# Thinking of buying at Orange Lake



## shame711 (Feb 6, 2008)

Hello all.  We spent two weeks at Orange Lake this past Thanksgiving and thought it was great.  We would like to purchase a unit there but don’t really want another full week of timeshare and thought a every other year unit would do nicely.  

We have been casually looking for an every other year at Orange Lake but have not seen any.  Do they (or did they) ever sell them in the every other year format?


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 6, 2008)

shame711 said:


> Hello all.  We spent two weeks at Orange Lake this past Thanksgiving and thought it was great.  We would like to purchase a unit there but don’t really want another full week of timeshare and thought a every other year unit would do nicely.
> 
> We have been casually looking for an every other year at Orange Lake but have not seen any.  Do they (or did they) ever sell them in the every other year format?



Yes. And you are talking RESALE purchase not the inflated retail from the resort, right?


----------



## JLB (Feb 6, 2008)

Some here have bragged about great resale buys.  Of course, that also implies that someone has suffered a great loss.   

Have you googled _Orange Lake Timeshare For Rent_?

Any time I have in the past, and it has been awhile, many sites have many weeks for rent, some for the amount of the annual fee, or less.  Some for more.

On this one site alone:

http://www.sellmytimesharenow.com/searchrent.php?crt=on&resortId=5203&unitType=&bathrooms=&week=

there are more than 100 weeks for rent, starting at _Best Offer _or under $500.  Any time of year.

But, why buy the cow when you can have . . . or not when you don't want any?  

It sounds like you are not anxious for the obligation of ownership, and you can have the same vacation, at less money, by renting from owners, who, by the way, will be happy that you do, to help them get some of their expense back.

PS:  I am not vouching for the site above.  It was just the first google link, the first of 347,000.


----------



## soon2b6 (Feb 6, 2008)

*Also considering OLCC - for different reasons*

We're also considering an OLCC purchase - definitely resale - currently sitting by the pool at River Island - just went through the "sales presentation". Not sure that's the most appropriate term for what we went through - but none the less it's over.

Our purpose for purchasing would be to get past the 1 in 3 rule at this resort. We have enough other TS options (pts & wks) to exchange into this place with out needing to use a OLCC owned week to do so. Would like the ability to get in every year & perhaps more than once a year via exchange.

As I understand it this cna't be done via exchange unless you're an owner at OLCC. Is that correct? If an owner w/ one week, can you execute multiple exchanges in the same year using other pts/wks? Is there any limit to the number of exchanges per year?

Does anyone have any experience/advice on how even 1 bdrms OLC weeks exchange elsewhere? Any imporved trading power b/c it's OLCC?

Thanks in advance,

Mark


----------



## lprstn (Feb 6, 2008)

soon2b6 said:


> We're also considering an OLCC purchase - definitely resale - currently sitting by the pool at River Island - just went through the "sales presentation". Not sure that's the most appropriate term for what we went through - but none the less it's over.
> 
> Our purpose for purchasing would be to get past the 1 in 3 rule at this resort. We have enough other TS options (pts & wks) to exchange into this place with out needing to use a OLCC owned week to do so. Would like the ability to get in every year & perhaps more than once a year via exchange.
> 
> ...



I have seen OL in the Extra vacations for under $700 a week, and great rental price.  Also, there are lots of lovely resorts in Orlando.  I would try renting it for awhile (maybe 2yrs) before I would purchase.


----------



## gjw007 (Feb 6, 2008)

soon2b6 said:


> We're also considering an OLCC purchase - definitely resale - currently sitting by the pool at River Island - just went through the "sales presentation". Not sure that's the most appropriate term for what we went through - but none the less it's over.
> 
> Our purpose for purchasing would be to get past the 1 in 3 rule at this resort. We have enough other TS options (pts & wks) to exchange into this place with out needing to use a OLCC owned week to do so. Would like the ability to get in every year & perhaps more than once a year via exchange.
> 
> ...



Mark,

As an owner, you can go to Orange Lake and use the facilities even when you are not staying but at another resort.  My understanding is that as an owner, you are exempt from the 1-in-3 rule but I've only rarely exchanged one of my other timeshares into OLCC to know if there is a limit to the number of times that you can exchange.  As noted, though, even when not staying at OLCC, you can use the resort facilities.


----------



## jbuzzy11 (Feb 7, 2008)

I had been going to OLCC for over 20 years before we purchased (resale only!) and we did it to get past the 1 in 3 also. we have about 8 family members with weeks there so we were always going. Now that I have a 3 and 5 year old and want to go 2 to 3X a year, I purchased in the east village. We love it, have deposited and booked about 4X with OLCC weeks and used South Africa weeks to also trade in. 1 OLCC week and a few SA weeks with no 1 in 3 rule is FANTASTIC!


----------



## jolo (Mar 30, 2008)

jbuzzy11 said:


> I had been going to OLCC for over 20 years before we purchased (resale only!) and we did it to get past the 1 in 3 also. we have about 8 family members with weeks there so we were always going. Now that I have a 3 and 5 year old and want to go 2 to 3X a year, I purchased in the east village. We love it, have deposited and booked about 4X with OLCC weeks and used South Africa weeks to also trade in. 1 OLCC week and a few SA weeks with no 1 in 3 rule is FANTASTIC!



This is an option I've been thinking about pursuing as well.  We love OLCC and I started into this timesharing venture with a SA week at Sudwala 5 years ago.  I've traded in twice.  I'm thinking about purchasing a resale OL week with option of stringing a few 2 weekers together.  OL West Village 2 BR units look like a pretty good value.  My SA week though is not pulling the trades at OL like it used to.  Getting around the 1in3 rule seems like it may help me though.  Are the OL West Village units good traders if I want a winter western ski trade?   My SA week won't pull squat.


----------



## hedin (Mar 31, 2008)

*Orange Lake assessment?*

I have noticed that most of the Orange Lake units for sale seem to be from the West Village. Is there a reason for this? Is this an outdated part of the complex? Is there a special assessment for the West Village?

Thanks

Curt


----------



## timetraveler (Mar 31, 2008)

Hi Curt.....no there is no special assessment for the West Village.  And within the next year it will be the newest again.  LOL  The entire West Village clubhouse complex is being gutted and re done.  All the golf villas as well.  Many of them are completed, still some to go.

The West Village is the largest, has the most units.  So naturally there will be more of them for sale at any given time.


----------



## JLB (Mar 31, 2008)

There are plenty of *newer* units for sale on the Internet, perhaps more than at any other resort, and a person here has bragged about his $1000 EV unit, currently $25000 on site.

Agreed that it is primarily a numbers situation, that since there are more units in the WV, there are more resales there.

However, you can't discount the affect of each *newer* _village_.  OL itself has promoted each *new* one as *better*, in order to justify a higher retail price and to flip existing owners.  Of course, now the focus is on flipping other village owners into RI, so they will be on top o' the heap.

You cannot praise each *new* development without the implication that the *older* ones are *lesser*, whether they are or not.

Even in their Points evaluations, do they not suggest the *WV* is *lesser*?  I'm not sure, for sure, never having had a need to try to determine what our ownership there might be able to trade back into there.

Of course, yes, I am suggesting that OL itself, in their effort to market the *new*, has inadvertently (or advertently) detracted from the *old*.



hedin said:


> I have noticed that most of the Orange Lake units for sale seem to be from the West Village. Is there a reason for this? Is this an outdated part of the complex? Is there a special assessment for the West Village?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Curt


----------



## JLB (Mar 31, 2008)

I _Searched_ for a previous discussion where GA Point values for the different villages are conveniently posted, but there are so many of these discussion that I did not quickly find that.  Here is a discussion making that point, however:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53605&highlight=global+access+west+village+points

To take it to another level, although GA Points and RCI Points are two different things, as owners are quick to _point_ out, the GA Access Point evaluations are exactly the same as RCI's, with a simple, obvious multiple factor.

So, what that means, tying this to my last post, is that first RCI determined that *older *_villages_ are_ *lesser*_, and then OL agreed, went along with it.  

Of course, that is part of the marketing strategy, employed by many resorts where the developer has stayed involved, of flipping existing owners of *older* units into *newer* units.  That is _easy money_, prospects who don't have to be sold on the resort itself.  They just have to be convinced that the *newer* project is *better*.


----------



## gjw007 (Mar 31, 2008)

Jim;

You are correct that there are different points levels for the different resorts.  You can go to Orange Lake's website for Global Access, http://www.orangelake.com/quick_links/GlobalAccess.html, select vacation guide and it will give you a points total for units in each section (resort).  And yes, the West Village has the least points requirement.  As far as Global Access and RCI Points, think of Global Access as an internal points program and RCI Points as an external points program.


----------



## JLB (Mar 31, 2008)

I'll let keep that link, for when we need it again.

Do you understand what I am saying Gary, that in promoting each new village OL itself has made the older villages second class, lesser, not as nice as the new?  And the Points add credence to that?

Of course, we all know they did it to make money, that they did not really want the world to know that the older was not as nice as the new.



gjw007 said:


> Jim;
> 
> You are correct that there are different points levels for the different resorts.  You can go to Orange Lake's website for Global Access, http://www.orangelake.com/quick_links/GlobalAccess.html, select vacation guide and it will give you a points total for units in each section (resort).  And yes, the West Village has the least points requirement.  As far as Global Access and RCI Points, think of Global Access as an internal points program and RCI Points as an external points program.


----------



## gjw007 (Mar 31, 2008)

JLB said:


> I'll let keep that link, for when we need it again.
> 
> Do you understand what I am saying Gary, that in promoting each new village OL itself has made the older villages second class, lesser, not as nice as the new?  And the Points add credence to that?
> 
> Of course, we all know they did it to make money, that they did not really want the world to know that the older was not as nice as the new.



Jim,

I had read what you said but didn't really want to get into a discussion over point valuation as there are many variables and some of these are conflicting with each other.  The position you took is one possible variable but the difference in points requirements for the various sections is not that great.  Another variable is the opportunity to generate extra cash by having owners in one section 'rent' the additional points needed to get a unit in another section.  Call me a cynic, but I don't think the resorts pass at a chance to generate extra revenue.  The difference in points total allows the resorts to do that.  Going to a points-based system and charging for housekeeping for stays less than 7 days also does that.

We've had this discussion before.  I don't necessarily agree that older means lesser (there are hotels that are older in many cities that charge more than newer units because of the charm of the older building, historical significance, etc.) but to the extent that the resorts can't (no inventory) push the older sections, they push the newer sections.  Different doesn't mean worse or lesser; only different.  

Each section has pluses and minuses.  The Golf Villas clearly have an advantage, at least to me, in the ability to have single-story dwelling where I can park my car in front of the unit.  They have its own charm.  I know that you have stated in the past that OLCC should tear them down and put multi-story, multi-unit buildings in their place.  But where can you find single-story units anymore as there is the push to develop and sell the multi-unit multi-story units.  If I could, I would take the layout of the River Island units and put them into the Golf Villas as I like the layout of the River Island units best but I like parking my car in front of a single-story dwelling where I can open up the back screen and walk out to the lawn.

There was a comment by somebody from Australia I believe that the resorts there were all small and pretty much the same.  I asked how do you differentiate between resorts; that is, why would you want to stay or own at one particular resort over another.  I never was given an answer.  The same is true with the standardized multi-floor units that are cropping up.  At the end of the day, if the units are the same in the various sections or the same as other resorts, why own there?


----------



## JLB (Apr 2, 2008)

As my stepsister would say, "Could you say it shorter?"   

The question is:

By giving the West Village lower Points, and by marketing each new _village_, as* better*, has OL detracted from the *older* villages?

Please select from the following answers:

Yes

No

Maybe


----------



## 14thMed (Apr 2, 2008)

Yes. But thats good for us, we like the West Village.    Al


----------



## gjw007 (Apr 3, 2008)

Jim,

Let me ask you this as a comparison.  Which would you rather own, a 2008 Ford Mustang convertible or a 1966 Ford Mustang convertible?  I'll take the 1966, preferably blue, white top, automatic, and a V-8.  The newer vehicle didn't lessen the 1966's value to me but it may to others but it depends on what you are looking for.

The newer is better strategy does suggest older is lesser but it isn't always so as I am trying to use the example of the Mustang to show that newer may not always be better.  And it is only one possible strategy.  There are other possible strategies such as the size of the resort where the larger resorts have a smaller points requirement per unit whereas the smaller resorts have a higher points requirement per unit.


----------



## timetraveler (Apr 3, 2008)

JLB said:


> The question is:
> 
> By giving the West Village lower Points, and by marketing each new _village_, as* better*, has OL detracted from the *older* villages?
> 
> ...



No....because OL doesn't market a new phase as "better" than the previous one.


----------



## gjw007 (Apr 3, 2008)

Here is another interesting comparison.

Disney's Old Key West (OKW) is the oldest resort in the DVC collection.  It has the lowest points requirements for a given room.  It also has the largest size room and is the second largest resort in the DVC collection.

Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort (SSR) is the second newest (currently selling with the Animal Kingdom) and has the second lowest points requirements.  It is the largest resort in the DVC system.

OKW and SSR are stand-alone resorts such as OLCC, Hilton, etc. in a condo-style.  The other resorts, Animal Kingdom, Beach Club, Boardwalk, Villas at the Wildness Lodge, at WDW require more points per room but are attached to hotels.  The cost to purchase points at SSR (and Animal Kingdom) are higher than the cost had been to purchase points at the other DVC resorts as these are the resorts that DVC is selling and the others have been sold out for a long time.  Sound familiar?

There are other possible reasons for the points totals to be different for each resort.  In DVC's case (and you could argue that it is mirrored at OLCC) is that the larger resort (more units) have lower points requirements per room than does the smaller resorts.  It doesn't mean the old resorts are lesser or the new resort better but does emphasize the resorts are different.


----------



## jolo (Apr 5, 2008)

Well I just ebay'd a west village 2BR unit/wk 35 w/ closing costs for <$1000 and feel pretty good about it.   Combined with my SA week I hope to string a few weeks together from time to time.  Getting around the 1in3 rule was a big factor in my decision.   

Anyone concerned about the availability of weeks going forward at OL?  Will RCI week deposits decrease in any significant manner as OL continues to push GA or is there a strong sustainable market there? Also, any ideas how easy it might be to get into North or East Village with West village deposit?


----------



## timetraveler (Apr 5, 2008)

jolo said:


> Well I just ebay'd a west village 2BR unit/wk 35 w/ closing costs for <$1000 and feel pretty good about it.   Combined with my SA week I hope to string a few weeks together from time to time.  Getting around the 1in3 rule was a big factor in my decision.
> 
> Anyone concerned about the availability of weeks going forward at OL?  Will RCI week deposits decrease in any significant manner as OL continues to push GA or is there a strong sustainable market there? Also, any ideas how easy it might be to get into North or East Village with West village deposit?



Many owners won't join GA because they do not need a points based product..ie...shorter than 1 week trips, rental car, airline tickets...etc.
So you will see ample inventory.

As far as staying in the other villages...as of 2009 OL  will be split into 4 different villages with RCI, each having it's own resort ID.   You will know up front which village you are securing an exchange into.


----------



## JLB (Apr 5, 2008)

As we all know, the _better_ I am referring to is _implied_ or _inferred_.

If it was not, it would not be an _upgrade_ and it would not cost more money to trade in the old for the new.

It is ridiculous to pretend that OL has not marketed each of the villages after the original, to its existing owners and rank outsiders, as an improvement, as _better_.  But, as I said elsewhere recently, Orlando exists and thrives because of Imagination, so anyone can always imagine that is not true.   

For totally impractical reasons, I would prefer my '59 Jag XK150 Roadster.  But not my first, second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth house.

For practical reasons like reliability the expense of upkeep, I would choose new(er).

Besides, I no longer need a chick magnet.


----------



## JLB (Apr 5, 2008)

Something that many/most had been wishing for for years, to eliminate a bit of the crapshoot of unit placement.

OL has tended to respond, eventually, to feedback.



timetraveler said:


> You will know up front which village you are securing an exchange into.


----------



## timetraveler (Apr 5, 2008)

JLB said:


> Something that many/most had been wishing for for years, to eliminate a bit of the crapshoot of unit placement.
> 
> OL has tended to respond, eventually, to feedback.



No Jim, you still will not be able to get  unit placement.  But you will know village placement.


----------



## timetraveler (Apr 5, 2008)

Well then call me and the resort ridiculous.  OL does not market the newest village as _better_ than the previous one to their owners.

I have been onboard thru the expansion of each village.  The North, and East Villages were not marketed as better.   Even RI was not marketed as better...it's in a different class entirely.  

And of course you would pay more money to go into the newest village....for crying out loud.....it cost more to build than the previous village.     I mean when you trade in your used vehicle...even if it's on the same make and model...the newer one costs more new than your used one did new.


----------



## gjw007 (Apr 6, 2008)

JLB said:


> As we all know, the _better_ I am referring to is _implied_ or _inferred_.





JLB said:


> Do you understand what I am saying Gary, that in promoting each new village OL itself has made the older villages second class, lesser, not as nice as the new?  And the Points add credence to that?
> .


In all the presentations that I've been to, I've never heard a sales representative downgrade another section but point out features in the newer section such as being near River Island.    The only presentation where I heard a sale rep cut another section of the same resort was at Summer Bay (promoting the Houses at Summer Bay over the Villas at Summer Bay).


----------



## JLB (Apr 6, 2008)

Well, no one has ever said it requires an understanding of logic to post on the internet.   

I'm slow, so tell me one more time.

River Island is not _better_.  It is just_ newer_ and more _expensive_.  People give up their old units and give OL more money just because, not that RI is _better_.   Is that about it?  Oh, OK.   

Each time OL has built something new, and flip curent owners into it, how is it not presented as an upgrade?  Why are the hoopla and fanfare if all they are doing is building more of the same, not better?  And if it is not, in fact, an upgrade, or, in fact, not presented as an upgrade, why would anyone give OL more $$$ for something that is no _better_ than what they already have.

"Oh, here's $10K and my _old_ unit . . . I don't want anything better for that . . . just different . . . in another location . . . maybe something that costs more just because it's new . . .  "   

And why are there differing point values if everything is, in fact, as good as everything else?  If the WV is, in fact, as good as everything else, why would WV owners settle for fewer points?  And why do we hear all this talk about owning in the WV and trying to trade into the other villages?  That's not a recent thing . . . owners have been saying that all along.  They bought inexpensive resale WV units so they could trade back into 2-bedroom units in whatever was the newer villages.

And why the whining from owners who have discovered they can't trade stuff in the other villages into RI?  Why would they want to trade, and pay more money, for something that is no better? 

Anywho, I think everyone understands what I'm saying.


----------



## JLB (Apr 6, 2008)

Yesterday we preferred older vehicles (the implication being that they are better) and today we are trading them in for new, and giving more money.

I'm really lost on this.  One day we're keeping the old, next day we're getting rid of it!

So, are we going to keep the old, whether it be condos or cars, or are we going to trade them in and give folks more money, to get something that is no better?


----------



## JLB (Apr 6, 2008)

OK, Gary, so they're buying new features when owners get flipped into new _phases_.  Oh, let me think . . . 

What features did/does the East Village offer that the West and North Villages did/do not?
- - - - - -
Since amentities are available to all regardless of where you're unit is located, and no units are _better_, why buy in each of the successive phases, the phase du jour being RI?


----------



## timetraveler (Apr 6, 2008)

Jim, some people just like the newest and want the newest....it's as simple as that....there's no need to try and complicate it.  The North Village is a different concept than the WV.  The East Village is alittle different from the North Village, and well RI is a stand alone village, period.  I stay in all 3...depending on the type of vacation experience I want that particular trip.  Not that I feel one is _better_.

Just as some people keep buying the same model of vehicle....only a newer one.  It's not _better_, it's just newer.  It's not an upgrade....it may have a couple tweaks the previous model didn't offer when it was new but that's it.


----------



## JLB (Apr 6, 2008)

So, a 2008 model OL condo is not _better_ than a 1985 model OL condo---just _newer_.  Got it.  

So, back to the beginning, *why are point values lower *for same unit size in the same timeframes.  EV and NV lower than RI.  WV lower that EV and NV.  
- - - - - - -
Unrelated, here's something new that shows up when you google _Orange Lake email_.  It's on the first page, fourth listing.  That's a pretty higg for something new.  Just stumbled onto it trying to find an email address.

http://www.orangelakeresortcomplaints.com/


----------



## gjw007 (Apr 7, 2008)

JLB said:


> Yesterday we preferred older vehicles (the implication being that they are better) and today we are trading them in for new, and giving more money.
> 
> I'm really lost on this.  One day we're keeping the old, next day we're getting rid of it!
> 
> So, are we going to keep the old, whether it be condos or cars, or are we going to trade them in and give folks more money, to get something that is no better?



No implication that older vehicles were better or worse than newer vehicles just that some older models are valued more by some people than a new model.  Different people value things different.  I see a value in older cars.  Are you telling me that you wouldn't value a 1929 Duesenberg?  My house was built in 1965; by your logic, I should sell it because it is not a new house.  I believe my house is more solidly built than are the new houses.  I've made no attempt to state whether older or newer is better just that valuation can be based on other factors and I never claimed that everything was logical.  

I've also stated that no resort is perfect and that includes OLCC.  I enjoyed the website that you posted and although some of the complaints were trivial (no soap in the soap dish), some were more serious.  There was also much left unsaid in the complaints as well (as an example where the complaint was there was only 1 person on desk but it didn't state the time.  Was this at 3 in the morning?).  Hopefully OLCC management will  respond.  I'm in favor of any action that would improve the resort.


----------



## JLB (Apr 7, 2008)

Class, today’s word is *NEW*.  We will study a word commonly used in our culture, one often used by the advertising industry to sell their products.  *NEW.*

As a source, we will rely on Roger’s New Millenium Thesaurus, to find the accepted meanings of the word *NEW*.

*NEW* is an adjective.
Synonyms include: altered, changed, *improved*, redesigned, refreshed, regenerated, renewed, restored, revived

Searching *improved,* the first entry is:

*Better. *

Synonyms include:  bigger, choice, exceptional, finer, fitter, greater, higher, quality, improved, larger, more approporiate, more desireable, more fitting, more select, more suitable, more useful, more valuable, preferable, prominent, sharpened, sophisticated, souped-up, superior, surpassing,
worthier

Antonyms include:  inferior, lower, poorer, worse 

The second entry for _*improved*_ is:

*New:*
Synonyms:  altered, changed, improved, redesigned, refreshed, regenerated, renewed, restored, 	revived
Antonyms: Old-fashioned, stale

So, class, *NEW* in the English language means *improved.* *Improved*  means both *better *and *new.*

Another inference by accepted usage, is that that which the *NEW* item is subsequent to, or replaces, is *inferior, lower, poorer, worse, old-fashioned or stale.*

Therefore, a marketing program using the word *NEW*, without the implication of the new item being *improved* or *better* would be quite unique, contrary to accepted usage of the word *NEW*.

It would be highly unlikely that a company would introduce a new product or service with a campaign such as, *New But Not Better*.


----------



## timetraveler (Apr 7, 2008)

JLB said:


> So, a 2008 model OL condo is not _better_ than a 1985 model OL condo---just _newer_. Got it.



That's correct.  The older condo gets gutted and rebuilt from the floor up.   So it ends up with brand new interiors too.


----------



## timetraveler (Apr 7, 2008)

JLB said:
			
		

> Therefore, a marketing program using the word *NEW*, without the implication of the new item being *improved* or *better* would be quite unique, contrary to accepted usage of the word *NEW*.
> 
> It would be highly unlikely that a company would introduce a new product or service with a campaign such as, *New But Not Better*.



That'd be us....(OLCC) unique


----------



## gjw007 (Apr 7, 2008)

JLB said:


> It would be highly unlikely that a company would introduce a new product or service with a campaign such as, *New But Not Better*.



I'm shocked!  Haven't you seen Microsoft's marketing for *Windows Vista*?

Then again there's *New Coke*
Or perhaps Chevy's inability to sell the *Nova* to the Spanish population.  Apparently_ No Va_ in Spanish means _*no go*_

And the word being discussed is *VALUATION* as the discussion is on why there were different points values for the different sections of the resort.  Your contention was that the difference in points valuation was related to the newness of the resort.  That is one method, but I believe there may be others.  As Wikipedia states:

It is very important to note that valuation is more an art than a science because it requires judgement:

   1. There are very different situations and purposes in which you value an asset
   2. All valuation models and methods have their limitations 
   3. The quality of some of the input data may vary widely
   4. In all valuation models there are a great number of assumptions that need to be made and things might not turn out the way you expect. 

When a valuation is prepared all assumptions should be clearly stated, especially the context.
Although the Wikipedia definition deals with finance, the principals still apply

My point in all this discussion is that there may be many variables that determine the points valuation.  I accept that newness is a factor but not the only factor.


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 7, 2008)

*Too big to handle.*



timetraveler said:


> That's correct.  The older condo gets gutted and rebuilt from the floor up.   So it ends up with brand new interiors too.



Too bad at far too many mega-resorts, you all know who you are Wastegate, OLCC, Vistana..., that doesn't happen reliably.  The places are too big, too spread out and too much to handle for any management / maintenance / cleaning company.  There is a REAL good chance you'll get a semi-clean, half renovated, sort of upgraded unit at any of the mega's.  Its a real crap shoot.  If you get a good unit it can be great but the odds are just as good you'll get a neglected one and your trip may not be so nice.


----------



## timetraveler (Apr 7, 2008)

I can't say what the refurbishing schedule is at Vistana or Westgate.

I can with regards to OL.  We adhere to a very strict agressive refurbishing schedule.  Our units are given a complete softgoods and paint refurbishment every 6 years.  That means new carpet, furniture, drapes, bedding and fresh interior paint.  This is the smallest refurb we do to each unit.  

The largest is a complete gutting down to concrete floors.


----------



## gjw007 (Apr 7, 2008)

timeos2 said:


> Too bad at far too many mega-resorts, you all know who you are Wastegate, OLCC, Vistana..., that doesn't happen reliably.  The places are too big, too spread out and too much to handle for any management / maintenance / cleaning company.  There is a REAL good chance you'll get a semi-clean, half renovated, sort of upgraded unit at any of the mega's.  Its a real crap shoot.  If you get a good unit it can be great but the odds are just as good you'll get a neglected one and your trip may not be so nice.



To a degree that is true; things can fall though the cracks.  Paperwork fails to get filled out, various departments not informed, etc.; it would be foolish to think otherwise.  Unfortunately I heard this about a number of resorts, big or small, well-known or not as well-known.  The most common area where I read about this is on house keeping and it seems industry-wide to be a problem.  I don't know how much of a crap shoot if there is a policy in place that is implemented but if I received a poorly maintained units, I would be an unhappy camper as well.  I'm more concerned if there is a policy in place and ignored.  It is interesting to note that DVC has no set policy or schedule for when rooms are refreshed.  It is possible to have a room side-by-side where one has been refreshed whereas the room next to it looks worn and tired.  If an older unit is not maintained, then the value of that unit has decreased.  I've also come to appreciated the view that the management of the resort should be different than the developer.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 7, 2008)

I am not the type of person that looks under furniture for dirt.  I also don't check furnace filters.   But some people just are that way, and because they are so particular, they just aren't going to be happy with anything.  

We have friends that are very well off, much better off than we are.....

They feel that any timeshare is slumming it, pretty much.  Wyndham's Kona Hawaiian Village on the Big Island is a very nice place, with great amenities and beautiful grounds, but to our friends, it just wasn't "it" for them.  I didn't get it, and they aren't snobbish at all.  They are just used to the accoutrements of a top hotel, with spas and exercise facilities, and that all important room service.  

I was trying to imagine how they would feel about the units we had at Vistana Fountains or Orange Lake on So. Magnolia Ct.  They wouldn't stay at either, plain and simple.  They would move to an upscale hotel.  Timeshare doesn't impress some people, and those who tour and see a beautiful unit, with cookies baking in the oven, and then their own unit isn't like that model........well, they are going to get upset.

You cannot please everyone, but most of the resorts try.  

New to me is always better.  I like NEW, and I always will.  In Orlando, new is very important in keeping up with the resorts that are popping up all over there.  

We are staying at a resort right now that is anything but new, it is probably about 30 years old.  We love the architecture of the place, which reminds us of California (Mexico-type architecture).  The unit is mostly clean, has a few problems, like dirty dishes in the dishwasher upon our arrival and some dishes in the cupboards we had to wash, but the living room is very attractive, the bed (only a queen) is good enough, and the level of comfort is high.  We sleep well every night and are relaxing in the unit, most of the day.  If this unit was sitting in Orlando somewhere, I would give it low marks because it isn't the quality we expect from Orlando.  But this unit is on Maui, is a two bedroom (harder to get) and has a lanai that would dwarf every lanai in Orlando, as it stretches the entire width of our unit and is about 8 feet wide (similar to our Shearwater).  The television is very large and has a wonderful surround sound system, perfect for watching movies.  The sectional is great for afternoon napping after a morning of shopping and lunch.   

We love it here and would choose this place again and again.  Our view this time is probably a rarity because we have a gorgeous ocean view from our lanai.  We are very impressed with the place.  We are going to walkabout a bit and look at unit numbers for the best ocean views, for a possible purchase sometime in the future.  We love Kihei, too.  It is a beautiful place, very close to Wailea.


----------



## gjw007 (Apr 7, 2008)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Timeshare doesn't impress some people, and those who tour and see a beautiful unit, with cookies baking in the oven, and then their own unit isn't like that model........well, they are going to get upset.
> 
> You cannot please everyone, but most of the resorts try.
> 
> New to me is always better.  I like NEW, and I always will.  In Orlando, new is very important in keeping up with the resorts that are popping up all over there.



It sounds like you are enjoying yourself.  Isn't that what this really all about? 

Jim and I are emphasizing different things and it makes the differences seem larger (the initial question was on valuation and there are many factors to valuation with some more important than others - newness is an important factor but not the only one).  In general, I like new as well but there have been times when I thought older was better (Windows Vista is an example that many people would argue fits this description, New Coke another).  So I reject the notion that simply because it is new it is better but you have quantified why you like new better (additional features).  I've also developed a fondness for some older items after experiencing the newer items.  Sometimes new items add so much crap that it bogs it down and becomes unusable (software programs becoming bloated is a good example).  

The issue with older resort is whether they have been kept up and if they have been modernized (see, I'm even helping Jim in his arguments).  If they haven't, then new is better but it is better because of the items that you value are in the new but not in the old.  Internet capability is one example.  Most new resorts have them and many older resorts are adding but there's no certainty that they will have them.  From your description of Magnolia Court, I wouldn't have liked it either.

I've tried to steer clear of better versus worse but emphasis that there is more to valuations rather than new versus old.  I would value a 63 split window Corvette more than my car even though my car is over 40 years newer.


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 7, 2008)

*new is very short lived*



gjw007 said:


> It sounds like you are enjoying yourself.  Isn't that what this really all about?
> 
> Jim and I are emphasizing different things and it makes the differences seem larger (the initial question was on valuation and there are many factors to valuation with some more important than others - newness is an important factor but not the only one).  In general, I like new as well but there have been times when I thought older was better (Windows Vista is an example that many people would argue fits this description, New Coke another).  So I reject the notion that simply because it is new it is better but you have quantified why you like new better (additional features).  I've also developed a fondness for some older items after experiencing the newer items.  Sometimes new items add so much crap that it bogs it down and becomes unusable (software programs becoming bloated is a good example).
> 
> ...



New vs old can cut both ways. Newer may in fact not be better if it isn't BRAND new.  An example I'm familiar with. Two resorts. One built about 16 years ago. The other 12 years ago. So number 2 is "newer".  Early on the furnishings, look and feel, design and buildings were all newer at #2 and were sold as upgrades to resort #1.  

But now resort #2 is over a decade old. Most of the resort still features what was new a decade ago.  Meanwhile resort #1 has renovated units, grounds and common features to bring them up to the standards of new resorts of today.  So while resort #1 has older buildings everything in it and around it is new. Resort #2 has newer buildings but is living in the past with items that are dated and in many cases near the end of their useful lives. So which resort is really "newer" now?  

When you speak of the mega resorts that story plays out not over two isolated and relatively small individual resorts with owners running the show but maybe a dozen or more "resorts within the resort".  Add in the continued presence of the developer as management and you are nearly guaranteed a push toward the new and the neglect of the "old".  Even if they try their bread is buttered with new sales - where do you think they will put the major efforts?  

After the first 5-7 years goes by and a resort or phase is due for major renovation it is no longer good enough to simply look at building dates to determine if a given section/resort is older or newer than the one a few buildings away.  The answer may surprise you more often than not.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 7, 2008)

gjw007 said:


> It sounds like you are enjoying yourself.  Isn't that what this really all about?
> 
> Jim and I are emphasizing different things and it makes the differences seem larger (the initial question was on valuation and there are many factors to valuation with some more important than others - newness is an important factor but not the only one).  In general, I like new as well but there have been times when I thought older was better (Windows Vista is an example that many people would argue fits this description, New Coke another).



Gary, enjoying ourselves is definitely what it is all about.  We love Maui, and a clean unit (mostly clean) with comfortable furniture and beds, well that is all we need here.   You should see the ocean view from here!  Wow, and the view in the foreground is also amazing, too, of the palm trees and the lush landscaping.  Gorgeous!  

We just won't take any exchange in Orlando that isn't "top notch" because there is no reason to take Brian's Cove, High Point or Celebrity Oaks or Spas, etc., as we can enjoy the Hiltons and the DVC's through exchange.  As a matter of fact we are at almost four years with HGVC International Drive and five years for HGVC Seaworld, but we choose to stay elsewhere, so that 1 in 4 rule that others curse, we just don't care.   Too many resorts, so little time.   We can use Interval, too, and we have so many great resorts to choose from with them!  

We are going to River Island in October and are anxious to see the Orange Lake everyone here loves.  There is a possibility that our foster son is going to use it instead, though, so maybe he will have to tell us how great it is.  We are going to try for a Boardwalk or Beach Club that week instead, but two bedrooms are harder for the Food and Wine Festival at the Epcot resorts, so we aren't counting on it.  

Yep, we didn't even get Windows Vista on our newest computer, when given the option by Dell, because John Chase warned against it. Thanks, John!


----------



## Blues (Apr 7, 2008)

gjw007 said:


> I'm shocked!  Haven't you seen Microsoft's marketing for *Windows Vista*?



You must mean this one


----------



## JLB (Apr 8, 2008)

Wow!!!  I'm freaked.  I was at the golf course yesterday, and visions of this discussion were rolling in my mind's eye.

Then it hit me.  We are in the midst of a plan to build a _new_ house.  Of course, up until this discussion, I had figured it was going to be a _better_ house than the one we are in now, much _improved_.  Why else would you build a new house unless that was the case?

But now, good, honest, caring, intelligent people are telling me that that is not the case.  _New_ does not mean_ better_, so they say.  It just means _different_, and with _different_ features.

So, am I/we making all this sacrifice, doing all the things we are doing, just to wind up with _different_?  Then I had visions of DW, when the house is finally finished, stepping into the great room and saying, "Oh, this is _different_."  Prior to this, I was expecting oohs and ahs from all the _new_ and _better._

Think what my MIL will think of me, building a _different_ house, instead of a _better_ one.  My BIL will just think I'm a dufus, not building _better,_ just _new_, and _different_.

How will I ever explain that _new_ does not mean _better_, that all we wanted was_ different_?

And who is this Roger anyway, the guy that put together his New Millenium Thesaurus?  None of us know him at all.  We don't know if he knows squat.  We don't know him to be knowedgeable, sophisticated, worldly, owning a house to live in and other places where he just goes to vacation.  So what if he says_ new_ means _improved_, and _improved_ means _better_ and _new_.

We have people right here that we know and trust who say that is not the case, so the heck with Roger.

We're gonna have to rethink this new house deal altogether.  We've already spent a lot of money on it, but maybe we need to cut our losses before we wind up with a _different_ house.

I could hardly sleep last night worrying about this.

This and how much it's gonna cost to wash our windows.


----------



## bnoble (Apr 8, 2008)

Except that I think it can be argued that while New may be Better, it is not _necessarily_ so.

Revisiting the example of DVC: OKW is the oldest, the others are newer.  But, many will argue that OKW is better than any that came after, because the units are closer to the size one would expect form a top-notch timeshare resort, while the subsequent DVC units are, relatively speaking, liliputian.  Yet, the new DVC resorts (including SSR, which is _farther_ from most of the action than OKW) require more points.

And, if ratings are to be believed, the TUG consensus is that, save VWL, none of the Newer DVC resorts are Better.

As another example: It is perfectly possible that you are downsizing in moving to your New house.  If so, it's possible that your New house costs less than your Old house.  If price is the metric of Better, how can your New, Cheaper house not be Worse?

However, all of this navel-gazing is immaterial, because while Newer is a matter of objective fact (as is "More-Pointy"), Better is necessarily subjective opinion.


----------



## gjw007 (Apr 8, 2008)

bnoble said:


> Except that I think it can be argued that while New may be Better, it is not _necessarily_ so.
> 
> Revisiting the example of DVC: OKW is the oldest, the others are newer.  But, many will argue that OKW is better than any that came after, because the units are closer to the size one would expect form a top-notch timeshare resort, while the subsequent DVC units are, relatively speaking, liliputian.  Yet, the new DVC resorts (including SSR, which is _farther_ from most of the action than OKW) require more points.
> 
> ...



The key is what are the variables do you consider better.  Jim's argument focuses only whether it is new or old.  I believe there are other factors. Here are some other factors:  

Is River Island at OLCC better (if you consider it better) because it is newer (keep in mind the last time I was there, the newest building was in the East Village - I don't think OLCC has opened the second guest building at RI yet) or is it better because the pool complex is right outside the building?  

Is it better to park in a parking lot and lug your luggage up flights of steps or take the elevator or is it better to be able to park in front of the unit?  

Is it better to be a section of the resort that is peaceful and quiet or is it better to be in a section that is a hub of activities?  

Is it better to be able to step out onto a balcony several floors up or better to be able to step out on a patio onto the lawn?

There's no right or wrong to these questions as it depends on what an individual values more.  As I've stated over and over, I believe there are other variables that determine valuation other than just newness.  I understand Jim's position; only newness matters.  I do think that newness does increase the value though and is an important factor; just not the only factor.  

If I accept Jim's premise, I'll have to change my plans for the furniture that I've been thinking of buying.  I've been looking at antique furniture - the type with real solid wood construction.  I guess I'll need to look at the new modern furniture made out of particle board since new means better.  I think not!

VWL is my favorite DVC resort and yes, I own at one of the newest, SSR.  I should have purchased at VWL rather than at SSR even though it is roughly 8-10 years older than SSR.  At the time of purchase, only SSR was sold though Disney although I could have been put on a wait list.  The major difference is the increases maintenance fees at VWL compared to SSR.

bnoble:  You have hit the points that I have been trying to make.  So has John.


----------



## JLB (Apr 10, 2008)

Good Day, class.  The word for today is _Conundrum._

That's pronounced kuh-nuhm-druhm.  Can you all say it together, class?

Kuh     Nuhm     Druhm.

Good.

Although conumdrum can mean a riddle that involves a pun or a play on words [for instance, _What is black and white and read all over?  A newspaper_, or, _what do you have when Timetraveler's husband and one of his colleagues are together?  A paradox_.  ]

However, today we will study the following definitions of _conumdrum_:
- - - - - -
Dictionary.com Unabridged co·nun·drum  /kəˈnʌndrəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-nuhn-druhm]
–noun
2. anything that puzzles.
- - - - - -
American Heritage Dictionary - (kə-nŭn'drəm) 
n. A paradoxical, insoluble, or difficult problem; a dilemma: "the conundrum, thus far unanswered, of achieving full employment without inflation" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
- - - - - -
WordNet 
noun 
a difficult problem [syn: riddle] 
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
- - - - - -
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary 
Co*nun"drum\, n. [Origin unknown.]
2. A question to which only a conjectural answer can be made. 
Do you think life is long enough to let me speculate on conundrums like that? --W. Black. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
- - - - - -
Officially, Orange Lake _*Country*_ Club will now be known as Orange Lake *Conumdrum* Club   

because

There is no _better_ or _worse_ at OLCC.  As relating to the different villages or to specific units, none of them are _better_ or _worse_ than any of the rest of them.

There is _newer, older, different, more demanded _and _less demanded_, _more expensive _and _less expensive_. 

As each village was added, with great hoopla, fanfare and bragging, people paid hundreds of millions of dollars, not to get a _better_ vacation location/experience, but just to get a _newer, different _vacation experience.   

Although there is no _better_ or _worse_ at OL, there is _more preferred _and _less preferred_, _more demanded _and _less demanded_.  Sometimes the _more preferred, more demanded _is the _newer_ and sometimes it is the _older_.

Generally, the _newer_ has been the _more expensive_, but not _better_.

Each time a new village was built, introduced and marketed, it has become the _more demanded_, _more preferred_, but only because it was _newer_ and _different_.  As villages became _older,_ and subsequent villages were introduced, the _older_ became _less demanded, less preferred _by most.  But not because they were _worse_ or the new village was _better._

Orange Lake, where new is not _better_, old is not _worse_, new is not _worse,_ old is not _better_, everything is _different_, the women are strong, the men good looking and all of the children above average.

So, officially class, Orange Lake _Country_ Club, has been renamed Orange Lake _Conundrum_ Club.  

OK, time for recess, and when we get back we will take out our blankies and have a nice nap.


----------



## bnoble (Apr 10, 2008)

I'm sorry, is there an executive summary?  I'm trying to wade through the Cute to get to the Point,  but haven't found it yet.

Edited: here is a possible executive summary.  Orange Lake, in an effort to sell later phases, highlights the advantages of those phases.  This makes Orange Lake different from precisely no other multi-phase resort (e.g. Silver Lake vs. SL Silver Points) or single-destination resort group (e.g. DVC) owned by a single developer anywhere on the planet.  

There are some very legitimate reasons to criticize Orange Lake compared to other timeshare resorts, but "sales inflation" doesn't seem to be one of them.

Edited again: Let you think I'm a garden variety OL apologist, neither an owner nor exchanger me.  I have no skin in the game, I'm afraid.


----------



## JLB (Apr 10, 2008)

Yes, I have what amounts to be an Executive Summary, whatever that is.

But, Yes, I have been told, straight from one of the horse's mouths, that nothing is better at OL, just new and different.

So, I admit to be the one totally out of kilter here.

In my defense, all I can say is that over the years as each new village was introduced with tremendous fanfare and hoopla, most recently, of course, the endless bragging about River Island, I, and I am sure, I alone, misinterpreted those massive campaigns as at least implying that the new developments were better.

That has been cleared up.  They are not better.  No part of OL is better than any other part.

All the hoopla, essentially, was just normal hoopla, smoke screens, mirrors, etc., creating a desire for folks to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars.

New but not better for more money.

So far, it appears that Global Access is in line with that tradition, new but not better, for more money.

At least we now have something to save for all the folks who come here and ask what part of OL is better.


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 10, 2008)

*Who pays? Who owns? How is it proportioned? A mess in the making.*

I'm just waiting for the day when the owners have to pay to repair/upgrade all those common area features. Who will pay? Will RI owners have to pay for RI or is it parceled out over all Associations within the complex? If parceled how? Who decides what is needed and what is too expensive to keep/maintain/improve? It is a potential nightmare. 

I have seen first hand what happens when a developer comes in with a grand plan for "shared amenities" but doesn't really leave an absolute way to pay for it as they age. Everyone loves that new pool or mini-golf but when it needs work who pays? The Association where it "lives"? The overall complex - if so, how? We're just dealing with a half dozen shared items and it can be contentious  - I can't imagine what it would be like to have a full water park, 20 pools, golf course, etc to operate and maintain and then try to spread the costs fairly.  Or does the developer just assess everyone like it or not?  

It is costly to create those items but the developer usually does that to spur  sales. Like a timeshare unit the long term costs to operate and maintain will ultimately be far more and that the owners pay for.  No thanks.


----------



## timetraveler (Apr 10, 2008)

Hi John.

None of the above you mentioned is maintained by the owners/associations.  Nor will it be.   Ain't life grand?


----------



## AwayWeGo (Apr 10, 2008)

*Are You Sure About That ?*




JLB said:


> No part of OL is better than any other part.


I think I recall reading right here on TUG-BBS that the sections of Orange Lake that are upwind of the adjoining _Reedy Creek Improvement District Sewage Treatment Facility_ are more to be desired than the sections that are downwind. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 10, 2008)

*Something doesn't fit. It can't be free unless there IS a free lunch!*



timetraveler said:


> Hi John.
> 
> None of the above you mentioned is maintained by the owners/associations.  Nor will it be.   Ain't life grand?



So who pays? And for how long? Are you stuck with Developer management forever more (in which case you ARE paying  but not as identified costs).  Is it leased to the Associations? Who owns that property?  Nothing is free. Someone is paying and, once sales end and they have to someday, the items either go away or the owners pay to keep them. Or is there another way?

Ask the owners of Polo Towers what can (and did) happen when the Developer maintains ownership/control of what had been "common areas" for owners use. It's not a good story.


----------



## timetraveler (Apr 10, 2008)

OL unlike most timeshares has alot of revenue making activities.   OL is a money making machine....and not just from developer sales.  

I don't feel the need to discuss the operating expenses and legal arrangements on an open internet forum but.....I do feel the need to make sure owners or potential owners know.

They are not and will not be responsible for maintenance of those areas.


----------



## JLB (Apr 10, 2008)

Being involved with a golf course which is the primary revenue source for a POA, I understand how that works, how amentities generate income.

There is a synergism, so to speak, where the Association-held properties provided guests for the Developer-held amenities.  Although Association $$$ does not necessarily, directly go to the amenities, it provides the guests who provide the $$$ for the amenities, and more money to the developer, if the amenities turn a profit.

The amenities attract buyers, more money to the associations and more money from guests using the amenities, which produces profit to build more amenities, whcih attracts more buyers, more money to the associations, and to more money from guests using the amenities . . . 

Sometimes there is a fine line that one needs to look at in detail.  For instance, where I am, the timeshares, property owners, and nightly rental owners, pay COA and POA dues.  The golf course is maintained as part of the POA budget, but the golf course revenue funds the operation of the POA as the major income producer.  We have an intermingling.  

Whether or not any of the association funds go to the amenities at OL, the guests who stay in the association properties provide the bulk of the amenities income.  Any way you cut it, it is, at the very least, a sweetheart deal.

It has been demonstrated that in such relationships the Associations and the Developer work closely together, their relationships being very close.


----------



## bnoble (Apr 10, 2008)

> But, Yes, I have been told, straight from one of the horse's mouths, that nothing is better at OL, just new and different.


Are you just ignoring my assertion?  Can you point to *any* multi-phase or multi-resort/single-site developer that doesn't do precisely the same thing?  Westgate, Disney, Wyndham---all peas in a pod on this front.

While I totally understand the rhetorical tactic of repetition as proof, I'm still curious as to your actual thoughts.


----------



## JLB (Apr 10, 2008)

Yes.   



bnoble said:


> Are you just ignoring my assertion?


----------



## Sea Six (Apr 10, 2008)

When you get the bill for your annual maintenance fees, there should be a sheet that defines where all the money goes. Hopefully, if you own in a large resort, most of the costs are items within your own phase of the development.  Chances are, you are actually paying for some of the common items available to all phases, and not all owners pay the same fair share.  You have to review all the line item details to know exactly what you're paying for, and chances are you will not really know just by reviewing the sheet your bill comes with.  If you're not sure where your money is going, you need to be in contact with those ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES of your phase, and find out the truth about where your money is going.  Some of the line items on your maintenance bill defy description.


----------



## JLB (Apr 10, 2008)

On all of our 5 tours, from 20 years ago until 15 months ago, we were told that everyone pays the same fees.   The reason they gave is that the amenities are such a large part of the resort and they are equally available to everyone.  I know there are some things that make the fees a tad different for different units, but that is what they have stuck to _officially._


----------



## JLB (Apr 10, 2008)

Me too.   



bnoble said:


> I'm still curious as to your actual thoughts.


----------



## traceyjs (Jun 10, 2008)

gjw007 said:


> Jim,
> 
> I had read what you said but didn't really want to get into a discussion over point valuation as there are many variables and some of these are conflicting with each other.  The position you took is one possible variable but the difference in points requirements for the various sections is not that great.  Another variable is the opportunity to generate extra cash by having owners in one section 'rent' the additional points needed to get a unit in another section.  Call me a cynic, but I don't think the resorts pass at a chance to generate extra revenue.  The difference in points total allows the resorts to do that.  Going to a points-based system and charging for housekeeping for stays less than 7 days also does that.
> 
> ...



Hi Gary,

Just saw your post and I live in Australia.  In answer to your question - yes the resorts are small and similar.  We tend to choose one location over another based on location (near beach, skiing etc.)  Some resorts have bigger units than others, but location is the main determinant.

Regards, Tracey


----------

