the case because all owners of the 'other' TSs will be competing with us for resorts like WSJ or WKORV. So far with Hyatt, it has not been the case.

Click to expand...

I see your point. However, my take is buy where you want to go.

The points system can open reservations at say 6 months only if somebody deposited their week/points. I think that could be fair.

Personally, I don't see myself depositing my HRA or WSJ Pool Villa weeks at all...not even for a Hyatt Kaanapali 3 BROF..:hysterical: I can rent it from another owner or I can use SOs from other VOI to go to that unit.

This is the stuff that turns my crank

I found the differences in the condo docs, at least those for Vistana Villages and Vistana Resort. I don't have a timeline of all the properties, but it seems those that predate SVN are all voluntary. This is why Vistana Resort is voluntary but some parts of Villages are Mandatory. Somewhere along the line Starwood wised up and stopped including the Manadatory language in the governing documents.

Here is the Mandatory language for Vistana Villages Bella; Page 25, Document

Starwood Vacation Club and Vacation Ownership Plan. Developer intends that Units in every phase will be declared as part of the Vacation Ownership Plan and the Club; however, Developer reserves the right to declare Units to the Condominium that will not be included as part of the Vacation Ownership Plan or the Club. The degree, quantity, nature, and extend of the Vacation Ownership Plan and the Club are described above.

Click to expand...

Definitions:
Page 2: Club. means the Starwood Vacation Club, the service name given to the variety of exchange and reservation services and vacation and travel benefits offered and the restrictions currently imposed by the Club Operator for Club Resorts. Club Members reserve the use of the Units at a Club Resort and access the External Exchange Program through the Club reservation system pursuant to the priorities, restrictions, and limitations set forth in the Club Documents. The Club is not a legal entity or association of any kind.


Here is the language that is void of the mention to Mandatory for Vistana Villages St Augustine; Page 25, Document, the strike-through below is mine. The words struck through are not in the actual condo declaration and are there to show the difference from the wording in the documents for Vistana Villages Bella.

Starwood Vacation Network and Vacation Ownership Plan. Developer intends that Units in every phase will be declared as part of the Vacation Ownership Plan and the Club; however, Developer reserves the right to declare Units to the Condominium that will not be included as part of the Vacation Ownership Plan or the Club. The degree, quantity, nature, and extend of the Vacation Ownership Plan and the Club are is described above.

Click to expand...

Definitions:
Page 8: Vacation Ownership Plan. means the plan established pursuant to Chapter 721 and the Condominium Documents whereby Vacation Units are conveyed for periods of time, and each Owner receives a stated time period less than a full year during any given year but not necessary for consecutive years, until the termination of the plan as provided in this Declaration together with a remainder over in fee simple as a tenant-in-common with all other Owners on termination of the Condominium, subject to the Condominium Documents.

I don't claim to know the timeline for when each resort was declared, but I think this has a big part in what is voluntary vs. mandatory. Looking at Sheraton Vistana Villages, Starwood had to have stopped including the mandatory language in the condo declaration documents sometime between June 2005 and April 2007. The more we could plug in dates, the more we could determine when they started and when they stopped declaring properties as Mandatory.

Property						Declared	Mandatory
Sheraton PGA Vacation Resort						No
Vistana Beach Club							No
Sheraton Desert Oasis							No
Sheraton Broadway Plantation - Plantation				No
Sheraton Broadway Plantation - Palmetto					No
Lakeside Terrace							No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Courts			07/1981		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Falls				01/1983		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Spa				08/1985		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Palms				05/1986		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Springs			08/1988		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Fountains I			02/1990		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Fountains II			08/1993		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Lakes				02/1995		No
Sheraton Vistana Resort - Cascades			08/1997		No
Westin St John - Virgin Grand				??/1997		Yes
Harborside								Yes
Sheraton Vistana Villages - Bella			03/2001		Yes
Sheraton Vistana Villages - Key West			06/2005		Yes
Westin Ka'anapali Ocean Resort						Yes
Westin Ka'anapali Ocean Resort - North					Yes
Westin Kierland Villas							Yes
Sheraton Vistana Villages - Amelia			04/2007		No
Sheraton Vistana Villages - St Augustine		01/2009		No
Westin Desert Willow Villas						No
Westin Mission Hills							No
Sheraton Mountain Vista							No
Westin Riverfront Mountain Villas					No
Sheraton Steamboat Resort Villas - Morningside Tower			No
Sheraton Steamboat Resort Villas - East Tower				No
Westin Princeville Ocean Resort Villas					No
Westin Ka'anapali Ocean Resort - Nanea					No
Westin Lagunamar							No
Westin St John - Bay Vista						No
Westin St John - Coral Vista						No

Westin Kierland Villas is a mandatory resort and you said no.

In 1997,

1. Virgin Grand Villas has been bought by Signature Resorts and Westin Hotels and Resorts (50% each) and became the Westin Vacation Club St-John.

In 1998,

1. Signature Resorts received final planning, zoning and development approval for the planned development of the 158 unit Westin Vacation Club in Rancho Mirage, California.
2. Signature Resorts was renamed to Sunterra Corporation.
3. Starwood bought Westin and Sheraton.

In 1999,

1. Starwood bought Vistana Inc.
2. Starwood bought the 50% shared of Sunterra Corp in the Westin Vacation Club St-John and Rancho Mirage.

In 2002

1. Starwood built the old planned Westin Vacation Club Rancho Mirage and named it Westin Mission Hills Resort Villas.

In 2007,

1. Sunterra Corporation has been acquired by Diamond Resorts International.

youppi said:

Westin Kierland Villas is a mandatory resort and you said no.

Click to expand...

Good catch. I fixed my post.

Westin Ka'anapali Ocean Resort is also mandatory like the WKOR North

Westin Kierland Villas was built in 2004 (mandatory) but Mission Hills was built in 2002 (voluntary) ???

There is a list of the mandatory resorts in the FAQ at the top of the page:

* Harborside at Atlantis
* Vistana Villages (Bella and Key West phases only)
* Westin St. John (Virgin Grand - Hillside only)
* Westin Ka'anapali & Westin Ka'anapali-North
* Westin Kierland Villas

DeniseM said:

There is a list of the mandatory resorts in the FAQ at the top of the page:

* Harborside at Atlantis
* Vistana Villages (Bella and Key West phases only)
* Westin St. John (Virgin Grand - Hillside only)
* Westin Ka'anapali & Westin Ka'anapali-North
* Westin Kierland Villas

Click to expand...

Yeah, I used that to populate the list. I just missed Kierland Villas and Ka'anapali (South).

Be aware that this is a Staroption thing - not a deeded thing - so VSE may change this in the future.

Right now, I would take a wait and see approach to any new purchases, unless you are buying a home resort, that you will be happy to own whether or not it is in some kind of trading club.

DeniseM said:

Be aware that this is a Staroption thing - not a deeded thing - so VSE may change this in the future.

Right now, I would take a wait and see approach to any new purchases, unless you are buying a home resort, that you will be happy to own whether or not it is in some kind of trading club.

Click to expand...

Access to the Club, as long as it exists and whatever form it takes, is a deeded right at mandatory properties. The original condominium declarations are recorded and every deed that gets recorded references those condominium declarations. Now, is it possible that ILG could come along and remove or modify the Club? Possible, it is probably? Probably not. If they did, it would impact all owners, resale owners at mandatory properties and those that bought direct from the developer.

Edit: This is what the Bella Condo declaration says about amendments;

16.2 By Developer. Developer reserves the right to unilaterally amend this Declaration as it may deem appropriate in its sole, absolute, and unfettered discretion; as may be required by any lending institution, title insurance company, or public body; as may be necessary to conform the Declaration to the requirements of law; or to facilitate the operation and management of the Condominium, the Club, or the sale of Units or Unit Weeks. Any amendments to this Declaration which may be unilaterally made by Developer shall become effective on the recording in the Public Records of Orange County, Florida, of an instrument executed solely by Developer, setting forth the text of such amendment in full, together with the appropriate recording data of this Declaration. Except as provided elsewhere in the Condominium Documents, no amendment of this Declaration permitted to be unilaterally made by Developer shall be permitted if such amendment would prejudice or impair to any material extent the rights of the Owners as a whole or any Mortgagee of record. Developer may also make other amendments as may be reserved elsewhere in the Condominium Documents.

Click to expand...

dioxide45 said:

Access to the Club, as long as it exists and whatever form it takes, is a deeded right at mandatory properties. The original condominium declarations are recorded and every deed that gets recorded references those condominium declarations. Now, is it possible that ILG could come along and remove or modify the Club? Possible, it is probably? Probably not. If they did, it would impact all owners, resale owners at mandatory properties and those that bought direct from the developer.

Click to expand...

That's my point - it's hard to say what changes will occur in the future with internal trading. Over the years, Starwood made significant changes in the program.

Also, be aware that resorts CAN leave the internal exchanging program/mgmt. company. This happened at Villas at Cave Creek and owners who requalified deeds there, or bought from the developer, to get elite status in the SVN lost their Staroptions.

All I'm saying is that this would be a good time to wait and see.

youppi said:

Westin Ka'anapali Ocean Resort is also mandatory like the WKOR North

Westin Kierland Villas was built in 2004 (mandatory) but Mission Hills was built in 2002 (voluntary) ???

Click to expand...

Isn't Mission Hills what was Ranchero Mirage? This is from your post in the ILG Takeover Delayed until "Sometime in May" [May 12: Midnight] Reply to Thread;

youppi said:

From this article,http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-inc-announces-six-new-projects-77257112.html , Signature Resorts Inc has built the Westin in Rancho Mirage. In addition, in March 1998, Signature received final planning, zoning and development approval for the planned development of the 158 unit Westin Vacation Club in Rancho Mirage, California, the Company's second joint venture with Westin Hotels & Resorts (the first joint venture was the Westin in St-John US Virgin Islands as per http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Signa...t+of+First+Westin+Vacation+Club...-a018943165).

Click to expand...

I wonder if while it was built in 2002, it was perhaps declared as a condominium in 1998 by Signature Resorts thus being void of the mandatory language?

DeniseM said:

That's my point - it's hard to say what changes will occur in the future with internal trading. Over the years, Starwood made significant changes in the program.

Also, be aware that resorts CAN leave the internal exchanging program/mgmt. company. This happened at Villas at Cave Creek and owners who requalified deeds there, or bought from the developer, to get elite status in the SVN lost their Staroptions.

All I'm saying is that this would be a good time to wait and see.

Click to expand...

Shoot, if everyone followed this very few people would be buying timeshares. Retail or resale. It seems that the buy where you want to go mantra went by the wayside years ago, thus why all the major timeshare companies have gone to points based systems. Marriott being the last to do so six years ago. Even earlier than that, in the 1970s it was an issue and why RCI and II came along. This because people were tired of going where they bought every year.

Sure a property can leave the system at any time. The same is true for any property in any system. Marriott properties over the years have given MVCI the boot as a management company. Those owners saw their resale value plummet.

If one was investing thousands of dollars, it may be a gamble not worth taking, but when one may only have a few hundred in the game, it may not be as big of a problem.

Also, if everyone played the waiting game, they would never buy. There is always a chance for another change right around the corner. Stop being such a pessimist and live a little

dioxide45 said:

Also, if everyone played the waiting game, they would never buy. There is always a chance for another change right around the corner. Stop being such a pessimist and live a little

Click to expand...

Hmmm... you sound like a timeshare salesman, so must be good advice...

As I said above: Right now, I would take a wait and see approach to any new purchases, unless you are buying a home resort, that you will be happy to own whether or not it is in some kind of trading club - so that would include your proposed purchase of a few hundred dollars.

But, personally, I would not pursue Staroptions and Elite Status right now.

DeniseM said:

Hmmm... you sound like a timeshare salesman, so must be good advice...

As I said above: Right now, I would take a wait and see approach to any new purchases, unless you are buying a home resort, that you will be happy to own whether or not it is in some kind of trading club - so that would include your proposed purchase of a few hundred dollars.

But, personally, I would not pursue Staroptions and Elite Status right now.

Click to expand...

Too much doom and gloom. As I said, lighten up and live a little...

Right now I own 12 weeks - I'm good!

Scott&Laura said:

I disagree that Starwood can eliminate SVN at a whim---they made material representations of facts in order to induce people to purchase the property---They would have legal ramifications if they changed summarily.

As to ILG buying Vistana--ILG stated they had 15 years dealing with Vistana---hardly--Vistana was newly created to sell off Starwood properties--having said that Starwood will own 55% percent of the company and ILK 45% In essence ILG paid Starwood Vacation Network to have rights to use Starwoods upscale name to enhance their inventory and reputation---Starwood Vacation Ownership has majority voting rights---Starwood will dominate decisions at this time on board--I am looking to who comprises board--Starwood or ILG for an insight into future.

Vistana I still think means a cheap Orlando property.


Scott & Laura

Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding how the 45%/55% ownership split works. Those that will own 55% of the new combined ILG company are Starwood shareholders. Those additional ILG shares that were issued after the acquisition closed went to current Starwood shareholders. These are mainly institutional investors and pension funds. It is those shareholders that hold the voting rights and many of those shareholders may have also previously owned ILG shares.

There were four new members named to the ILG board on the first day, and I believe two stepped down from the BOD. Once the merger between Marriott and Starwood is complete, there will no longer be a Starwood board of directors. There will likely be some degree of a shakeup on the Marriott board at that time.

lizap said:

Interval does own other TSs, but none are the same caliber except Hyatt.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is the case. A few years before ILG acquired the Hyatt timeshare business, it acquired TPI and VRI. TPI was a timeshare management company and an independent exchange company. VRI was also a timeshare management company that had a internal trading system for timeshares it managed.

Both companies were not developers. They were primarily independent management companies for older resorts that were HOA controlled. A lot of their resorts are older 1970's and 1980's coastal motel/condo/apt. conversions into timeshares. Neither TPI or VRI really had the type of control that developer controlled timeshares had and they were typically brought in to displace the incumbent developer management companies.

So ILG doesn't really own these timeshares and I am not sure if they have any plans to fold them into their Hyatt and Vistana/Starwood businesses. I seriously doubt it.

These are tiny companies that are basically rounding errors and were probably done for ILG to tip their toes into the timeshare management game.

When ILG acquired Vistana and Hyatt, they also acquired development LLC's and partnerships for many of the properties. They didn't get any of those from TPI or VRI because TPI and VRI didn't have development rights to the resorts they managed.

The gloom is loosing Starwood - much easier to work with than the Marriott folks. Still wonder how smoothly using SPG points will be to get into Starwood now Marriott owned hotels. Scary when you go to owner updates and when pressed sales folks admit they do not have a clear clue on how it will all work. Yet they still try to sell you something for a lot of money. Using our timeshares has been a great deal of fun - not cheap but not easy to manage so you can get best value.

Lansdowne said:

The gloom is loosing Starwood - much easier to work with than the Marriott folks. Still wonder how smoothly using SPG points will be to get into Starwood now Marriott owned hotels. Scary when you go to owner updates and when pressed sales folks admit they do not have a clear clue on how it will all work. Yet they still try to sell you something for a lot of money. Using our timeshares has been a great deal of fun - not cheap but not easy to manage so you can get best value.

Click to expand...

They don't know because the sale hasn't happened yet, so no-one knows or can really say until it's all official.

The general statements seem to imply no changes through to the end of 2017. As with all forward-looking statements, take that with a grain of salt.