# Grand Timber - Lottery Reservation Proposal



## Dave*H (May 25, 2007)

I noticed in the GTL meeting minutes (http://www.grandtimber.com/pdf/GTLOA_mtg_min_20070131.pdf) that one of the board members wants to go to a lottery system for picking weeks.

I have seen this come up occasionally on TUG, not with GTL but with other resorts, as something some owners would like for floating week assignments.  Personally, I am against a lottery for allocating weeks.  While a lottery may allow you to get a really good week with little effort, the odds are from year to year, you will only end up with an average week.  A lottery makes it possible for those who don't want to put much effort into securing a prime week to have an equal footing with those who do.

By the very fact that you are a reading this post, you are probably an above average owner in terms of knowing how to maximize the benefits of ownership, and likely to put in the effort into a float reservation system to get an above average reservation.  I believe there is a misconception among some, that a lottery system improves the odds of getting prime weeks.  In fact, all I believe it does is make it easier for owners less willing to put in the effort, to get prime weeks.  It also reduces the load on reservation personnel when dealing with the deluge of calls that come in when reservation day opens up.

I'd be curious to know what others think on this topic.

Disclaimer: While I have some interest, I am not currently an owner at GTL, but I don't think I would be interested in becoming one if they went to a lottery.


----------



## hipslo (May 25, 2007)

Dave_H said:


> I noticed in the GTL meeting minutes (http://www.grandtimber.com/pdf/GTLOA_mtg_min_20070131.pdf) that one of the board members wants to go to a lottery system for picking weeks.
> 
> I have seen this come up occasionally on TUG, not with GTL but with other resorts, as something some owners would like for floating week assignments.  Personally, I am against a lottery for allocating weeks.  While a lottery may allow you to get a really good week with little effort, the odds are from year to year, you will only end up with an average week.  A lottery makes it possible for those who don't want to put much effort into securing a prime week to have an equal footing with those who do.
> 
> ...



I for one very much hope that a system like that does NOT come to pass, as it would work to the disadvantage of those of us who have gone to the time and effort to understand and effectively utilize the existing system.  That said, its hard to argue against the fact that it would perhaps be "fairer" than the current system.

I would also be interested to hear what others think, as well as whether anyone has any sense as to the likelihood of a system such as this ever coming to pass, either on a resort-specific basis, or more globally.


----------



## hipslo (May 25, 2007)

As a follow up question, is this the Marriott Timber Lodge property (which is what I had assumed - I think I may have been incorrect in my assumption)?


----------



## dougp26364 (May 25, 2007)

hipslo said:


> As a follow up question, is this the Marriott Timber Lodge property (which is what I had assumed - I think I may have been incorrect in my assumption)?




Grand Timber Lodge (GTR) is in Breckenridge, CO. Marriott's resort in Lake Tahoe is called Marriott's Timber Lodge (MML). Marriott does have a Grand Residence Club (MGA), which is part of timber lodge in Lake Tahoe. But it is a quarter share ownership that has the privledge of depositing weeks for exchange into I.I. 

However, the OP is refering to Grand Timber (GTL) and I'm not 100% certain if that's a different resort than Grand Timber Lodge in Breckenridge or if it's just another resort somewhere else with a very similar name as the others. 


I would assume that a lottery could only be set up if it's allowed in the condo documents that were signed when the units were purchased. If those docs allowed for it, I would also assume that a vote could be taken to change it so that a lottery could be set up. At any rate, it would take some serious effort for a lottery allocation to come to pass and I'm sure there would be enough against such a lottery that it would not pass. 

Why anyone would want to have their resort assign them a week at random is beyond me. People have enough problems choosing a week and then getting their employers to let them off for that week as it is. I can only imagine the issues that would be caused for people who have a much narrower timeframe for vacation than an entire season. There is no way a lottery would work for a floating timeshare week or season.


----------



## Pit (May 25, 2007)

dougp26364 said:


> Why anyone would want to have their resort assign them a week at random is beyond me. People have enough problems choosing a week and then getting their employers to let them off for that week as it is. I can only imagine the issues that would be caused for people who have a much narrower timeframe for vacation than an entire season. There is no way a lottery would work for a floating timeshare week or season.



I don't think the result of a lottery system would be the resort assigning weeks. Instead, a lottery would be used to determine selection order for weeks within the float window (i.e. first name out of the hat gets first pick of weeks). 

It's certainly a fair system, but I think the problem in implementing it is that owners would have to choose their weeks at the time of the lottery, which may not be practical for many owners.


----------



## Dave*H (May 25, 2007)

dougp26364 said:


> However, the OP is refering to Grand Timber (GTL) and I'm not 100% certain if that's a different resort than Grand Timber Lodge in Breckenridge


I was referring to the Grand Timber Lodge • GTR in Beckenridge.  Got the code wrong.

The proposal from the Board Meeting Minutes (http://www.grandtimber.com/pdf/GTLOA...n_20070131.pdf) is this:


> Rob wants to go to a lottery system for booking day which gives the owners a 30 day period to enter their choices and then it randomly picks weeks for owners after the 30 days.



The rules and regulations say (http://www.grandtimber.com/pdf/RulesRegs_200702112.pdf):


> b. All reservations are subject to availability and will be honored on a first-come, first served
> basis, and will not be effective unless confirmed in writing by the Association or the Managing Agent. All reservation
> requests received by mail on the same day will be opened in random order


However, I am aware of items in the Rules and Regulations at another resort that are not being followed exactly as written.  They are inconsequential to me, and probably the vast majority of owners, and fairly minor departures so I have never given it much thought.  While changing the rules and regulations is typically difficult, I can envision an overzealous board implementing a conflicting policy.  (I'm not saying this is the case at GTR since I have no idea what the board is like.)  If that were to happen, it can be difficult as an individual owner to get that corrected and could require the expense of hiring a lawyer.


----------



## Pit (May 25, 2007)

> ... and then it randomly picks weeks for owners after the 30 days.



This part of the proposal makes no sense to me. After the initial reservation period, the remaining weeks should revert to a first-come first-served basis rather than random assignment, IMO.

I think its up to concerned owners to challenge the board to square their proposal with the regulations. I wouldn't be too surprised if they were unaware of the specific language in the regulations.

I too know of a resort board that is not following rules laid out in the CC&Rs. I guess they will continue to do as they please unless and until someone mounts a (legal) challenge.


----------



## jscboston (Oct 9, 2007)

*Update on lottery for reservations at GTL*

I have been thinking of buying at Grand Timber Lodge and was able to get an update on this issue.  

I spoke to the management company today, and they will in fact be switching to a lottery-based reservation system starting with this January for ski weeks only.  Each owner will submit their top five choices, and they have a program that will assign as many members as possible to their #1 choice, then as many as possible to their #2 choice, and so on.

The property's Rules and Regulations (which are available on the web site at the following address  http://www.grandtimber.com/own_myown_account.cfm  )  allow the Board to change the reservation policies without a vote of owners.  I have posted a note on the "Buying and Selling" board requesting feedback on whether these systems work out well for owners.  My inclination is to think that they don't, but I welcome any additional feedback here.  I suspect this change was for the benefit of the management company more than for owners.  It appears that the management company still has two seats on the Board, though if I am reading the docs correctly they should be off by now.  Once the board is fully staffed by owners rather than the management company, is it reasonable to expect this lottery system to go away?

Thanks in advance for any feedback.


----------



## sernow (Oct 24, 2007)

GTL going to a lottery is very good news indeed...for renters like me (and not such good news for the owners).


----------



## Dave*H (Oct 25, 2007)

jscboston said:


> Once the board is fully staffed by owners rather than the management company, is it reasonable to expect this lottery system to go away?


It's probably hard to say.  Lottery systems benefit lazy owners or owners who can't or don't want to spend a morning trying to get through on the phone because those owners now have a much better chance of snagging a prime week.  There will also be owners that don't have a strong preference who will put a spring break week as their first pick because they like skiing in the warmer weather thus bumping a owner who does care from the opportunity to snag that week.  A lottery system will not benefit diligent owners who set aside time to get through early for a reservation.  While over 90% of tug members would likely qualify as diligent owners, the majority of owners probably qualify as lazy owners.  Case in point, of the people you know with kids, how many look up what week spring break is a year in advance so that they can start planning?  Even among timeshare owners, I suspect this is low.  Bottom line is that a majority of owners probably qualify as lazy owners so there is no guarantee that they majority would want to drop the lottery.  The only real hope is that the diligent owners can become a vocal minority, get elected to the board and/or convince the board to change the process.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Oct 25, 2007)

sernow said:


> GTL going to a lottery is very good news indeed...for renters like me (and not such good news for the owners).



I was actually reccomending a relative to buy into this property as they love Breck, but with the lottery, I have advised them to NOT buy as reservations will be too variable.


----------



## riverdees05 (Oct 25, 2007)

This is what I got today from Owners Services:

"The GTLOA Board of Directors voted on and approved a lottery system for making reservations.  We will start using it this year.  It is currently in development.  More info will be sent to owners about this in November."


----------

