# Sheraton Desert Oasis (SDO) Maintenance Fees - 2015



## Riggo (May 17, 2013)

While I know it is just speculation at this point, but what do we believe the SDO Maintenance Fees will be in 2015:

small 1br:
large 1br:
2br:


----------



## DeniseM (May 17, 2013)

No one has any idea because of renovations.  There is supposed to be an 8% increase in 2014, and then in theory, it will go back down in 2015, but who knows.


----------



## Riggo (May 17, 2013)

This letter from the President of Scottsdale Pinnacle Owners Association seems to indicate a 12% reduction in maintenance fees in 2015:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1364395&postcount=97

I'm wondering if this is still the case and if any new information has surfaced since this letter.


----------



## Pmuppet (May 17, 2013)

Riggo said:


> This letter from the President of Scottsdale Pinnacle Owners Association seems to indicate a 12% reduction in maintenance fees in 2015:
> 
> http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1364395&postcount=97
> 
> I'm wondering if this is still the case and if any new information has surfaced since this letter.



I fall under the category of skeptic.  My going in assumption is they will never lower the MF.  The best case I can hope for is they freeze them or adjust them to inflation (2%).

If you were doing a business case on whether to buy, I would use that assumption as it is most probable.

Heck, even if they didn't need the money, they might keep them high for a few years to rebuild the reserves.  If I were running the board, I may have done that cause it is tough to raise dues (and lowering g them is like giving up free money in the eyes of many elected officials.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (May 17, 2013)

Starwood reduced the maintenance fees of SBP after increasing them for several years.  The 2 bedroom went down > $200.  But they were really high for a while because of a refurbishment, which was probably much more extensive than SDO.  

We own a lot of SBP, and only one EOY SDO.  I learned my lesson with SBP.


----------



## DeniseM (May 17, 2013)

Riggo said:


> This letter from the President of Scottsdale Pinnacle Owners Association seems to indicate a 12% reduction in maintenance fees in 2015:
> 
> http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1364395&postcount=97
> 
> I'm wondering if this is still the case and if any new information has surfaced since this letter.



However - he is no longer the president of the board, and everyone else on the board is a Starwood Drone.


----------



## jarta (May 17, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> However - he is no longer the president of the board, and everyone else on the board is a Starwood Drone.



Nasty little post about the people who run a place where the 2013 MFs are $1,055 for a 2-br which, with a little luck and diligence, can be deposited in II and trade for 2 weeks of 2-br units at a place like WKORV where the MFs for the 2 units would be over $4,000.  And, a place you regularly recommend people buy resale because of the low MFs.   Salty


----------



## Quadmaniac (May 17, 2013)

jarta said:


> Nasty little post about the people who run a place where the 2013 MFs are $1,055 for a 2-br which, with a little luck and diligence, can be deposited in II and trade for 2 weeks of 2-br units at a place like WKORV where the MFs for the 2 units would be over $4,000.  And, a place you regularly recommend people buy resale because of the low MFs.   Salty



Come on Salty, play nice now!


----------



## jarta (May 17, 2013)

Quadmaniac said:


> Come on Salty, play nice now!



Me.  Why not her?   Salty


----------



## Quadmaniac (May 17, 2013)

jarta said:


> Me.  Why not her?   Salty



She's not taking pot shots at you lol


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 17, 2013)

Quadmaniac said:


> She's not taking pot shots at you lol



Thank you for putting it so succinctly - but unfortunately (based on interactions here since 2008) it will likely not help.  However, there is always hope...


----------



## rickandcindy23 (May 17, 2013)

The reason we call them HOA's, Jarta, is because OWNERS are supposed to be on the board, not management and their cronies.  It's disgusting, really a conflict of interest.  "Let's vote ourselves a raise!" Seriously, Jarta, do you let others run every aspect of your life?  I resent it.   

They dictate what we pay for everything, and they charge what they want.  

Despicable, even arrogant, that Starwood believes owners cannot make decisions, so they keep owners from serving on the HOA boards.  This is the norm for the big companies, not just Starwood.  

Where is that ignore button........ or here it is.


----------



## DeniseM (May 17, 2013)

Cindy - The board members at SDO are owners, but they are hand picked by Starwood, because of  the way they manipulate the election process, and influence the current board.  

A gentle suggestion:  When someone craves conflict, the worst thing you can do to them is to ignore their posts...


----------



## jarta (May 17, 2013)

rickandcindy23 said:


> *The reason we call them HOA's, Jarta, is because OWNERS are supposed to be on the board, not management and their cronies.*  It's disgusting, really a conflict of interest.  *"Let's vote ourselves a raise!"* Seriously, Jarta, do you let others run every aspect of your life?  I resent it.
> 
> They dictate what we pay for everything, and they charge what they want.
> 
> ...



Would you mind telling us what members of the HOA at SDO are not owners?  I understand they are all owners and have been for many, many years.

As holoholo himself posted:



> Regarding the question about the SDO board members, they include an attorney(Vice President of Regulatory Compliance), engineer (Professional Project Manager), another attorney(Chief Compliance Officer), retired CEO, and a retired travel/hospitality professional. And I just might be one of them.




BTW, I know how HOAs function.  I was the President and Treasurer of 2 of them for 6 years.  So, I know how time-consuming these non-paying jobs can be.

The venom on this forum is a sport, not truth.  Ugh!   Salty


----------



## Ken555 (May 17, 2013)

In order to fully grasp the latest twist of this thread, I suggest we ask the question:

*What is a Starwood Drone?*

According to the Urban Dictionary a Drone is:



> drone: A drone is someone who follows an ideology or some other form of idealization blindlessly and uncritically.
> 
> The nouns original meaning is used in context with "social" insects, which are ordered into a hive structure. In an insect hive, drones are the workers - the ones gathering food, building the hive - in short: maintaining the hive, controlled by the queen, if not by some common instinctual fellowship and hierarchal order.
> You're all a bunch of music industry drones.



In the context of this thread, I would rephrase the last sentence to:

Timeshare HOA Board's are all a bunch of timeshare industry drones.

Or:

SDO's HOA Board is comprised of Starwood Drones.

And, based on what I've learned over the years here and regarding timeshares, I believe this is a fair statement and would have to agree with Denise. Our HOA Board is represented by a bunch of Starwood Drones. I don't see anything nasty about stating this and it does not reflect upon the trading value or the enjoyment of the resort at all.

I'd really like to believe that the SDO Board has owners interests first, but I don't see evidence to support that belief. In most cases owners interests and Starwood's interests align well, but this isn't true all the time. And while the individuals on the Board may consider themselves owners like the rest of us, it simply cannot be the case if they have a personal tie (either currently or in the past) with Starwood - in some circumstances I can see a benefit of knowing Starwood from the inside, but I don't think it's too much to ask that most of the Board be comprised of non-Starwood employees.


----------



## jarta (May 17, 2013)

> I don't think it's too much to ask that most of the Board be comprised of non-Starwood employees.



You don't have to ask.  ALL board members at SDO are non-Starwood employees.  Again, NO board members at SDO are Starwood employees.



> I'd really like to believe that the SDO Board has owners interests first, but I don't see evidence to support that belief.



You'd rather let SDO be a dump?  You love the low MFs at SDO and the Starwood II preference that allows you to get to WKORV without paying WKORV MFs.  

Should the SDO board fire Starwood, pull out of the SVN and let you and the other chronic TUG complainers fend for yourselves without the Starwood preference in II?  As a SDO owner, are you so irresponsible as to actually want SDO to go the way of VCC?  Or, is it just a slow night in CA and you have a need to bitch about Starwood?   Salty


----------



## Ken555 (May 17, 2013)

jarta said:


> You don't have to ask.  ALL board members at SDO are non-Starwood employees.  Again, NO board members at SDO are Starwood employees.



Really? I didn't know that none of the Board members have any ties to Starwood. Are you certain about this?

And, are you certain the Board is not unduly influenced by Starwood to make decisions which benefits SVN more than the owners?



> You'd rather let SDO be a dump?  You love the low MFs at SDO and the Starwood II preference that allows you to get to WKORV without paying WKORV MFs.



I've responded to this unfounded allegation from you numerous times, and yet you still think it's appropriate to state it again and again. I've always said that I want my resort to be well maintained. Well maintained and not in bed with Starwood on every decision the Board makes are not mutually exclusive goals. 



> Should the SDO board fire Starwood, pull out of the SVN and let you and the other chronic TUG complainers fend for yourselves without the Starwood preference in II?  As a SDO owner, are you so irresponsible as to actually want SDO to go the way of VCC?



Again, I've never stated that I want SDO to leave Starwood. You are the one jumping to conclusions here, not I. 



> Or, is it just a slow night in CA and you have a need to bitch about Starwood?   Salty



Actually, it's a beautiful evening in CA tonight! And if I was bitching about anything, I'd be bitching about your posts, not about Starwood. My comments about Starwood today are not new, but you obviously feel compelled to twist my - and others - comments into something they're not.


----------



## LisaRex (May 18, 2013)

I have also served on an HOA board.  We represented ~625 homeowners.  The full board met once a month for 2-3 hours. Subcommittees met as often as needed.  For instance, when we decided to re-landscape the front lots, the landscaping committee spent another 10 hours or so meeting with different landscapers and deciding which proposal to recommend to the board. I'd estimate that I spent 5-10 hours per month attending meetings, fielding phone calls, creating the newsletter, etc.  

I don't need to hire Geraldo Rivera to know that most of the Starwood boards are not truly independent, owner-representative boards.  All I need to look at is the minutes.  They tell me all I need to know.


----------



## jarta (May 18, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> I have also served on an HOA board.  We represented ~625 homeowners.  The full board met once a month for 2-3 hours. Subcommittees met as often as needed.  For instance, when we decided to re-landscape the front lots, the landscaping committee spent another 10 hours or so meeting with different landscapers and deciding which proposal to recommend to the board. I'd estimate that I spent 5-10 hours per month attending meetings, fielding phone calls, creating the newsletter, etc.
> 
> I don't need to hire Geraldo Rivera to know that most of the Starwood boards are not truly independent, owner-representative boards.  All I need to look at is the minutes.  They tell me all I need to know.



Board meetings usually taking 2-3 hours?  No board meeting should take more than an hour.  Most took less than 1/2 hour.  Board members cannot stay focussed for much more than 1 hour after working at their paying jobs all day.  Exception: informational meetings where construction is planned and contractors are called in to explain the scope, timing and materials used in the upcoming construction.

Actually, for my active boards, there were times I had to spend 4-6 hours a week on board matters for the 2 associations.  Of course, you can spend less time by being less involved in what goes on and leaving it to the board members with an interest in association matters or letting the management company make all the decisions without board input.  But, that's not what you were elected to do.

The minutes of a meeting are to record actions taken and decisions made by a board.  The minutes are not supposed to discuss what was said about every option considered.  They are minutes, not "seconds" or verbatim transcripts.  They are supposed to be a skeletal framework of what occurred.  

For example, the minutes might only reflect a two-line vote to approve a contract for certain renovations.  But, the minutes do not reflect the time spent planning out what needs to be done (or deferred for later), meeting with the architects and going over the architectural plans, meeting with the various bidders, reviewing various contracts to perform the work, negotiating changes in pricing or design, getting phone calls from other owners who have a brother-in-law who can do the work better, or cheaper or with better ideas (despite the fact that the brother-in-law has only half the resoures necessary to perform the work for the number of units).

Being on a HOA board is not an easy job.  But, it's easy to complain.  I get it.  There is a sense of loss of control over what happens with your property.  But, SDO has no Starwood employees on the board and the 5 members are reported to be 2 attorneys with compliance responsibility, a CEO of a company, a construction engineer and a retired travel industry person.  Seems like a board with those types of persons on it would have the tools and experience to oversee the running of a resort.  But, they have voted to do renovation.  

Egad!  It will cost money!  If there is a renovation and money will be spent, that proves the board is composed of drones!  Pure, unadultered character assassination by irresponsible and vindictive posters.  

But, hey!  It's the Internet.  Nobody has to be responsible here if a post is followed by  ,  ,  ,  ,  or  .   Salty


----------



## jarta (May 18, 2013)

Duplicate post.  Please delete.


----------



## LisaRex (May 18, 2013)

jarta said:


> Board meetings usually taking 2-3 hours?  No board meeting should take more than an hour.



If my HOA was facing record delinquencies, which meant our budget was going to come up a few million bucks short, I can see how that discussion should only take an hour.  I mean, hell, what is there to discuss?  Just pass it along!

If a tropical storm hit my development, a decent board could get all those issues resolved in 45 minutes or less, with time left over for a round of MaiTais!

Really, all those diligent independent HOA boards could learn a thing or two in efficiency from the Starwood boards.  Just nod you head and say, "Aye," stupid.


----------



## DeniseM (May 18, 2013)

Folks - The "ignore" function is your friend...  



> *Dealing with Troublesome Users*
> 
> *Can I block posts, emails and messages from specific users?*
> 
> ...


----------



## jarta (May 18, 2013)

Lisa,   ...   The board meeting is for action and decisions. There is a lot of research that goes on prior to the board meeting. 2-3 hour board meetings are for boards that are indecisive or social or just don't know what they are doing because they did not participate in the hours of preliminary work.   Salty


----------



## Riggo (May 18, 2013)

While I really don't have a dog in this fight as I don't have sufficient information or history to form an opinion, I would like to know:

1. How does SVN "manipulate the election process" or is this not the case? 

2. Are there any substantive issues where it is felt Board members represented the interests of SVN to the detriment of the timeshare interval owners?


----------



## DeniseM (May 18, 2013)

Riggo said:


> While I really don't have a dog in this fight as I don't have sufficient information or history to form an opinion, I would like to know:
> 
> 1. How does SVN "manipulate the election process" or is this not the case?



To even get on the ballot, you have to be approved by the Starwood employee who handles elections.  

When they held the last election a few months ago, they did not get a quorum, so the board (as advised by Starwood) selected the new board members.  Although a Tugger got the most votes, they did not select that candidate - they selected two other people.



> 2. Are there any substantive issues where it is felt Board members represented the interests of SVN to the detriment of the timeshare interval owners?



Yes - the previous *board president* reported right here on TUG, that the board follows Starwood's recommendations without question, and indeed, will not even consider any other options, because "Starwood wouldn't like it."

One issue is the way that they are handling the resale of forclosed units at the property - the board granted Starwood a sweetheart deal.

Another issue is the way the recent election was handled.

Another issue is the current renovations and increased maintenance fee, in which the BOD rubber stamped Starwood's recommendations, and declined to consider any other options.

This is the short version - here is the long version:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179310&highlight=election

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180706&highlight=election

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180766&highlight=election

Elections have to be held.
Renovations may have been needed.
Foreclosures need to be resold.

But I want an INDEPENDENT Board to make these decisions - not rubber stampers who simply do what Starwood tells them to do.

However, I don't think this situation is in any way unusual - my guess is that most of the Starwood boards are run this way, because of the way Starwood manages, manipulates, and pressures the boards.


----------



## jarta (May 18, 2013)

For those who need more information about SDO, here's the Spring 2013 Newsletter.  The renovation is described.  The board members are listed:

"your current board of directors
• John H. Cummings, Jr., President
• Keith Terry, Vice President
• Jody Lee, Vice President
• Dale Putman, Secretary
• Penny Haas, Treasurer"

https://www.mystarcentral.com/CMS/e...sociation/SDO/1172_Pinnacle_HOANewsletter.pdf

The newsletter gives information about proxies and quorums and urges owners to vote at the annual meeting.  No quorum was present at the last annual meeting.  No election could be held.  The next annual meeting is October 17, 2013 at 10 am at the resort.

Jody Lee was endorsed by the person who posted all SDO board members are Starwood drones:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179310

If you have any questions, there is an email address in the newsletter where inquires can be made.

Don't bitch.  Don't tell lies.  Send in proxies.  Vote.   Salty


----------



## ArizonaSun4Fun (May 19, 2013)

Basically you either want to be a Starwood branded property or you don't.  I believe most of us own SDO because it is a Starwood property.  SDO is a nice resort, but it is borderline good enough to be Starwood, IMO.  If the Board gets too independent and goes against Starwood wishes, don't look for us to keep that affiliation for long.  By the way, our current Drones can't be too bad, considering we still have some of the lowest maintenance fees within Starwood, and are renovating all units without a huge special assessment.  (Yes, I know the large percentage MF increase is a form of a special assessment.  Yet the fees are still pretty low.)


----------



## Riggo (May 20, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> To even get on the ballot, you have to be approved by the Starwood employee who handles elections.
> 
> *This seems rather odd. Do you have any specific written information on the process to get on the ballot?*
> 
> ...



*I am really not trying to stir the controversy, but rather better understand the issues so I can make an informed decison regarding the next election and any input I give to the Board.*


----------



## DeniseM (May 20, 2013)

Riggo said:


> *I am really not trying to stir the controversy, but rather better understand the issues so I can make an informed decison regarding the next election and any input I give to the Board.*



Did you read the links that I posted for you above - the info. is there.

Regarding the election process - Starwood sends out a letter to owners asking for applications to the board, then they vet the applications, and choose the people they want on the ballot, and make this recommendation to the board.  This is the standard practice, which has been much discussed on TUG.  

One Tugger, who is also an attorney, was rejected, and had to quote the local law to Starwood that stated that any interested owner could be on the ballot, and did not need to be approved.  He got on the ballot, but was treated with suspicion and resentment, because he nominated himself.


----------



## jarta (May 20, 2013)

Reggio,   ...   She'll never explain the details of the "sweetheart deal."  Starwood bought the option to buy foreclosures from the SDO board and paid a pretty low price, $400K.  Of course, anyone can pay a pretty low price for a unit at SDO on eBay.

In 2011, holoholo (*ex-president; current vice-president*) posted:



> "3. Late last year, Starwood offered us $400,000 for exclusive rights to our Associations inventory for the next 3 years. Also, Starwood offered $800 for each interval that the developer (Starwood) picks. Unfortunately, the association must use that $800 toward the foreclosure costs. The association must continue to pay the maintenance fees until one year after the intervals are sold. This represents lost revenue of over $5 million over the duration of the contract. Starwood is NOT obligated to buy any intervals for the 3 year period and has NOTHING at risk. This inventory represents about 2,000 intervals, and at current Starwood retail prices, exceeds $30 million. Starwood has the option to get $30 million inventory for only $2 million ($400,000+$800*2,000). When I suggested we seek alternative proposals, my fellow board members told me not to upset Starwood by seeking competitive proposals because they might withdraw their offer."



Don't know how the exclusive option deal is doing or if it is still in existence.  No discussion of what happens if a foreclosure is offered to Starwood and Starwood passes on the unit.  I assume if Starwood doesn't want the unit, it can be sold by the resort.  It wouldn't just sit there without being put on the market.

OK with her when TUG members buy low; not OK when Starwood gets the right - but not the obligation - to pick up the SDO foreclosed units at a low price...., $800 in addition to the $400K for getting to pick.  I guess she wants them turned over to an eBay selling agent.  I assume she believes those eBay selling agents end up giving scads of money to the old SDO eBay owners/sellers after the closing.  So, the SDO board is giving away money. (holoholo uses Starwood retail prices as the measure of revenue lost to the resort - and comes up with $18M - assumes Starwood wants all the forclosures and will sell them all at retail.)

The important thing was to get the MF deficiencies down by getting new owners who will pay them.  Starwood at least would try to find responsible buyers for anything it took.  Those who pick up SDO units for closing fees can be financially responsible.  But, they are never asked for a credit report.  The eBay selling agent doesn't care if the buyer is currently in bankruptcy.  If the eBay selling agent is paid the closing fees - welcome to SDO!

The "sweetheart deal" venom is just like when the SDO board appoints a person she endorsed for the board (but only 1 of her 2 picks) and thereafter that board member is referred to as a "Starwood drone."  That attitude is sort of sad.   Salty


----------



## Ken555 (May 20, 2013)

jarta said:


> Reggio,   ...   She'll never explain the details of the "sweetheart deal."  Starwood bought the foreclosures from the SDO board and paid a pretty low price.  Of course, anyone can pay a pretty low price for a unit at SDO on eBay.
> 
> OK with her when TUG members do that; not OK when Starwood picks up the SDO foreclosed units at a low price.  I guess she wants them turned over to an eBay selling agent.  I assume she believes those eBay selling agents end up giving scads of money to the old SDO owners/sellers after the closing.  So, the SDO board is giving away money.
> 
> ...



Your completely one-sided viewpoint does not include the fact that several other SVN properties have been selling repossessed weeks to existing owners. And, those weeks bring in profit for the HOA and SVN, and SVN includes StarOptions with these weeks (but not the right to convert to StarPoints nor count toward elite status). Why wouldn't SVN do the same with SDO? I think this is a fair question, and if you know the answer please post it...I certainly don't know why SDO was treated differently than other resorts in the club.


----------



## Riggo (May 20, 2013)

Without knowing the details in which Starwood acquired the foreclosed units (or if they even actually acquired the units), it is hard to pass judgement on who got the better deal, which is why I was requesting the information. I do know this:

1. It is in the best interest of all SDO interval owners to get the foreclosed units in the hands of those who will pay annual maintenance fees.

2. Judging by ebay prices and offers of "free" SDO timeshares on TUG, there doesn't appear to be much franchise value here. Certainly, if SVO, a profit driven enity, could be flipping these units for $15k (as has been suggested), they would be an active buyer on TUG, ebay, etc., which appears not to be the case. I also know that there are considerable upfront and ongoing costs to running an effective onsite timeshare resale operation and Starwood is certainly entitled to cover such costs and earn a return on their investment.    

Again, I will withold judgement on who got the better deal until I know the facts of the transaction.


----------



## Riggo (May 20, 2013)

Assuming the HOA Board, as the representative entity for all interval owners, entered into a contractual relationship with Starwood on the foreclosed units, I would think such contract could be made available to any interval owner upon request.


----------



## Ken555 (May 20, 2013)

Riggo said:


> Assuming the HOA Board, as the representative entity for all interval owners, entered into a contractual relationship with Starwood on the foreclosed units, I would think such contract could be made available to any interval owner upon request.



If you search TUG you will find a lot of info on this issue.


----------



## jarta (May 20, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> ...   Why wouldn't SVN do the same with SDO? I think this is a fair question, and if you know the answer please post it...I certainly don't know why SDO was treated differently than other resorts in the club.



I don't know the answer to your question.  But, I suspect it has something to do with an inventory of foreclosures of 2,000 units by late 2011 and the resale prices for SDO units (many, many just given away).  

But, also I have not heard of any other SDO resort getting an injection of $400K in revenue "up front" and sincerely doubt Starwood ended up taking very many of the units at $800 per foreclosure with a year's free MFs in addition to the $400K price to have first choice of those oh so valuable SDO foreclosures.

Do you actually think there is a market out there for Starwood to sell SDO units to?  And, before the much needed renovation is completed?  Starwood's salesmen are pretty good, but they are not miracle workers.  lol!

Perhaps DeniseM can shed some heat on the subject.   Salty   ...   eom


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 20, 2013)

Riggo said:


> ...
> Again, I will withold judgement on who got the better deal until I know the facts of the transaction.



I am unclear on why it matters who got a better deal or not?  (or am I missing something...?) What is important is that foreclosed VOIs now have MFs being paid when previously the HOA was not getting these MFs and the burden was/is on the Owners to make up for the loss of revenue which results in higher MFs.

Also, it is clear that HOA BOD membership is extremely slanted in SVO's favor across all resorts.  It is debatable whether this is positive, negative, or both (IMO - both...).  At least for WSJ-VG - we got 2 Owner Reps that at least try to bring balance (within their control).


----------



## DeniseM (May 20, 2013)

Recently, several other voluntary resorts have offered foreclosed units back to owners at the resort, for a modest resale price.  The deal included Staroptions, although they couldn't be counted toward Elite status. 

These units were snapped up in a heartbeat - the same thing would have happen at SDO, given the opportunity...

Current (faithful) owners would have gotten a good deal. *+*

The HOA would have made some money, quickly, with little or no sales expense. *+*

The units would have been put in the hands of paying owners (with a proven track record) quickly, to generate MF's ASAP. *+*​
EXCEPT - that's not the decision that the BOD made:  





> When I suggested we seek alternative proposals, *my fellow board members told me not to upset Starwood* by seeking competitive proposals because they might withdraw their offer."


----------



## rickandcindy23 (May 20, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> Your completely one-sided viewpoint does not include the fact that several other SVN properties have been selling repossessed weeks to existing owners. And, those weeks bring in profit for the HOA and SVN, and SVN includes StarOptions with these weeks (but not the right to convert to StarPoints nor count toward elite status). Why wouldn't SVN do the same with SDO? I think this is a fair question, and if you know the answer please post it...I certainly don't know why SDO was treated differently than other resorts in the club.



I don't know of any foreclosure sales at SBP.  We own quite a few SBP and are happy to pay MF's, and pay them very early.  Maybe only developer buyers get these opportunities and not resale buyers.  

SBP should offer a deal for us to convert.  I might consider it.  I don't own that many weeks in the Platinum 24-32 range, so I don't know if that would benefit me at all.


----------



## Riggo (May 20, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> I am unclear on why it matters who got a better deal or not?  (or am I missing something...?) What is important is that foreclosed VOIs now have MFs being paid when previously the HOA was not getting these MFs and the burden was/is on the Owners to make up for the loss of revenue which results in higher MFs.



It matters from the perspective that there is an implication that the Board didn't maximize the best interests of the interval owners and are essentially "drones". I'm not saying that is the case as I really don't have sufficient information to draw any conclusions.

While it is certainly important to get the foreclosed units paying MF's, you can't ignore the costs or opportunity costs necessary to reach that end. To make my point using a gross exaggeration, if you had to pay people $10,000 each from reserves to take on the foreclosed units, is that unimportant as long as they are now paying MF fees? Futhermore, if the Board passed on a more lucrative opportunity to dispose of the foreclosures, would that not matter?

Your point is that it doesn't matter how we got to the foreclosed units paying MF fees. My point is that it does matter and the end doesn't always justify the means.


----------



## DeniseM (May 20, 2013)

Cindy - The SBP offer was posted a few days ago:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192133


----------



## DeniseM (May 20, 2013)

Riggo - Please see my post above:  recently some other resorts in the same boat offered foreclosed inventory to current owners and the units were  snapped up.  Their sales cost was minimal.

No one said the members of the BOD are shills for Starwood - a shill is an entirely different thing.


----------



## Riggo (May 20, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> Riggo - Please see my post above:  recently some other resorts in the same boat offered foreclosed inventory to current owners and the units were  snapped up.  Their sales cost was minimal.
> 
> No one said the members of the BOD are shills for Starwood - a shill is an entirely different thing.



I never stated anyone said that, but rather it was implied. That was the strong implication I obtained from many of the above posts. In any case, I have changed the terminology to "drones", which has been said, so as to not obfuscate my major point.


----------



## DeniseM (May 20, 2013)

Riggo - When the board president makes a public statement that the BOD never even considered any other options for selling the inventory, because they didn't want to "upset Starwood," that's pretty darn clear.

You are correct - a drone is completely different than a shill.


----------



## Riggo (May 20, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> Cindy - The SBP offer was posted a few days ago:
> 
> http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192133



I think that is a creative approach and something that should be explored. I think we have the obligation to help the Board members. if the election process is flawed, let's fix it. If there is a better way to dispose of the foreclosures, let's do it. If the Board is not representing the best interests of interval ownership, let's vote them out. If they are doing a great job, let's re-elect them. Without a quorum, we have met the enemy and it is us.


----------



## DeniseM (May 20, 2013)

Riggo -

There was a huge push from TUG members to get our candidates elected - I personally contacted every single Tugger that owns at SDO, and most of them responded.

Despite that, we were not successful - even though one of our candidate got the most votes, he was not selected by the board (Starwood recommended 2 other candidates - one an incumbent and one a new candidate that we supported.)  

The election process is flawed because Starwood wants it that way - how are you going to fix that?


----------



## SMHarman (May 20, 2013)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I don't know of any foreclosure sales at SBP.  We own quite a few SBP and are happy to pay MF's, and pay them very early.  Maybe only developer buyers get these opportunities and not resale buyers.
> 
> SBP should offer a deal for us to convert.  I might consider it.  I don't own that many weeks in the Platinum 24-32 range, so I don't know if that would benefit me at all.



http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192133

SBP Palmetto is offering Association owned weeks for sale to current owners at this resort. They do get staroptions but are not eligible for SP conversion nor do they count toward elite status.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 21, 2013)

Riggo said:


> It matters from the perspective that there is an implication that the Board didn't maximize the best interests of the interval owners and are essentially "drones". I'm not saying that is the case as I really don't have sufficient information to draw any conclusions.
> 
> While it is certainly important to get the foreclosed units paying MF's, you can't ignore the costs or opportunity costs necessary to reach that end. To make my point using a gross exaggeration, if you had to pay people $10,000 each from reserves to take on the foreclosed units, is that unimportant as long as they are now paying MF fees? Futhermore, if the Board passed on a more lucrative opportunity to dispose of the foreclosures, would that not matter?
> 
> Your point is that it doesn't matter how we got to the foreclosed units paying MF fees. My point is that it does matter and the end doesn't always justify the means.



Welcome to the world of TSing with SVO (and other TS systems).

Of course it matters - what are you going to do about it? Do you think we haven't dealt or try dealing with these issues?  Did you read about our experience at WSJ? Or read about efforts of getting a Tugger on the WKORV board? And i guess SDO as well (I do not own SDO). Have you read the CCRs or looked how SVO HOA BODs are set-up.  Hint - The Fix Is In.  I do not believe it is as nefarious as some - and perhaps more than others.

Good luck with the windmill tilting... 
Welcome to SVO TUG.


----------



## LisaRex (May 21, 2013)

It's extremely difficult to get a non-Starwood approved candidate on the HOA board because of the stipulation that the current board gets control of all uncast proxies.  That's a nearly insurmountable obstacle, especially since Starwood also has exclusive control of the owner contact information.  

Since the developer installs the first HOA board, the uncast proxy rule practically guarantees that future board members will be Starwood-approved candidates aka cronies, shills, or rubber-stampers.  It can be done, but unfortunately such an event is usually precipated by an extraordinary event, such as a huge SA, which gets owners motivated to force change. 

I believe there's also a rule that if a quorum isn't reached, officers will simply continue in their current role. 

So absent a Papal fiat, the HOAs will remain Starwood-controlled entities whose only purpose is to satisfy a legal requirement.  Certainly they are not looking at the owner interests ahead of the developer.  Look how long it took them to foreclose on delinquencies -- in WKORV's case, some owners hadn't paid in 2 years before action was taken.  During which time, the developer passed the unpaid MFs on to the other owners while getting control of the unbooked inventory, which they rented out for a nice profit.  Sweet deal for them.  Not so sweet for owners. 

For resorts like SDO or WKV, where MFs have remained low and relatively reasonable compared to other resorts in the area, it's perhaps a shrugworthy thing. For resorts such as HRA and WKORV, it's not such a shrugworth offense.   Once again, I point to Honua Kai resort down the street, which has a nice pool, beautiful landscaping, on-site restaurant, workout room, etc, -- many of the amenities that WKORV has.  Their MFs are $1300 per month per 2 bdrm unit.  WKORVs are $8,000 per month (after property taxes are taken out).  That, IMO, is not shrugworthy. 

Of course, YMMV.


----------



## jarta (May 21, 2013)

> It's extremely difficult to get a non-Starwood approved candidate on the HOA board because of the stipulation that the current board gets control of all uncast proxies.



The statement (because of the stipulation that the current board gets control of all uncast proxies) makes no sense at whatsoever.  A stipulation is evidence of an agreement.   http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stipulation   You are implying that Starwood and the current board merely agree to give the current board the ability to vote proxies returned without a preference stated.  It's Corporate Law 101.

1.  Every statute governing corporations (not just Starwood timeshare resorts) gives the board the right to cast proxies if they are returned without a preference stated.  All Legislatures have decided that it is appropriate to allow current boards to vote returned but unmarked proxies as the board thinks they should be voted.  It's not just Starwood and the SDO board's agreement.

2.  If a preference is stated, the board must vote the proxy the way it is marked.  You can mark your proxy for an "independent thinker" and any "drones" would have to vote it that way.  Starwood and the SDO board cannot agree to refuse to count proxies marked for "non-drones."

3.  But, that's *not* what happened at SDO's last annual meeting.  There was no election held (and there should have been no votes counted or announced since they could not even have been cast) because there was no quorum of the owners present, by proxy or in person.  Without a quorum being present, the only legal way the vacant slots could be filled (and the corporate existence maintained) is through appointment by the remaining board members.

So, if you don't like the ways things are being run by the "drones" at SDO, don't post lies and character assassination about them (or, acting like mindless drones yourselves, support those who do).  Fill out the proxies, send them back in to meet the quorum requirements and vote for whatever rabble-rouser you think will better represent the interests of all the owners at SDO.    Salty


----------



## LisaRex (May 21, 2013)

It's a nearly insurmountable obstacle to get a non-Starwood endorsed candidate on the HoA board for the following reasons:

1. The developer installs the first HOA board.  

2. The board has the right to cast proxies if they are returned without a preference stated.  

3. If there are not enough owners present in person or via proxy to reach a quorum, vacant slots are filled through appointment by the remaining board members.  

4. Starwood has exclusive rights to the owners' contact information.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 21, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> It's a nearly insurmountable obstacle to get a non-Starwood endorsed candidate on the HoA board for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. The developer installs the first HOA board.
> 
> ...



^^^^ very succinct - especially important is point #4 - w/o the distractions ^^^^

Lack of transparency regarding processes and actions by the HOA BOD are also an issue.

This is what Owners pretty much agree to when they signed their contract with SVO. Along with a clause regarding everything that was said/promised to them by the Saleperson cannot be enforced unless it is in the contract.

If a person doesn't want to play by the rules (no matter how unfair they are perceived) - then SVO TSing may not be for them.


----------



## Fredm (May 21, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> It's a nearly insurmountable obstacle to get a non-Starwood endorsed candidate on the HoA board for the following reasons:
> 
> 
> 4. Starwood has exclusive rights to the owners' contact information.



 Lisa, is this true for SDO?

I know that WKORV owners can request and receive the complete owner list by paying a copy fee, agreeing to not use it for commercial purposes, and other provisions to insure owner privacy.
I'm not sure what that all entails, but it is formally provided for in the Governing Documents under Association Records, List of Members.

SDO may be different, I don't know.


----------



## jarta (May 21, 2013)

^^^  Another over-reaching.  More spreading of an anti-Starwood myth.  They just won't let up.

http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/hawaii/hi-statutes/hawaii_statutes_421j-8   Salty


----------



## jarta (May 21, 2013)

Lisa,   ...   Your complaint is with the Legislatures; not with Starwood or any particular SDO "drone" who serves the other owners without salary.  The Legislatures prefer stability in corporate governance.  They have all crafted a system to insure that the corporation (any corporation, including your P&G or David's Novartis) has a functioning board - at all times - to assume responsibility to run the corporation and retain the corporate identity perpetually - or at least until ithe corporation is dissolved.

If you cannot accept what all the Legislatures have decided, maybe owning in and being a member of a vacation real estate association is not for you.  It could be as simple as that.  

Move on!  Buy that second home or stay in hotels and motels - or spend the vacation at home.  Don't subject yourself to all the self-imposed stress, worry and fear about being constantly ripped-off which makes you obsess about who's out to get you during this difficult economy.

And, please remember that the problem is that too few persons even return the proxies to hold the elections.  And, a statement that change is hard is not a justification that change is actually necessary.  

There are 10s of thousands of SVO owners.  There are fewer virulent anti-Starwood posters (or supporters of the main culprit) here on the Starwood forum than fingers on my hands.  They make lots of noise - mainly reinforcing each others' suppositions of fact.   Salty


----------



## SMHarman (May 21, 2013)

Fredm said:


> Lisa, is this true for SDO?
> 
> I know that WKORV owners can request and receive the complete owner list by paying a copy fee, agreeing to not use it for commercial purposes, and other provisions to insure owner privacy.
> I'm not sure what that all entails, but it is formally provided for in the Governing Documents under Association Records, List of Members.
> ...


Paying a copy fee  :rofl:  but I want a digital copy.  How much is that copy fee.  Then I can mail merge and email more efficiently


----------



## LisaRex (May 21, 2013)

jarta said:


> Move on!  Buy that second home or stay in hotels and motels - or spend the vacation at home.  Don't subject yourself to all the self-imposed stress, worry and fear about being constantly ripped-off which makes you obsess about who's out to get you during this difficult economy.



Why do you think I'm stressed? I'm simply relaying information as to why it's so difficult to penetrate Starwood's HOA.


----------



## LisaRex (May 21, 2013)

Fredm said:


> Lisa, is this true for SDO?
> 
> I know that WKORV owners can request and receive the complete owner list by paying a copy fee, agreeing to not use it for commercial purposes, and other provisions to insure owner privacy.
> I'm not sure what that all entails, but it is formally provided for in the Governing Documents under Association Records, List of Members.
> ...



If that is true, then I stand corrected.  I wander what they'd charge for a copy fee? I don't think anyone has bit the bullet on this, but I'd be willing to pony up (scribble, scribble) $3.50 for the cause.


----------



## Fredm (May 21, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> Paying a copy fee  :rofl:  but I want a digital copy.  How much is that copy fee.  Then I can mail merge and email more efficiently



I dunno. Ask HOA admin how much. The governing docs say a "reasonable fee" is set by the BOD.
A digital copy is probably how it will be provided. 

The point is that any owner, or group of owners, can obtain access to the entire list if they want to launch a campaign, or communicate with other owners, relating to matters concerning the resort. 

BOD candidate elections aside, the docs also say that a campaign must garner a majority of all owners to succeed. Not a majority of those voting, but a majority of all owner shares.

THAT is a lot of work. 
Speaking just for myself, if I thought things were that bad I would just sell the timeshare and get on with life.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 21, 2013)

Fredm said:


> I know that WKORV owners can request and receive the complete owner list by paying a copy fee, agreeing to not use it for commercial purposes, and other provisions to insure owner privacy.
> I'm not sure what that all entails, but it is formally provided for in the Governing Documents under Association Records, List of Members.



Interesting FredM - {found it}
I wonder what info it supplies regarding Owners? If it entails privacy - I would be surprised that it would be more than names.

I am in for $3.50


----------



## Fredm (May 21, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> Interesting FredM - I haven't seen this in the OM for WKORV.  Where in the Governing docs does it state this. I did a few key word searches and did not come up with anything.
> 
> I wonder what info it supplies regarding Owners? If it entails privacy - I would be surprised that it would be more than names.
> 
> I am in for $3.50



Well, I am looking at the WKORN Owners Handbook ( Feb. 2007 Version).
I imagine exact location will be different in other docs. But, in Bylaws, Exhibit C, pages 100-101 (Handbook pages 196-197), Para 9 Association Records, 
"*9.2 List of Members *.... The Association must at all times keep a current list of the names and addresses of all Members of the Association, and the number of votes that each Member is entitled to cast.
*A. *The Association will furnish a copy of the Membership List within a reasonable time after any Member asks for it in writing, pays a reasonable fee (to be determined by the Board), and complies with any other requirements of the Declaration or these Bylaws.  ............."

It goes on to say  (in my words) that the list will include names and addresses, but a declaration must first be signed to insure the honorable purpose for use of the list.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 21, 2013)

Thanks FredM - I found it for WKORV - here is a photo of the section - quite extensive process


----------



## Fredm (May 21, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> Thanks FredM - I found it for WKORV - here is a photo of the section - quite extensive process



No question, it will not be a casual process. Nor should it be.
If those that want a copy of the Member List are not prepared to do push-ups, they are really not in any position to actually do something serious with it.


----------



## sjsharkie (May 21, 2013)

It is standard practice to allow owners to inspect all records including membership registers with advance notice. I found SDO's in the bylaws -- it may have been amended but I looked this up in the original recording.

However, the older the resort, the more likely that they are not required to put it in electronic format.  So, you may find yourself trying to use OCR software to convert these into a format you can actually use.  While they obviously store in electronically, it doesn't mean that they have to provide it to you that way -- if they don't want you to have it, they may use the most inconvenient way possible (e.g., you come down here and copy it yourself from a hard copy during business hours)

-ryan


----------



## Fredm (May 21, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> I don't think anyone has bit the bullet on this, but I'd be willing to pony up (scribble, scribble) $3.50 for the cause.



You know, it probably does not cost much. Easy enough to find out though.

Getting the list is not where the cost is. Doing something with it is another ball of wax.


----------



## Ken555 (May 21, 2013)

Fredm said:


> No question, it will not be a casual process. Nor should it be.
> If those that want a copy of the Member List are not prepared to do push-ups, they are really not in any position to actually do something serious with it.



Makes sense, and thanks for finding the reference for WKORV. I recall a similar issue with another large organization that had a similar requirement and they would not provide email addresses since they were not specifically included in the original documents (name and address info). I don't know if common practice these days is to include email or not, but if not then the cost of using any list would grow exponentially if a group wanted to actually contact every owner.


----------



## Fredm (May 21, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> Makes sense, and thanks for finding the reference for WKORV. I recall a similar issue with another large organization that had a similar requirement and they would not provide email addresses since they were not specifically included in the original documents (name and address info). I don't know if common practice these days is to include email or not, but if not then the cost of using any list would grow exponentially if a group wanted to actually contact every owner.



Yep.

I'll bet that the Association has the email addresses. But, that makes it too easy for every jerk with a bone to pick to just harass the ownership. Privacy issues.  Email should be an opt-in after first contact.

Launching an owner-wide campaign/communication will require a certain amount of substance (and conviction) to get started  Then, good old organizing hard work once owners opt-in.

Not something to be done on a whim.


----------



## PamMo (May 21, 2013)

Fred, thanks for your detailed reply on the issue of getting a copy of owner lists. It's a bit frustrating that we've been told over and over again that Starwood resort HOA's will NOT provide that information. It appears that is incorrect.

I don't want everyone and their cousin getting our ownership information, only to be hounded by solicitations. There should be restrictions on getting that list. I always look at emails and flyers sent to me in the mail regarding the HOA and my timeshare interests. I check here on TUG, too, for differing opinions. I would be turned off by a strident letter from disgruntled owners who cast Starwood as The Villain. If an individual or group wants to challenge Starwood "allies" on the board, I want a clear explanation of what they think needs changing and what they want to accomplish. I'm not saying I like everything that's happening at our resorts, and I DO like the idea of an independent board of directors on the HOA, but I highly value our resorts' relationship with Starwood as well. If a reasonable candidate wants to run, and needs help to reach all owners to encourage them to vote, I'll ante up some money to purchase that list.


----------



## Fredm (May 21, 2013)

PamMo said:


> Fred, thanks for your detailed reply on the issue of getting a copy of owner lists. It's a bit frustrating that we've been told over and over again that Starwood resort HOA's will NOT provide that information. It appears that is incorrect.



You are welcome, Pam.

I posted much the same information a few years ago, when there was a HOA argument going on. IIRC, it was about ousting Starwood from their management role.

Getting an owner list is not the problem. Never has been. 
Anyone who was actually *serious* about affecting change could find that out.
I mean, I have the same Owner Manual as everyone else and I'm not angry about anything. (Well, I am angry with the City of Palm Desert at the moment. But, that's another story  ) . 

At that time I cautioned that talk is cheap. Organizing a serious campaign is very hard, frustrating, slogging, time consuming, and costly work. 

I know we are not discussing the same thing now. But, the difficulties remain the same. 

As for the rest of it, my view is if I don't like how the Board is running the joint, and it cost too much money for the value returned, I would just sell. It's a timeshare, not my home. 
Besides, hello, timeshares are for vacations. Not a source of heartburn.

We should all remember that board members serve without compensation. They are volunteers that do a thankless but necessary job. 
Absent outright fraud or other serious misconduct, we should be thankful for their willingness to give of their time on our behalf.
Frankly, the big bruha over some guy's car rental request, request mind you, had me shaking my head. Really?!
 I sometimes think we forget who is doing whom the favor.


----------



## SueDonJ (May 21, 2013)

I'm not trying to butt in here but with the set-ups so similar you might be interested to know that an owner of one of the Marriott resorts in Aruba organized an effort against the board which included trying to get the ownership list and contact information.  He had the support of many other owners but their group did not represent a majority ownership.

The governing docs/laws allowed access onsite to the list with a copying fee and subject to limitations related to solicitation.  The owner reviewed the list during a visit but it didn't have home or email addresses - each owner's address was listed as the resort address.  I don't remember the exact explanation or if the confusion surrounding addresses on the onsite list was ever resolved, but I sort of remember something about the resort not needing/having home addresses because all correspondence/transactions are handled through Marriott as the Management Company, which is constrained by privacy laws to release the info to any entity.

While the owner was trying to work through all those roadblocks Marriott pre-emptively put a measure up for ownership vote, to definitively prevent the Manager from having to release owners' home and email addresses in the event the Owners List was requested.  Of course Marriott framed the measure to be distinctly harmful to owners, something to the effect of, "your contact info could be used for any purpose and we'd have no control," so it's no surprise that an unprecedented percentage of owners voted with the overwhelming majority in support of Marriott not being allowed to release contact info.

The owner then took matters through the Aruban court system for access - the owner lost on the original contest and at least one appeal.  Last I saw the owner was still pushing on but had stopped using public sites like TUG to report on the progress and/or garner support.

Like I said, I don't want to butt in but thought you might be interested in hearing how a similar situation has been handled elsewhere.  I agree completely with Fred - anybody who wants to challenge a major timeshare company should be prepared for a long haul and roadblocks at every turn.


----------



## jarta (May 21, 2013)

> I agree completely with Fred - anybody who wants to challenge a major timeshare company should be prepared for a long haul and roadblocks at every turn.



I don't think Fred said that at all.  Here is what Fred said.



> Getting an owner list is not the problem. Never has been.
> Anyone who was actually serious about affecting change could find that out. ...
> 
> At that time I cautioned that talk is cheap. Organizing a serious campaign is very hard, frustrating, slogging, time consuming, and costly work.



Where did Fred mention roadblocks?  Remember, we got on this topic because a poster misinformed us that you could not get the owner's list from Starwood.  Fred asked if the poster was sure because he had looked at the Owners Manual for the resort.  I even posted the Hawaii statute that forces production of the list.  

Now we have your post based on the supposition that, just because Marriott fought giving the Aruba list, Starwood would fight a request for the resort in Maui.  Marriott is Marriott.  Starwood is not Marriott.  Where's the evidence for your statement?

The owners meetings take place in the Fall.  The chronic complainers have to start now if they want to accomplish anything.  Can't wait to see the letter they will send to all the owners introducing themselves by stating that the current boards are composed of "drones" who only act against the owners interests.   Salty


----------



## SueDonJ (May 21, 2013)

jarta said:


> I don't think Fred said that at all.  Here is what Fred said. ...
> 
> Where did Fred mention roadblocks?  Remember, we got on this topic because a poster misinformed us that you could not get the owner's list from Starwood.  Fred asked if the poster was sure because he had looked at the Owners Manual for the resort.  I even posted the Hawaii statute that forces production of the list.
> 
> ...



This is Fred's statement that I was referencing:


Fredm said:


> ... At that time I cautioned that talk is cheap. Organizing a serious campaign is very hard, frustrating, slogging, time consuming, and costly work. ...



Although he didn't use the word, "roadblocks," I believe the inference in his statement is that Starwood won't make it easy for owners to challenge them or the SDO board.  I could be wrong, and Fred knows he can feel free to tell me that.

For what it's worth, the same legislation that governs Starwood resorts also governs Marriott's and for that particular Marriott resort, the governing docs as well mandate that an Owners List must be made available to any owner who requests it (with caveats.)  That's why I brought it up, because Marriott managed to get around that mandate by saying that the resort board doesn't maintain the contact info, Marriott as the Management Company does and as such could invoke privacy protection laws.

Of course Starwood and Marriott aren't the same and I haven't said anywhere that I would expect them to act exactly the same with respect to releasing an Owners List or any other situation.  It can't even be said that either system could be expected to act the same for each of their resorts because every resort has its own set of governing docs.  But there are plenty of similarities between the two companies, their set-ups as Developer and Manager of multi-resort systems, and the concerns from owners in this thread (transparency, board actions, quorum and majority vote rules, etc.,) enough similarities that this discussion brought to mind the situation at the Marriott resort and the various ways Marriott stalled the owners' efforts.  That situation went on for years, may still be continuing for all I know, and it was an excellent teaching tool for many Marriott owners while it was playing out on TUG.  It could be a lesson in what to do/what not to do for anyone who's thinking about challenging a major timeshare board. 

But like I said, I don't want to butt in so I'll leave it now, with good thoughts for any unhappy SDO owners that they can resolve their dissatisfaction with less angst than the Marriott owners suffered.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 22, 2013)

Susan - not sure if you know but, WSJ-VG Owners had some success with  getting 2 Owner Reps that were elected and voted upon by the HOA w/o SVO using their votes (which overwhelm Owner votes).  SVO-WSJ also sent out requests to all owners about sharing contact info (for those interested).  I believe that the outcome of getting 2 Owner-members on the BOD has been very positive on multiple levels. This history is in the very lengthy WSJ thread.  There is small group of Owners suing (I do not know/recall details) SVO-WSJ over CCRs. I do not know where the lawsuit stands, but interesting history of how change can occur.


----------



## LisaRex (May 22, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> But like I said, I don't want to butt in so I'll leave it now, with good thoughts for any unhappy SDO owners that they can resolve their dissatisfaction with less angst than the Marriott owners suffered.



Thanks for the information, Sue.   Very, very interesting.  It's what I would suspect would happen with Starwood, but I honestly have no inclination to test the theory.  Potential owners should be aware of the truth, however, so that they know what they're getting into.

Happily, I don't think that there are many unhappy SDO owners given that MFs have been low and exchanges are reportedly great.  Hopefully that will remain the case moving forward.


----------



## Fredm (May 22, 2013)

deleted....


----------



## Fredm (May 22, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> This is Fred's statement that I was referencing:
> 
> 
> Although he didn't use the word, "roadblocks," I believe the inference in his statement is that Starwood won't make it easy for owners to challenge them or the SDO board.  I could be wrong, and Fred knows he can feel free to tell me that.
> ...



Hi Sue.

In the context of this thread I was just pointing out that getting an owners list (with names and addresses) is provided for in the Governing Documents.
Never having done it, I don't know all of what is entailed. But, I assumed it would be provided.

Employing such a list to campaign (for whatever cause) is the hard part.
That was my point. The issues involved would have to be a very big deal for those who chose to use it. 

The easiest deployment would be by a HOA candidate. A single mailing with a detailed campaign message. Beyond the effort in obtaining the list someone (or a group) would have to spend ~ $8k-$10k on postage and material (for a 20k member resort), plus the real additional cost of employing a mailing house to print, stuff, etc. As a practical matter, single mass mailings do not produce great results. Many will not even be read. Many that are will not produce the desired call to action. Heck, most owners don't even bother to return a no-brainer proxy. Never mind actually make a conscious decision that requires a few moments of thoughtful engagement.
Does someone want such a thankless and non-paying job that badly? I don't think so. So, the argument about lack of access to owners is a distraction, IMO.  Open forums such as TUG and social networking are more limiting but practical ways to extend the reach of a HOA candidate and supporters. 
But hey, to each their own.

Actually deploying a member list to organize owners for a vote requiring a majority of all owner shares is whole different ball game. That requires the effort and resources I described in an earlier post.  Unless a real ground swell revolution is afoot due to gross and widespread abuses, it is a waste of time and money, IMO.  
The only reason I can think of is to disassociate the resort from the network. 
Otherwise, why bother?

RE: your Aruba example, that was the roof/water intrusion/Allen Cohen issue.
Thankfully, I don't remember everything about the sequence of that dispute. But IIRC, Marriott and the HOA were being sued by a minority of opposing owners and had to take defensive measures.
Didn't Marriott agree to incur the cost of directly mailing the arguments to the Aruba owners, so as to protect the privacy of their data? 
I may have that detail wrong. 

Your larger point is well taken. It is incredibly hard to defeat the protective shell of a network system's governing documents under the best of circumstances.  I don't know why owners would even want to try. 
If they dislike the system that badly, just sell and move on. Life imposes enough obstacles without constructing new ones to climb over.


----------



## jarta (May 22, 2013)

"Potential owners should be aware of the truth, however, so that they know what they're getting into."

I have no problem with the facts or the truth posted in this Starwood forum.  I have problems with the suppositions and untrue statements.

"Organizing a serious campaign is very hard, frustrating, slogging, time consuming, and costly work." - OK.

"4. Starwood has exclusive rights to the owners' contact information" followed by "very succinct - especially important is point #4" - Not OK.

Do you see the difference?   Salty


----------



## LisaRex (May 22, 2013)

I not only stand corrected, but I am now CERTAIN that Starwood would cheerfully and quickly relinquish all owners' names and addresses to any HOA candidate who requests such information.


----------



## SueDonJ (May 22, 2013)

Fredm said:


> Hi Sue.
> 
> In the context of this thread I was just pointing out that getting an owners list (with names and addresses) is provided for in the Governing Documents.
> Never having done it, I don't know all of what is entailed. But, I assumed it would be provided. ...



Sure seems simple enough, doesn't it?  We learned, though, that despite the appearance of simplicity in the governing docs/laws, it's not.  I would expect that the request will have to be framed and submitted just so, several attempts will probably have to be made, and Starwood will figure out as many creative refusal/delay tactics as possible.  I'd guess in all respects, not only with respect to the Owners List.



Fredm said:


> Employing such a list to campaign (for whatever cause) is the hard part.
> That was my point. The issues involved would have to be a very big deal for those who chose to use it.
> 
> The easiest deployment would be by a HOA candidate. A single mailing with a detailed campaign message. Beyond the effort in obtaining the list someone (or a group) would have to spend ~ $8k-$10k on postage and material (for a 20k member resort), plus the real additional cost of employing a mailing house to print, stuff, etc. As a practical matter, single mass mailings do not produce great results. Many will not even be read. Many that are will not produce the desired call to action. Heck, most owners don't even bother to return a no-brainer proxy. Never mind actually make a conscious decision that requires a few moments of thoughtful engagement.
> ...



The Catch-22 there is that an online "campaign" (for lack of a better word) that invites the slightest criticism will by its nature foster a strict adversarial relationship.  It's complicated as well by its intended purpose - to reach as many owners as possible - because keeping it public and accessible through search engines also makes it viewable by the adversary.  We learned that Marriott was able to formulate and take steps ahead of the owner because they followed the discussion as intently as the owners.



Fredm said:


> Actually deploying a member list to organize owners for a vote requiring a majority of all owner shares is whole different ball game. That requires the effort and resources I described in an earlier post.  Unless a real ground swell revolution is afoot due to gross and widespread abuses, it is a waste of time and money, IMO.
> The only reason I can think of is to disassociate the resort from the network.
> Otherwise, why bother? ...



Exactly.



Fredm said:


> RE: your Aruba example, that was the roof/water intrusion/Allen Cohen issue.
> Thankfully, I don't remember everything about the sequence of that dispute. But IIRC, Marriott and the HOA were being sued by a minority of opposing owners and had to take defensive measures.
> Didn't Marriott agree to incur the cost of directly mailing the arguments to the Aruba owners, so as to protect the privacy of their data?
> I may have that detail wrong. ...



Mostly correct.  Marriott also in turn extended other (reasonable, IMO) concessions which were refused by the owner.  With respect to this one facet of the contest, only the list, the whole list, and nothing but the list in his hands would do. 



Fredm said:


> Your larger point is well taken. It is incredibly hard to defeat the protective shell of a network system's governing documents under the best of circumstances.  I don't know why owners would even want to try.
> If they dislike the system that badly, just sell and move on. Life imposes enough obstacles without constructing new ones to climb over.



Again, we're in agreement.  

My takeaway from any discussions related to contesting a timeshare Developer/Manager/BOD is that the best thing disgruntled owners can do is retain the services of a qualified attorney from the beginning.  Put all the info in his/her lap and pay attention to the expert's advice when s/he tells you whether or not it's worth investing your time and money in the fight.


----------



## SueDonJ (May 22, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> Susan - not sure if you know but, WSJ-VG Owners had some success with  getting 2 Owner Reps that were elected and voted upon by the HOA w/o SVO using their votes (which overwhelm Owner votes).  SVO-WSJ also sent out requests to all owners about sharing contact info (for those interested).  I believe that the outcome of getting 2 Owner-members on the BOD has been very positive on multiple levels. This history is in the very lengthy WSJ thread.  There is small group of Owners suing (I do not know/recall details) SVO-WSJ over CCRs. I do not know where the lawsuit stands, but interesting history of how change can occur.



Thanks, David.  This stuff fascinates me; I'll be reading that thread for sure.


----------



## jarta (May 22, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> I not only stand corrected, but I am now CERTAIN that Starwood would cheerfully and quickly relinquish all owners' names and addresses to any HOA candidate who requests such information.



Of course, it would.  But, Starwood would do it only after the fees are paid and after written assurances are given that comply with Section I (Master List), Subsections (3) (a) 1, 2 and 3 posted above.

I'm also glad you posted this:



> Happily, I don't think that there are many unhappy SDO owners given that MFs have been low and exchanges are reportedly great. Hopefully that will remain the case moving forward.



[Personal Attack Deleted - further infractions will result in another suspension from TUG - DeniseM Moderator]


----------



## PamMo (May 22, 2013)

LisaRex said:


> I not only stand corrected, but I am now CERTAIN that Starwood would cheerfully and quickly relinquish all owners' names and addresses to any HOA candidate who requests such information.



:hysterical::rofl::hysterical:  Sure they will.


----------



## hypnotiq (May 22, 2013)

Fredm said:


> If I thought things were that bad I would just sell the timeshare and get on with life.



This sums up my feelings to a T.

Having dealt with a HOA in my housing development (long story), I learned a lot about fighting HOA's. I learned that quality of life and my time are far more important and valuable. I simply sold my house and bought elsewhere.

I will never own a home in a HOA again. 

If one of the TS's start doing something I don't like, Ill simply sell it and move on. Life is too short.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 22, 2013)

As often mentioned (by me...), concerned WSJ-VG Owners had some success with making positive change with the HOA BOD, representation, and transparency - this started over maintenance issues, blossomed to the issues with the infamous Refurbish (now completed), and resulted in the establishment 2 new Owner-Reps on the BOD(elected by Owners w/o SVO votes).  Perhaps that may be a special situation unique to WSJ.

I am sure that TSs (meaning HOA BOD) do things all the time that Owners may not like, but likely Owners do not know about these - or more likely, do not care to know.  However, not liking something and not putting up with something - are very different things (stating the obvious).  There are many things I may not like (e.g. children in hottubs at WKORV, smoking on the balconies...), but wouldn't sell my TS over.  Then there are things that I will not put up with (like the Maintenance issues at WSJ that started the WSJ thread) - at this point you should either take action (like WSJ Owners did), or get out - as mentioned.

IMO a large issue - and my windmill tilting - has always been about SVO HOA BOD Transparency.  While Owners can try and fight for this - as is their right - this is not easily accomplished when the BOD and CCRs are stacked against them (e.g. try and get a list of Owners).  I suspect most Owners do not care to know and just want their vacation that they signed up for (w/o knowing much about the over system and processes).  I would guessimate that <1% of SVO Owners even know about TUG (and many do not care to know - I know some of these Owners).  The proxy system at its core is the problem for Owners to implement change, but it is not impossible to influence the HOA/BOD - it just takes enough Owners to escalate to awareness - and transparency is key to this.

IMNSHO - I prefer SVO control over the HOAs for the TSs that I own - as I want to keep the Westin brand on my resorts - amoung other reasons.  I know others that vehemantly disagree with this (and lost a couple TUG friends over this...).  However, I would also prefer better balance on the SVO HOA BODs from the Owners perspective as well as improved transparency.  Again, I think we have struck a good balance with our efforts at WSJ-VG - is it perfect? No, but what is?

Sometimes it is worth the battle...

Back on topic - what do SDO Owners think the 2015 MFs will be (follwing the upgrades)?
(I did this for WSJ-VG after the refurbish, but I was the only vote... )


----------



## grgs (May 22, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> IMNSHO - I prefer SVO control over the HOAs for the TSs that I own - as I want to keep the Westin brand on my resorts - amoung other reasons.  I know others that vehemantly disagree with this (and lost a couple TUG friends over this...).  However, I would also prefer better balance on the SVO HOA BODs from the Owners perspective as well as improved transparency.



That pretty much sums up my opinion as well.  It's too bad that you lost TUG friends over this.  It seems like this is something one could agree to disagree on.  



DavidnRobin said:


> Back on topic - what do SDO Owners think the 2015 MFs will be (follwing the upgrades)?



I hate guessing games because I'm usually wrong, but I love them when I'm right.  Let's see mf over the last few years have been (for a 2 bd EY LO):

2010: $889.08
2011: $908.41 
2012: $986.08
2013: $1055.04
2014: $1139.44 (projected, with 8% increase from 2013 total, see this earlier post) 
*2015: $1002.71* (projected, with 12% decrease from 2014 total)
or
*2015: $1022.76 *(projected with 12% decrease from 2014 total, plus 2% COLA/inflation/CPI increase)

Glorian


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 22, 2013)

grgs said:


> I hate guessing games because I'm usually wrong, but I love them when I'm right.  Let's see mf over the last few years have been (for a 2 bd EY LO):
> 
> 2010: $889.08
> 2011: $908.41
> ...



I'll put you down with $1013... 
Not an Owner (but have considered buying for II use in retirement), but my guess is $1075

I did guess correctly (pretty much) that my MFs at WSJ-VG (2Bd TH) would drop to ~$2400 after the 'special' refurbish charge and foreclosure/deliquency issues hit a peak of ~$2800 a couple of years back.


----------



## Ken555 (May 22, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> I'll put you down with $1013...
> Not an Owner (but have considered buying for II use in retirement), but my guess is $1075



I'd guess that you're both in the right ballpark. It's going to be more than $1000 but less than $1100.


----------



## hypnotiq (May 22, 2013)

Price is Right rules? 

Ill go with $1025


----------



## Pmuppet (May 22, 2013)

hypnotiq said:


> Price is Right rules?
> 
> Ill go with $1025




I will take the over.


----------



## grgs (May 22, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> I'd guess that you're both in the right ballpark. It's going to be more than $1000 but less than $1100.



Too wide a span!  You have to make a more specific guess. 

David has me down at $1013.

What does the winner get?


----------



## LisaRex (May 22, 2013)

Put me down for $1003.55


----------



## YYJMSP (May 22, 2013)

I'll go for $1107.79.

What's the prize?


----------



## Ken555 (May 22, 2013)

grgs said:


> too wide a span!  You have to make a more specific guess.



$1005-1095? :d


----------



## Fredm (May 23, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> Sure seems simple enough, doesn't it?  We learned, though, that despite the appearance of simplicity in the governing docs/laws, it's not.  I would expect that the request will have to be framed and submitted just so, several attempts will probably have to be made, and Starwood will figure out as many creative refusal/delay tactics as possible.  I'd guess in all respects, not only with respect to the Owners List.



You may be right. But I'll stick to my presumption that Starwood will do what the law and governing docs say they must do until demonstrated otherwise.
I have no doubt that it will require stringent safeguards to insure the proper use of the member list. 
In fact, complying with such stringent safeguards may not be routinely possible as a practical matter. But, there is more than one way to achieve the spirit of the law and governing docs.  

Several points:

First, The Marriott Aruba example should not be the brush to paint with.
If anything it is an example of why certain parties should not have access to an entire owner contact list.
It was a highly adversarial situation from the start.  
Nonetheless, Marriott did agree to distribute the information to the entire membership. 
One then must reasonably ask what the real objective of the Concerned Owners was in demanding  "only the list, the whole list, and nothing but the list"? If it was to distribute information for owner consideration, mission accomplished. 
Ongoing future mischief was in the cards on a whole range of yet to be determined bone-picking and rabble rousing. I would not want such an individual in control of a complete owner list. 
So, did Marriott and the HOA act appropriately in placing hurdles in the way? I think so.
Would Marriott respond similarly to any and all legal requests for an owner list?
I don't know. There has not been another example I am aware of.

Second, as David has pointed out, Starwood aided the HOA election process at St. John. In doing so, it withheld its own votes so as to not unduly influence the will of the members.
At the end of the day, subjective judgment can come into play when considering candidates for various Board elections. 
Will Starwood vote its interests when necessary? Sure. Starwood will follow the rules. Those rules are by design tilted to favor Starwood (or any other network operator). But, there is positive example of Starwood not erecting  roadblocks for no reason.
So, I am not ready to declare that Starwood would not comply with the law once reasonable subjective consideration is given to the character of the request.

All of which leads to my final point, generally applicable to the entire discussion about access to a member name and address list. 

We should all be careful about defending access to such information. 
Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it cannot be put back in.
Timeshare resorts with tens of thousands of members cannot be subject to ongoing chaos, exploitive marketing, and who knows what else, if in the hands of those who may profit from it. It is not a given (by a long shot) that 
even legitimate requests for a specific use will not later turn to other purposes. Or be sold to those who can use it for their purposes.
That is why I would expect resort managers to do what Marriott and Starwood have already done. Agree to conduct a mailing (if legitimate circumstances warrant) without release of the list. 
They may have to be pushed hard to do that, but it should be hard.


----------



## Fredm (May 23, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> The Catch-22 there is that an online *"campaign" (for lack of a better word*) that invites the slightest criticism will by its nature foster a strict adversarial relationship.  It's complicated as well by its intended purpose - to reach as many owners as possible - because keeping it public and accessible through search engines also makes it viewable by the adversary.  We learned that Marriott was able to formulate and take steps ahead of the owner because they followed the discussion as intently as the owners.



Sue, no Catch-22 in the context of my explanation. I was speaking about a candidate's election campaign for a Board seat.
A candidate gets a spot on the ballot along with a very limited ballot statement.
The most practical (although limited) way to expand the candidate's message is to engage in networking and network speech. 
Certainly more practical than trying to obtain the now infamous owner list, then spending $10,000 to send a mailer. Not going to happen for a thankless, non-paying job on a timeshare Board.

Your response does highlight the real Catch-22 when carried out publically in an Aruba-like affair.
Forewarning the other side does allow them to construct defenses / counter arguments and can be self-defeating.


----------

