# Morritt's Grand utility charges



## dag2

Just spent a week at Morritt's Grand in Grand Cayman.  A beautiful resort, but the special utility charge seems a bit excessive.  The two of us stayed in a two bedroom unit for one week.  We did not use the air conditioning,TV, and the lights were off when not in use.  We ran the ceiling fan in the master bedroom during the night.  Our utility charge was $111 USD.  Does that seem a bit high?

If you plan to scuba dive, I would recommend Ocean Frontiers down the road.


----------



## jtridle

dag2 said:
			
		

> Just spent a week at Morritt's Grand in Grand Cayman.  A beautiful resort, but the special utility charge seems a bit excessive.  The two of us stayed in a two bedroom unit for one week.  We did not use the air conditioning,TV, and the lights were off when not in use.  We ran the ceiling fan in the master bedroom during the night.  Our utility charge was $111 USD.  Does that seem a bit high?
> 
> If you plan to scuba dive, I would recommend Ocean Frontiers down the road.



We just got back in November, stayed in a one bedroom at Morritt's Tortuga Club, and only ran the air the first day nor used much other electricity except that we did use the oven once or twice.  Our charge was $74 which was more than it has been in the past and I was a bit surprised.  however, compared to what the Reef resort next door charges, a flat $245, regardless of usage, it seemed like a steal.


----------



## Avery

I am looking forward to going next spring break, and can't wait to pay them whatever they charge us for the utilities!!!


----------



## TomCayman

jtridle said:
			
		

> We just got back in November, stayed in a one bedroom at Morritt's Tortuga Club, and only ran the air the first day nor used much other electricity except that we did use the oven once or twice.  Our charge was $74 which was more than it has been in the past and I was a bit surprised.  however, compared to what the Reef resort next door charges, a flat $245, regardless of usage, it seemed like a steal.



Actually for a 2BD unit at The Reef in 2006 ithe Utility fee (water and power) is $240, for 2007 it will be $285. Naturally it is proportionately less for a 1BD or STU.

The cost of electricity in Cayman has gone up almost exponentially in the last two years and $285 is what it actually cost in 2006 (the developer paid the shortfall), and it has been estimated that 2007 will be around the same level as the 2006 actual.

Feel sorry for those of us who live here, my utility costs in my condo (which I cool to just 79 degrees, keep the doors closed and have most of the shutters closed most of the time to keep the sun out) is in the region of US$900 per month and that is for a smallish condo. Ouch.


----------



## Avery

TomCayman said:
			
		

> Feel sorry for those of us who live here



Uh, I don't think so!!   Anytime you want to trade, give me a holler


----------



## gmarine

Why arent the utility fees included in the maintenance fees?


----------



## Spence

gmarine said:
			
		

> Why arent the utility fees included in the maintenance fees?


So they can pass them on to the exchangers when you don't actually use your unit, why else?


----------



## gmarine

Thats what I thought. 

Is it safe to assume that owners also pay these fees when they occupy their own unit?


----------



## Gary & Susie

Yes, we do.


----------



## gmarine

Are your maintenance fees on the low side because utility fees are not included?


----------



## jtridle

*maintenance fees*



			
				gmarine said:
			
		

> Are your maintenance fees on the low side because utility fees are not included?



Maintenance fees at Morritt's Tortuga Club for 2007 are:
studio $525
1 bedroom $620
2 bedroom $805

Not sure what they are for the Grand but I believe they are similar (though it does't have studios).


----------



## TomCayman

And just for info at The Reef mtce fees for 2007 are :

2BD $995
1BD $650
STU $450

ie roughly on par with Morritts for STU and 1BD units, but our STU and 1BD units are lockoffs and go together to make a 2BD unit, so we charge roughly 10% for those individual parts than the 2BD unit.

I have no idea why Morritts only charge $805 for a 2BD (sleeps 6, I assume) when they charge $525 for a Studio (sleeps 2), but their operation is different to ours both in size (much larger) and nature (eg specific units types for STU, 1BD and 2BD instead of lockoffs).

In general though, I think the comparison confirms how expensive it is to do business in Cayman


----------



## Noni

We have found that our electricity charge for a 2 BR at Morritt's is one of the cheapest (?) things we pay for in Grand Cayman.  Ours usually runs around $100, depending on the weather.   Everything is expensive, but it's a great place to visit each year.  The island is great, the East End is even better and the food is wonderful.   All in all, it's a wonderful vacation.


----------



## gmarine

TomCayman said:
			
		

> And just for info at The Reef mtce fees for 2007 are :
> 
> 2BD $995
> 1BD $650
> STU $450
> 
> ie roughly on par with Morritts for STU and 1BD units, but our STU and 1BD units are lockoffs and go together to make a 2BD unit, so we charge roughly 10% for those individual parts than the 2BD unit.
> 
> I have no idea why Morritts only charge $805 for a 2BD (sleeps 6, I assume) when they charge $525 for a Studio (sleeps 2), but their operation is different to ours both in size (much larger) and nature (eg specific units types for STU, 1BD and 2BD instead of lockoffs).
> 
> In general though, I think the comparison confirms how expensive it is to do business in Cayman



Why the huge difference in utility fees between a two bedroom at Morrits and a 2 bedroom at the Reef? 

An owner at the Reef who uses their unit, including maintenance and utilites, pays almost $1300 a year? 

I've been to GC twice, very nice island, but I wouldnt trade in to the Reef having to pay an additional $270. JMO.

The vast majority of timeshares have utility charges as part of the maintenance fees. Charging exchangers for utilities seems to be a way to subsidize the owners at the expense of exchangers. I could even see a small charge, but $270 per week seems excessive to me.


----------



## caddie

If they made the electric fees part of the MFs in Cayman, those already high MFs would be even higher. Why? Because people would treat their units like many do at a hotel, which is to say they don't conserve at all. Air would be on 68 degrees, lights would be on all the time, windows open. At Morritts, by charging for actual usage, owners especially are very aware of the thermostat setting. While it might not seem fair to an exchanger to have to pay extra, it doesn't seem fair to an owner to have to pay for an exchanger's electric bills, either. And utilities, as stated earlier, are extremely expensive threre.


----------



## ralphd

TomCayman said:
			
		

> And just for info at The Reef mtce fees for 2007 are :
> 
> 2BD $995
> 1BD $650
> STU $450
> 
> ie roughly on par with Morritts for STU and 1BD units, but our STU and 1BD units are lockoffs and go together to make a 2BD unit, so we charge roughly 10% for those individual parts than the 2BD unit.
> 
> I have no idea why Morritts only charge $805 for a 2BD (sleeps 6, I assume) when they charge $525 for a Studio (sleeps 2), but their operation is different to ours both in size (much larger) and nature (eg specific units types for STU, 1BD and 2BD instead of lockoffs).
> 
> In general though, I think the comparison confirms how expensive it is to do business in Cayman



The Grands annual maintenance fees for 2007 are $865 for a two bedroom unit. That number is directly comparable to the Reefs two bedroom unit of $995. That is $130 more per year for a two bedroom unit plus you get a washer and dryer in each of the Grands one or two bedroom units.
The electric charge of $240 per week at the Reef adds about another $120 to the tab, for a total difference of $250 per week apples to apples. 
A two bedroom compares to a two bedroom, not a studio plus a one bedroom.


----------



## johnmfaeth

The maintenance fees at Morritts are roughly the same or lower than equivalent quality resorts on Aruba, St. Thomas, and St. Maarten. The entire Caribbean has gotten more expensive the last two years because of insurance, energy, and labor cost increases.

But it's like a MasterCard commercial "one week without the boss, clients, or workload - PRICELESS".


----------



## gmarine

caddie said:
			
		

> If they made the electric fees part of the MFs in Cayman, those already high MFs would be even higher. Why? Because people would treat their units like many do at a hotel, which is to say they don't conserve at all. Air would be on 68 degrees, lights would be on all the time, windows open. At Morritts, by charging for actual usage, owners especially are very aware of the thermostat setting. While it might not seem fair to an exchanger to have to pay extra, it doesn't seem fair to an owner to have to pay for an exchanger's electric bills, either. And utilities, as stated earlier, are extremely expensive threre.



Is it fair for an exchanger from a resort that has utility fees included in the maintenance fees to then pay utility fees again at a resort where they are extra? 


The vast majority of timeshare resorts include utilities in the m-fees. Owners pay for the electric bills etc of exchangers in the vast majority of timeshares. Whats next, charging exchangers seperate insurance costs or charging exchangers to use the pool ? 

Its not a vacation to me if I have to worry about how much my utility bill is.


----------



## ralphd

gmarine said:
			
		

> Is it fair for an exchanger from a resort that has utility fees included in the maintenance fees to then pay utility fees again at a resort where they are extra?
> 
> 
> The vast majority of timeshare resorts include utilities in the m-fees. Owners pay for the electric bills etc of exchangers in the vast majority of timeshares. Whats next, charging exchangers seperate insurance costs or charging exchangers to use the pool ?
> 
> Its not a vacation to me if I have to worry about how much my utility bill is.



Don't exchange into the Cayman Islands and you will not need to worry about the electric bill.


----------



## gmarine

ralphd said:
			
		

> Don't exchange into the Cayman Islands and you will not need to worry about the electric bill.



Been there, done that, twice. Nice but not my favorite. No need to go back.


----------



## philsfan

*Morritts utilities*

I just found our bill from our Feb stay in a 1 bdr, it was only $46 for utilities.


----------



## gmarine

philsfan said:
			
		

> I just found our bill from our Feb stay in a 1 bdr, it was only $46 for utilities.



Thats not bad at all. I dont see anything wrong with a charge like that.


----------



## Larry

I also just returned from Morritts Grand ( First week in December) and paid around $100 for a 2BR unit.


----------



## Carolinian

The best way to deal with a resort with inappropriate fees is to pop them with ''1's'' in appropriate categories on the exchange company comment cards.  An owner in Sint Maarten posted on the old TUG board that their resort had backed off of socking exchangers with utility bills because it was hurting their comment card scores.  Make them feel some pain in return when they engage in these practices, and sometimes it will make them see the light!


----------



## stevedmatt

I will be at Morritts Grand in June. I personally have no problem with the utility charge. If I did, I wouldn't have booked the exchange. If this exchange would have you worrying about the special charge, then don't book it. Also, if you are worrying about a $100 charge in Grand Caymen, you probably won't enjoy the island, unless you only lay on the beach and don't eat or drink for the whole week.

Frankly, I like the idea. It's just the way the resort is set up. I don't feel the need to go as far as Carolinian (although I usually like his ideas). It's not the resorts problem to worry about exchangers, it IS however their problem to worry about their owners. If I was an owner, I would definitely appreciate the way their system is set up.


----------



## gmarine

stevedmatt said:
			
		

> I will be at Morritts Grand in June. I personally have no problem with the utility charge. If I did, I wouldn't have booked the exchange. If this exchange would have you worrying about the special charge, then don't book it. Also, if you are worrying about a $100 charge in Grand Caymen, you probably won't enjoy the island, unless you only lay on the beach and don't eat or drink for the whole week.
> 
> Frankly, I like the idea. It's just the way the resort is set up. I don't feel the need to go as far as Carolinian (although I usually like his ideas). It's not the resorts problem to worry about exchangers, it IS however their problem to worry about their owners. If I was an owner, I would definitely appreciate the way their system is set up.



Actually the resort should worry about exchangers. Bad evaluations from exchangers can result in lower trading power for owners. 

Its not really the point of the money. Its the point that any resort that charges utility fees to exchangers is basically keeping maintenance fees artificially low by passing part of the expense onto exchangers. If an owner cant afford the maintenance fee that includes all expenses then they shouldnt own on that island.

Exchangers are paying utility fees twice. At their home resort and then again during the exchange.


----------



## Carolinian

. . . and Morritts owners who exchange do not pay them AT ALL, not at their home resort, and not when they exchange!  I wish there was a practical way for other resorts to single out exchangers from places like Morritts for their own special add-on fees.


----------



## ralphd

Carolinian said:
			
		

> . . . and Morritts owners who exchange do not pay them AT ALL, not at their home resort, and not when they exchange!  I wish there was a practical way for other resorts to single out exchangers from places like Morritts for their own special add-on fees.



How about other 'owner only' benefits provided by many resorts?


----------



## Cat

And let's not forget the per-night tax. It used to be $10/day (don't know if it's still the same or has changed) so that's another $70 per week (unless it has changed) added on, as well as the electricity charge. I think they're getting absurd. There are lots of lovely places to vacation that don't charge you a significant fee, on top of your own maintenance fee and exchange fee.

Hawaii is a much prettier destination, and electrical charges are through the roof. Yet, we've never been charged extra for it. If resorts on GC continue to add more and more to the tab, their owners are going to see drastically reduced exchange power, which is fine. Since they are all so quick to defend it, let them pay the fees.


----------



## Caladezi

Cat said:


> And let's not forget the per-night tax. It used to be $10/day (don't know if it's still the same or has changed) so that's another $70 per week (unless it has changed) added on, as well as the electricity charge. I think they're getting absurd. There are lots of lovely places to vacation that don't charge you a significant fee, on top of your own maintenance fee and exchange fee.
> 
> Hawaii is a much prettier destination, and electrical charges are through the roof. Yet, we've never been charged extra for it. If resorts on GC continue to add more and more to the tab, their owners are going to see drastically reduced exchange power, which is fine. Since they are all so quick to defend it, let them pay the fees.



December 21, 2006, 08:06 PM    #19  
ralphd 
TUG Member

Don't exchange into the Cayman Islands and you will not need to worry about the electric bill.

This quote answers you concerns best.  Yes, Cayman is an expensive island and is not for everyone.  None of the timeshares were happy about the $10/night tax that the government imposed but there was no changing it.  Everything is more expensive in Cayman and those not willing to spend the required extra money should not go.  As for trading power, Grand Cayman is in very high demand and will continue that way.  The only reason for the decrease in ratings is due to the continued rebuilding process from hurricane Ivan.   I hope that you have a great time on another island.


----------



## gmarine

Caladezi said:


> December 21, 2006, 08:06 PM    #19
> ralphd
> TUG Member
> 
> Don't exchange into the Cayman Islands and you will not need to worry about the electric bill.
> 
> This quote answers you concerns best.  Yes, Cayman is an expensive island and is not for everyone.  None of the timeshares were happy about the $10/night tax that the government imposed but there was no changing it.  Everything is more expensive in Cayman and those not willing to spend the required extra money should not go.  As for trading power, Grand Cayman is in very high demand and will continue that way.  The only reason for the decrease in ratings is due to the continued rebuilding process from hurricane Ivan.   I hope that you have a great time on another island.




The caribbean in general is expensive. There is no reason to charge exchangers utilities fees other than pretending to keep maintenance fees lower than they really are.

The Bahamas,Antigua,Aruba, etc are all very expensive yet timeshares on these islands dont charge exchangers for utility fees in order to make maintenance fees seem more reasonable. 

A small charge for utilities etc is one thing. The $285 that The Reef charges is excessive. 

If you think that continued increases in utility bills that get passed onto exchangers wont harm trade power, your kidding yourself.


----------



## Carolinian

Utilities is one of the basic essentials, not a special member benefit!

It's sorta like if they provided a door to the units occupied by owners, but charged an exchanger extra for one.




ralphd said:


> How about other 'owner only' benefits provided by many resorts?


----------



## Carolinian

When I was on Grand Cayman, I was told that the reason for the tourist tax was to avoid a general ad valorem property tax (or maybe it was an increase).
In any event, it is a subsitute for an ad valorem property tax, and thus for timeshare purposes, should be treated exactly the same way - paid by the depositor of the week (or for him/her by the resort), not by the exchanger.

I pay the taxes on the units I deposit for exchange, and I do NOT expect to pay them again at the resort I exchange into. Whether it is an ad valorem tax or a substitute tourist tax really makes no difference.  If I do, I burn the resort with ''1's'' on my exchange company report card.  If we all did this, we would barbeque their trading power and force them to play by the same rules as everyone else.



Caladezi said:


> December 21, 2006, 08:06 PM    #19
> ralphd
> TUG Member
> 
> Don't exchange into the Cayman Islands and you will not need to worry about the electric bill.
> 
> This quote answers you concerns best.  Yes, Cayman is an expensive island and is not for everyone.  None of the timeshares were happy about the $10/night tax that the government imposed but there was no changing it.  Everything is more expensive in Cayman and those not willing to spend the required extra money should not go.  As for trading power, Grand Cayman is in very high demand and will continue that way.  The only reason for the decrease in ratings is due to the continued rebuilding process from hurricane Ivan.   I hope that you have a great time on another island.


----------



## KevinRS

*Ratings*

This topic came up a year or so ago, and I saw the note about exchangers giving low rankings to punish the resort.  Because of that, I have not deposited any of the three of the Reef weeks I own with II, Instead I just rent them through the resort, where they rent them out for over $400 per night.  I have to pay the utility fee, not the renters, but I still come out ahead.  

The more expensive the fee for the owners, it just means they will be less apt to bank them with the exchange companies.  Both sides are looking for a fair exchange, so if the whole unitility fees were added into the maintenance fee, then a $1300 maint + elec fee, and a $150 exchange fee then very very few people would ever deposit the week, and exchangers would never even get the chance to trade into the resort in the frist place.

so if you don't want to pay the additional fees, then don't exchange for the week....


----------



## johnmfaeth

Couple of items,

1) The reef fees are excess, Morritts is not - please do not lump them together.

2) Resorts on Aruba, St. Thomas, and St. Maarten often charge surcharges for energy, some as high as 18%.

3) Energy is VERY expensive through the Caribbean.

Let's be frank, Grand Cayman is a nice friendly island (been to Jamaica recently?) The Morritts Properties are 4 and 5 star and get great reviews, temporary condtions aside.

So a two bedroom unit is $805 plus $100 for energy. $905 is gouging for a two story three bath unit at a 4 star resort? Go visit a travel agent!

Just because you only want to pay Chevy prices doesn't make the Caddy less good.


----------



## gmarine

johnmfaeth said:


> Couple of items,
> 
> 1) The reef fees are excess, Morritts is not - please do not lump them together.
> 
> 2) Resorts on Aruba, St. Thomas, and St. Maarten often charge surcharges for energy, some as high as 18%.
> 
> 3) Energy is VERY expensive through the Caribbean.
> 
> Let's be frank, Grand Cayman is a nice friendly island (been to Jamaica recently?) The Morritts Properties are 4 and 5 star and get great reviews, temporary condtions aside.
> 
> So a two bedroom unit is $805 plus $100 for energy. $905 is gouging for a two story three bath unit at a 4 star resort? Go visit a travel agent!
> 
> Just because you only want to pay Chevy prices doesn't make the Caddy less good.




Is it true that only exchangers pay the extra fees at Morritt's?


----------



## caddie

Carolinian said:


> . . . and Morritts owners who exchange do not pay them AT ALL, not at their home resort, and not when they exchange!  I wish there was a practical way for other resorts to single out exchangers from places like Morritts for their own special add-on fees.



This is not true. Morritt's owners DO pay electric charges, based on their own personal usage. I do not see this as a way to keep MFs artifically low. If you ask me, they are quite high. But this keeps them from being even higher. If they simply divided up the electric charges, it would be astronomical because those who are not owners -- and frankly, who do not care -- would have no incentive to "watch the thermostat.'' Even owners would have little incentive, as they would feel the need to get their money's worth. This gets everybody in the habit of conserving, which unfortunately, is necessary in Cayman. Having been an owner there for many years, this is one aspect I appreciate. Our electric charges in a two-bedroom are typically in the $100 range.


----------



## Caladezi

*Just Don't Go There*

Seriously folks, if you have that many problems with paying the required fees or enjoying what is probably the best and safest island, then just don't go there.  Grand Cayman has the highest percentage of owners who are not interested in trading to your resort.  We do not buy our weeks to exchange them into other places.  Most GC owners go to GC.  Aruba, St. Thomas, and Orlando are all great places, but they are not Grand Cayman.  If you want to exchange into Grand Cayman, and are lucky enough to get a week, and can afford the island, then go and enjoy.  However, if you are worried about nickles and dimes, then check another island.


----------



## ralphd

Cat said:


> And let's not forget the per-night tax. It used to be $10/day (don't know if it's still the same or has changed) so that's another $70 per week (unless it has changed) added on, as well as the electricity charge. I think they're getting absurd. There are lots of lovely places to vacation that don't charge you a significant fee, on top of your own maintenance fee and exchange fee.
> 
> Hawaii is a much prettier destination, and electrical charges are through the roof. Yet, we've never been charged extra for it. If resorts on GC continue to add more and more to the tab, their owners are going to see drastically reduced exchange power, which is fine. Since they are all so quick to defend it, let them pay the fees.



Many Mexican resorts make the exchanger pay the extra tax.

If you do not want to pay the Cayman fees, don't exchange to the islands.


----------



## gmarine

Actually Aruba has the highest percentage of repeat visitors in the caribbean. 
I dont find GC anymore expensive than Paradise Island, Aruba or most of the caribbean. 
I think the reason for the extra fees on GC is that too many owners cant afford the maintenance fees so the resorts try to pass along some of the costs to exchangers rather than listen to owners complain.

I choose not to go to a resort that charges fees to owners when they are the responsibility of owners. 
Even Atlantis, which has maintenance fees of approx $2000, doesnt charge exchangers any extra fees.


----------



## caribbeansun

I've been an owner at The Reef for many years and now own a full-ownership unit at Castaway Cove.  It's pretty simple - you get what you pay for.  In all those years of owing multiple weeks at The Reef I exchanged a studio once for my sister to use and rented the 1BR side out to cover ALL the mf's AND the utility fees.  

Other than that one unusual occassion we either used the weeks or rented them for much more than the mf's and utility fees and trading wasn't an economically viable alternative since most of what's available through II is junk these days anyway.  

We avoided the whole exchanging BS by renting what we wanted with the money from renting our Reef week(s) - apologies to those that think exchanging is the best end game but with higher end resorts that doesn't seem to be the case IMO.

As to those raising objections about paying fees when exchanging into a unit - well, sorry but that's the deal - if you don't like it don't go.  You won't really need to worry about that at The Reef anyway since they very, very rarely show up on-line as available for exchange and indeed they get snapped up pretty darn quick when they do.

FYI, GC is not the only island charging TS owners for using weeks - SXM charges $50 - what about airports that charge departure taxes etc, etc. - taxes can be found in any number of places. 

Specifically on the claim of the TS tax being a form of property tax in GC - kinda hard to justify since they don't have property taxes on GC.  I personally don't know the exact justification for the charge.


----------



## Caladezi

gmarine said:


> Actually Aruba has the highest percentage of repeat visitors in the caribbean.
> I dont find GC anymore expensive than Paradise Island, Aruba or most of the caribbean.
> I think the reason for the extra fees on GC is that too many owners cant afford the maintenance fees so the resorts try to pass along some of the costs to exchangers rather than listen to owners complain.
> 
> I choose not to go to a resort that charges fees to owners when they are the responsibility of owners.
> Even Atlantis, which has maintenance fees of approx $2000, doesnt charge exchangers any extra fees.


_(Insult deleted)_  I have been to all of those places and many others all around the world.  Most owners on Grand Cayman could well afford to buy in Aruba, Paradise Island or anywhere else.  _Deleted text. Insulting generalizations, stereotypes and racist comments are prohibited._

Soooo, once again, if you can't cut it---STAY AWAY.


----------



## Carolinian

Morritts is NOT that difficult to exchange into.  If you want difficult, try St. Johns!

As to going back, I have been to many Caribbean islands, and while Grand Cayman is indeed nice it is NOT at the top of my list to go back.




Caladezi said:


> Seriously folks, if you have that many problems with paying the required fees or enjoying what is probably the best and safest island, then just don't go there.  Grand Cayman has the highest percentage of owners who are not interested in trading to your resort.  We do not buy our weeks to exchange them into other places.  Most GC owners go to GC.  Aruba, St. Thomas, and Orlando are all great places, but they are not Grand Cayman.  If you want to exchange into Grand Cayman, and are lucky enough to get a week, and can afford the island, then go and enjoy.  However, if you are worried about nickles and dimes, then check another island.


----------



## GreatGarloo

Came back from Morritts Tortuga Club Dec. 14 after two weeks, first week in a one bedroom poolside and the second week in a different one bedroom poolside,each utility charge was about the same $55 or so, give or take a dollar.

We used the the airconditioning all the time - never turned it off but kept it up to about 78/80 during the day because we were out most of the time.
At night it was down to about 75.

We cooked breakfast a few times and dinner twice.  We watched TV and I plugged in my lap top almost every day to charge and charged my camera batteries.

The electric went off in the whole resort one night for about 3 hours and I noticed that the clocks were blinking a few times in the morning which meant the electric went off while we were sleeping but not long enough that the lack of air conditioning woke us up.

Normally we stay at an ocean front (now under construction) and we open the patio doors and back windows and don't use the air.  But not all pool sides get the ocean breezes.

I didn't see separate air conditoning units at the Reef, Morritts has them for each unit on the side of the buildings.  The Reef might have central air for the whole resort (just a guess) maybe that is why there is a flat charge to everyone.


----------



## xujoe

My guess is that the reason that there is a utility charge is that it is one area where the individual using the unit has some discretion as to the use (just like the bar!).  As for the tax, while I do not like paying any tax, they are necessary for any services provided by the government.  You will find special taxes at most all travel destinations.  Look at your car rental receipt.  How about high sales tax states like Florida.


----------



## gmarine

Caladezi said:


> Again you do not know what you are talking about!!!  I have been to all of those places and many others all around the world.  Most owners on Grand Cayman could well afford to buy in Aruba, Paradise Island or anywhere else.  (Deleted segment of quoted post removed.)
> 
> Soooo, once again, if you can't cut it---STAY AWAY.



Obviously your resort feels the need to charge extra to exchangers to subsidize your maintenance fees so the reason for this must be that owners feel they cant afford the high maintenance fees. There is no other logical explanation to charge exchangers a utility fee. Especially a flat fee not based on actual usage. 

If you cant afford to pay your maintenance fees including all related expenses maybe you should own at a destination you can afford.


----------



## Noni

It is NOT a flat fee.  It is a fee for actual usage.  I, as an owner, prefer to pay the fee based on my family's usage.  We control the electricity actually used.  I like the control of that process.

JR


----------



## Caladezi

gmarine said:


> Obviously your resort feels the need to charge extra to exchangers to subsidize your maintenance fees so the reason for this must be that owners feel they cant afford the high maintenance fees. There is no other logical explanation to charge exchangers a utility fee. Especially a flat fee not based on actual usage.
> 
> If you cant afford to pay your maintenance fees including all related expenses maybe you should own at a destination you can afford.



_Personal insult deleted..._ Exchangers do not pay ANYTHING that owners staying at the resort do not pay.  It is not a flat fee as you state but rather one charged for actual usage.  The Reef is the resort with a flat fee.

As far as being able to afford the maintenance fees and all related expenses, I don't think that you even want to go there.


----------



## johnmfaeth

At one of my Wyndham resorts, the HOA has put in a 18% energy surcharge fee which is paid by those who traded Wyndham/Fairfield Points, exchanged through II, or rented through Wyndham's Extra Holidays site. Money goes into the HOA coffers which keeps maintenance fees down.

This resort has a tight owners association and a good Board.

Fixed and floating week owners pay no surcharge.

It's fair, why not make non-owners pay a little more? It's still a lot cheaper than anything equivalent on Expedia or elsewhere. 

I believe that non-owners probably do more wear and tear on a unit than those who own it. Not necessarily with intention, more indifference.

Perhaps Morritt's should be charging non-owners a little more to keep our share down too.


----------



## ralphd

Think this thread has worn itself out. 

Don't know whose figures are used to justify whether Aruba or Grand Cayman have the most repeat visitors, but according to the RCI deposits and Morritt's bookings, the resort has a very high owner usage percentage. A large portion of the RCI banking is developer owned units. 

Buy where you want to spend your vacations and don't criticize fellow Tuggers for their choice of vacation spots! The point has been made that some members do not like utility charges.


----------



## McFail

IMO (not humble considering the tone of the thread) charging utilities separately from the MFs violates the spirit of like-for-like equitable trading. I pay for mine as part of my fees, you should pay for yours. 

For what it is worth I have timeshares where the MF is significantly higher than those quoted for the resorts mentioned and have comparable utility charges included. 

Taxes levied by governments as an 'occupancy tax' are typically not handled separately and therfore I don't have a gripe about them. 

It's very possible I own at resorts where the average prevailing wage for labor is higher than GC. Maybe we ought to charge for that. 

Maybe I should just make someone pay my whole fee just for the right of visiting the hallowed grounds. 

C'mon, the ONLY argument that makes sense is trying to keep the bills down for conservation due to metering. The trouble is you are then dictating to a visitor how they want to spend their vacation. I am sure there are NO 4 or 5 star hotels in GC that charge guests separately from the room fee. 

Lastly, if the GC owners are depositing the weeks for exchange one can assume they are finding comparable exchanges. That being the case the other resorts must be just as nice as the GC ones or RCI/II wouldn't be getting any weeks. That would imply that the GC owners are then double dipping on the backs of the owners at resorts that do not follow this practice.


----------



## McFail

Generally Aruba touts itself as the island with the greatest percentage of people that come back. I think this is in reference to the general tourism population.


----------



## McFail

This is borderline theft. 



johnmfaeth said:


> At one of my Wyndham resorts, the HOA has put in a 18% energy surcharge fee which is paid by those who traded Wyndham/Fairfield Points, exchanged through II, or rented through Wyndham's Extra Holidays site. Money goes into the HOA coffers which keeps maintenance fees down.
> 
> This resort has a tight owners association and a good Board.
> 
> Fixed and floating week owners pay no surcharge.
> 
> It's fair, why not make non-owners pay a little more? It's still a lot cheaper than anything equivalent on Expedia or elsewhere.
> 
> I believe that non-owners probably do more wear and tear on a unit than those who own it. Not necessarily with intention, more indifference.
> 
> Perhaps Morritt's should be charging non-owners a little more to keep our share down too.


----------



## McFail

Elitists are not well tolerated around here. You may be able to get across your point in a more eloquent manner. 



Caladezi said:


> (Personal insult deleted)  I have been to all of those places and many others all around the world.  Most owners on Grand Cayman could well afford to buy in Aruba, Paradise Island or anywhere else.  (Insulting generalizations and racist comment deleted.)
> Soooo, once again, if you can't cut it---STAY AWAY.


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

I keep waiting for this thread to die a natural death, but it just keeps going on, and on, and on, and on..........

So, rather than my continuing to lurk, I've decided to throw in my two cents. Here are my comments about some of the statements made by posters in the thread. In fairness, I must state that I have been an owner at Morritt's for seven years.

1. Morritt's levies a fee to both owners and exchangers for the actual amount of electricity used. THIS IS A FACT.
2. Morritt's levies this fee because the owners can't afford the increase in maintenance fees that would be generated if they had to pay for electricity, OR because they want to generate some additional revenue. THESE ARE OPINIONS, UNSUBSTANTIATED BY FACTS.
3. Morritt's is the only resort that levies such fees. THIS IS INCORRECT. FIFTEEN MINUTES OF RESEARCH BY ME UNCOVERED A NUMBER OF RESORTS IN THE CARIBBEAN THAT BILL EXCHANGERS FOR ELECTRICAL USAGE.
4. The utility rates on Grand Cayman and the maintenance fees at Morritt's are significantly higher than most other places. WHO CARES? THAT'S IMMATERIAL TO THIS DISCUSSION.
5. The tourist tax was put in place to avoid an ad valorum tax. THIS IS OPINION AND/OR HEARSAY. HOTEL/MOTEL TAXES ARE COMMONPLACE. ALMOST EVERY CITY OF ANY SIZE, IN THE USA AND IN OTHER COUNTRIES, LEVIES SUCH TAXES.

I truly don't understand the passion that has been displayed in this thread, particularly by those posters who state that Grand Cayman is OK to visit, but there are, in their opinions, better places. If someone really feels that way, then my suggestion to them is to go to those better places, rather than expending energy in an attempt to change a policy at a resort in a location that they don't care to visit again.

Neither the utility surcharge nor the government tax at Morritt's should be a surprise. In its description of the resort, RCI clearly states that these charges will be levied. I can't for the life of me figure out why someone would exchange into a resort if any policy of the resort upsets them that much.

As for dinging resorts with 1's in the survey because they levy these charges, that's too ludicrous for me to even consider. I might accept that as a remedy if information on such charges wasn't made available to the exchangers until they arrived at the resort, but this isn't the case. Granted, many exchangers don't do their due diligence and they do get surprised. Is this the resort's fault? Not hardly.

I've taken a considerable amount of space to say what could have been said in these few sentences. We all have freedom of choice. My (our) vacation time is too valuable to squander it on a resort where I (we) won't be totally happy. If I'm (we're) really upset by ANY policy of ANY resort, then that resort shouldn't be on my (our) list of resorts to be considered for a trade. And, I (we) should stick to influencing the policies of my (our) own resorts, and refrain from telling others how their resorts should be run.


----------



## Carolinian

I have a suggestion on how a resort should operate, if the info was availible.
When an exchanger comes in, check and see what extra fees his home resort charges exchangers.  If it is none, then he pays none.  If it is a utility fee, then he is billed for the average utility cost of the resort.  If it is taxes, he pays the pro rata share of taxes, and so on.  A policy of reciprocity would put an end to this nonsense of extra fees.


----------



## J9sling

*No government interference please!*



Carolinian said:


> I have a suggestion on how a resort should operate, if the info was availible.
> When an exchanger comes in, check and see what extra fees his home resort charges exchangers.  If it is none, then he pays none.  If it is a utility fee, then he is billed for the average utility cost of the resort.  If it is taxes, he pays the pro rata share of taxes, and so on.  A policy of reciprocity would put an end to this nonsense of extra fees.



As with any capitalist situation, let the market dictate what a resort can get away with.  If a resort charges extra fees and the owners have no problem with it then so be it!  My parents own at the Reef and use their weeks every year and would never think of exchanging.  They don't really care how an exchanger would view these fees...why would they...they don't exchange!  I have heard many owners use their own units each year.  

So...why would the owners care to change the current policy if it is satisfactory to them?

I think what it comes down to is, as one poster expressed, do your due diligence when exchanging like a good consumer should.  Grand Cayman is NOT for the budget traveler.

What I do think is especially funny on this thread is that the complainers are the ones who don't own at a GC resort.  Is there even one single GC resort owner on this thread who has complained...I don't think so...that speaks volumes!


----------



## jerseygirl

J9sling said:


> What I do think is especially funny on this thread is that the complainers are the ones who don't own at a GC resort.  Is there even one single GC resort owner on this thread who has complained...I don't think so...that speaks volumes!



Why would they complain about letting others pay their utility fees?  Of course they're not complaining!!


----------



## Carolinian

Exactly.  This policy at resorts like those on GC allow their owners who exchange to freeload at other resorts, never paying utility fees anywhere! I just don't see why anyone, except perhaps an owner there who benefits, would defend these freeloading policies.

How is it equitable that some timesharers end up paying for utilities twice and others not at all???????????


----------



## escargot

Carolinian said:


> Exactly.  This policy at resorts like those on GC allow their owners who exchange to freeload at other resorts, never paying utility fees anywhere! I just don't see why anyone, except perhaps an owner there who benefits, would defend these freeloading policies.
> 
> How is it equitable that some timesharers end up paying for utilities twice and others not at all???????????



Just a clarification.  Owners at Morritt's Tortuga Club and The Grand DO pay utilities for the week (s) that we occupy a unit... same as any exchanger that visits or any renter that stays there.


----------



## McFail

Budget travelers? 

How about Marriott Aruba, Waiohai, Maui Ocean Club, Ko Olina and a few other Gold Crown RCI resorts. Most of which have MFs north (and well north)  of 1k. 

The presumption is that we work hard for our money and don't like others taking it out of our pocket. Why should a GC owner complain if they get to save a few bucks on my back? That's what speaks volumes. 

I'd like a GC owner to step up here and state that they would feel dissapointed and cheated if they didn't have to pay extra for this on a trade to another place. 

It doesn't even matter if we want to go to GC because somebody from GC could possibly be using our week if we gave it up for trade.  It is a principle thing.

I am in full support of those that want to ding the resort in satisfaction because of the charges. 



J9sling said:


> As with any capitalist situation, let the market dictate what a resort can get away with.  If a resort charges extra fees and the owners have no problem with it then so be it!  My parents own at the Reef and use their weeks every year and would never think of exchanging.  They don't really care how an exchanger would view these fees...why would they...they don't exchange!  I have heard many owners use their own units each year.
> 
> So...why would the owners care to change the current policy if it is satisfactory to them?
> 
> I think what it comes down to is, as one poster expressed, do your due diligence when exchanging like a good consumer should.  Grand Cayman is NOT for the budget traveler.
> 
> What I do think is especially funny on this thread is that the complainers are the ones who don't own at a GC resort.  Is there even one single GC resort owner on this thread who has complained...I don't think so...that speaks volumes!


----------



## ralphd

Northern Willy said:


> Budget travelers?
> 
> How about Marriott Aruba, Waiohai, Maui Ocean Club, Ko Olina and a few other Gold Crown RCI resorts. Most of which have MFs north (and well north)  of 1k.
> 
> The presumption is that we work hard for our money and don't like others taking it out of our pocket. Why should a GC owner complain if they get to save a few bucks on my back? That's what speaks volumes.
> 
> I'd like a GC owner to step up here and state that they would feel dissapointed and cheated if they didn't have to pay extra for this on a trade to another place.
> 
> It doesn't even matter if we want to go to GC because somebody from GC could possibly be using our week if we gave it up for trade.  It is a principle thing.
> 
> I am in full support of those that want to ding the resort in satisfaction because of the charges.




Are you advocating not answering the resort comment card honestly?


----------



## Cat

escargot said:


> Just a clarification.  Owners at Morritt's Tortuga Club and The Grand DO pay utilities for the week (s) that we occupy a unit... same as any exchanger that visits or any renter that stays there.



I believe that you may have missed the point of the post you quoted. The poster was saying that when a GC owner _trades to a resort that includes utilities_, as is the case with most timeshares, that the GC owner gets away without paying utilities at all, whereas the poor owner of time at a resort where he has already paid utilities in his maintenance fee gets socked twice, which the poster points out is not an equitable situation.

No one contested that GC owners do not pay utilities when they use their own weeks.


----------



## johnmfaeth

Hi all,

Yes, I am a MTC owner...confessions first  

1) Since everyone pays for the actual energy they use, no one makes anything off of anyone else's back. 

2) Billing energy separately is a "green" policy that started in Europe and now "invaded" the Caribbean. It is the ultimate fairness especially for most who do conserve. Those that want to be energy hogs, can do so but they pay, not other owners. But it encourages awareness and thereby conservation.

3) As to "dinging" one resort when hundreds do the exact same thing (including all Divi's, most caribbean Wyndhams, and MANY other) is not very fair to the folks who pay a lot of MF's to keep a place nice and rebuild it after hurricane Ivan's impact in late 2004. Do all know that oceanfront owners pay their MF's but only get banked weeks because they have no room rebuilt yet? This was the case in 2005 and 2006 and will be again in 2007. 

4) I've never seen a MTC owner dressed in all black with a pitchfork and horns. Really are a pretty good bunch and a representative cross section of our great society.

5) I fully agree with the poster that (paraphrasing here) that as long as information is fully disclosed, let free markets and capitalism sort things out. This is what made America great.

6) The poster who argued that the Atlantis does not charge for energy separately from the $2000+ maintenance was a little self defeating. Add the $805 and the $100 energy and the "real" maintenance is just $905. A pizza cut into 6 slices is as much food as one cut into 8 slices. $2,000 is a LOT of pizza  

7) Things we should be focusing on as the real problems....

I feel that the biggest negative about Morritts is the fact that they still sell developer timeshares and they are at crazy prices like every other resort. They rip off the little guy every day. 

Most folks don't know of the resale market and it's rarely covered by those travel magazines which should discuss timeshares and their markets MUCH more. Why? They dare not risk hotel and timeshare developers (like Marriott) advertising dollars.

And lets keep it civil...that's just respect....


----------



## McFail

Actually I am advocating brutal honesty. I am sure there is a section on overall satisfaction. If people are dissatisfied about having to pay an electric bill then they should take that into account. If it doesn't matter then they shouldn't. If they like it then they should note that they do. 



ralphd said:


> Are you advocating not answering the resort comment card honestly?


----------



## McFail

My commnents in blue...


Yes, I am a MTC owner...confessions first  

1) Since everyone pays for the actual energy they use, no one makes anything off of anyone else's back. 

I don't understand how you could feel that way _if_ you trade your week and then use a week that does not have a reciprocal policy. Somebody would potentially be paying twice for power while you do not pay anything. 


2) Billing energy separately is a "green" policy that started in Europe and now "invaded" the Caribbean. It is the ultimate fairness especially for most who do conserve. Those that want to be energy hogs, can do so but they pay, not other owners. But it encourages awareness and thereby conservation.

My experience with Green Energy is that any conservation other than saving money is rarely the primary concern. 


3) As to "dinging" one resort when hundreds do the exact same thing (including all Divi's, most caribbean Wyndhams, and MANY other) is not very fair to the folks who pay a lot of MF's to keep a place nice and rebuild it after hurricane Ivan's impact in late 2004. Do all know that oceanfront owners pay their MF's but only get banked weeks because they have no room rebuilt yet? This was the case in 2005 and 2006 and will be again in 2007. 

I basically replied to this in another post. My feeling is ding one then ding 'em all. There could be universal praise as well. 

4) I've never seen a MTC owner dressed in all black with a pitchfork and horns. Really are a pretty good bunch and a representative cross section of our great society.

5) I fully agree with the poster that (paraphrasing here) that as long as information is fully disclosed, let free markets and capitalism sort things out. This is what made America great.

Free markets and capitalism allow criticism as well as praise. The comment cards allow feedback to fix problems as well as indicate what is working well. 

6) The poster who argued that the Atlantis does not charge for energy separately from the $2000+ maintenance was a little self defeating. Add the $805 and the $100 energy and the "real" maintenance is just $905. A pizza cut into 6 slices is as much food as one cut into 8 slices. $2,000 is a LOT of pizza  

The trouble is some pay for 8 pieces and get 7 while others pay for 7 and get nine. 

7) Things we should be focusing on as the real problems....

I feel that the biggest negative about Morritts is the fact that they still sell developer timeshares and they are at crazy prices like every other resort. They rip off the little guy every day. 

Most folks don't know of the resale market and it's rarely covered by those travel magazines which should discuss timeshares and their markets MUCH more. Why? They dare not risk hotel and timeshare developers (like Marriott) advertising dollars.

And lets keep it civil...that's just respect....[/QUOTE]


----------



## johnmfaeth

Hi Northern,

But if the Energy Fee is clearly disclosed, then less people will want that trade (look at Mexican and DR mandatory all inclusives as a classic example) and then the Morritt's owner will get less "trading power". Thereby compensating owners at resorts which include this in MF's.

Free markets seek equilibrium - Adam Smith "The Wealth of Nations" 

John


----------



## McFail

Hi John,

I am not sure that it is readily shown. From what I can tell with RCI there is no statement of that in the directory. My guess is that I would find out when I got a confirmation and that is too late in my opinion. 

If it's in plain view then you get to make a choice. That's fair trading with all cards on the table. 

NW


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

Carolinian said:


> Exactly. This policy at resorts like those on GC allow their owners who exchange to freeload at other resorts, never paying utility fees anywhere! I just don't see why anyone, except perhaps an owner there who benefits, would defend these freeloading policies.
> 
> How is it equitable that some timesharers end up paying for utilities twice and others not at all???????????


 
I'm not defending the policy. I'm just saying that if the policy bothers someone that much, then they should trade into other resorts that don't have the same policy. However, as another poster pointed out, many other resorts do charge for utilities. Rather than having Morritt's and these other resorts include utility charges in their maintenance fees, wouldn't it just as easy to have all resorts charge for actual electrical usage? That seems to be the most equitable to me. Everyone pays only once and the folks who waste electricity pay for that waste.


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

Northern Willy said:


> Hi John,
> 
> I am not sure that it is readily shown. From what I can tell with RCI there is no statement of that in the directory. My guess is that I would find out when I got a confirmation and that is too late in my opinion.
> 
> If it's in plain view then you get to make a choice. That's fair trading with all cards on the table.
> 
> NW


 
Your argument is valid and I'm in total agreement. Contrary to my earlier post, during a review of the RCI and Morritt's web sites, I found no mention of the utilities surcharge, nor of the $10 per day (Actually $12.50 USD) timeshare tax. I also reviewed my RCI confirmation, which I received the one time I used another RCI week to trade into Morritt's, and that's where I found the information about the utilities surcharge. Discovering this information when one receives the confirmation notice from RCI is clearly too late. In fairness to traders and owners, this information should be disclosed on the RCI and Morrit's web sites and in the RCI Directory.


----------



## ladycody

> Since everyone pays for the actual energy they use, no one makes anything off of anyone else's back.



Not true...if you exchange out of your resort and stay in mine...you pay for _no _utilities, anywhere, at any point, during your vacation.  Meanwhile...I pay mine _and _yours when I stay at your resort. No offense...but that's hardly fair....although I can see why it would appeal to you as an owner at Morritts...esp if you exchange at all. 

Now...realistically, I agree with Willy and Rod above.  If exchangers are _forwarned_ of these charges and still _choose_ to exchange there...that's one thing.  The problem is that I cant find anywhere that notifies exchangers that they'll be hit with these additional fees...regardless of how diligent they may be in searching the exchange company and resort websites for such info.


----------



## philsfan

*It is available before you exchange on RCI*

It's listed in the urgent information when you click on Available Units for the Morritts resorts:


Morritt's Tortuga Club  (#2082) 
P.O. Box 496
East End Grand Cayman  Cayman Islands 
345/947-7449 
www.morritts.com 



Unit Options Select  Unit Type  Max Occ/Privacy  Kitchen  Check-in Date  Check-out Date  
  Studio  2 / 2  Mini  09/02/2007  09/09/2007  
  1 Bedroom  4 / 4  Full  09/14/2007  09/21/2007  
  1 Bedroom  4 / 4  Full  09/16/2007  09/23/2007  


Urgent Information 
GOVT. TAX OF $10 UNIT/NIGHT. SECURITY DEPOSIT OF $US 500 CASH OR CREDIT CARD IMPRINT. UTILITY SURCHARGE IS DUE AT CHECK OUT. 1BD UNITS ARE US$40-60/WEEK AND 2BD UNITS ARE $90-$110 PER WEEK BASED ON USAGE. 1/4 YEAR RULE IS STRICTLY EXGRENFORCED TO REGULAR S INTERNAL WAIVED TO 5930 OR 2082. THERE IS CONSTRUCTION ON-SITE AND SOME AMENITEIES ARE LIMI- TED INCLUDING THE ON-SITE RESTAURANT AND DOCK. CAR RENTAL IS RECOMMENDED TO FULLY ENJOY THE ISLAND. CONFIRMATIONS MADE IN ERROR/THAT VIOLATE THE 1/4 YEAR RULE WILL BE CANCELLED BY RESORT.RST IS UNABLE TO ACCOMODATE RE QUESTS FOR UNIT UPGRADES. RST HAS 3 LEVELS NO ELEVATOR.


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

philsfan said:


> It's listed in the urgent information when you click on Available Units for the Morritts resorts:
> 
> 
> Morritt's Tortuga Club (#2082)
> P.O. Box 496
> East End Grand Cayman Cayman Islands
> 345/947-7449
> www.morritts.com
> 
> 
> 
> Unit Options Select Unit Type Max Occ/Privacy Kitchen Check-in Date Check-out Date
> Studio 2 / 2 Mini 09/02/2007 09/09/2007
> 1 Bedroom 4 / 4 Full 09/14/2007 09/21/2007
> 1 Bedroom 4 / 4 Full 09/16/2007 09/23/2007
> 
> 
> Urgent Information
> GOVT. TAX OF $10 UNIT/NIGHT. SECURITY DEPOSIT OF $US 500 CASH OR CREDIT CARD IMPRINT. UTILITY SURCHARGE IS DUE AT CHECK OUT. 1BD UNITS ARE US$40-60/WEEK AND 2BD UNITS ARE $90-$110 PER WEEK BASED ON USAGE. 1/4 YEAR RULE IS STRICTLY EXGRENFORCED TO REGULAR S INTERNAL WAIVED TO 5930 OR 2082. THERE IS CONSTRUCTION ON-SITE AND SOME AMENITEIES ARE LIMI- TED INCLUDING THE ON-SITE RESTAURANT AND DOCK. CAR RENTAL IS RECOMMENDED TO FULLY ENJOY THE ISLAND. CONFIRMATIONS MADE IN ERROR/THAT VIOLATE THE 1/4 YEAR RULE WILL BE CANCELLED BY RESORT.RST IS UNABLE TO ACCOMODATE RE QUESTS FOR UNIT UPGRADES. RST HAS 3 LEVELS NO ELEVATOR.


 
Wow!! Great researching skills <smile>. Thanks for the info. Now, the question of the moment is whether RCI passes out that information when exchanges are made by telephone.


----------



## ladycody

> Now, the question of the moment is whether RCI passes out that information when exchanges are made by telephone.



Which, for many WM owners anyway...is the way most exchanges are made.  Because of the way most of our exchanges (called confirm first) are handled...we do not see available units online but deal with RCI on the phone.  To have the info available for _all_ exchangers...the info needs to be on the resort page...listed in the same way the all-inclusive requirements are if surprises are to be avoided.


----------



## Laurie

Carolinian said:


> Exactly.  This policy at resorts like those on GC allow their owners who exchange to freeload at other resorts, never paying utility fees anywhere! I just don't see why anyone, except perhaps an owner there who benefits, would defend these freeloading policies.
> 
> How is it equitable that some timesharers end up paying for utilities twice and others not at all???????????


The majority of European resorts I've traded into do charge for utilities; I've come to expect it, and I'm pleasantly surprised when they don't. But sometimes the ones that don't charge for utilities do charge for something else, such as linens. Usually utility charges there are lower than what Morritt's apparently charges, but this practice doesn't bother me, as long as I know about it in advance. Looks like Morritts has free or low-cost wifi or internet too, whereas some charge very high fees for that. Some resorts charge outrageous amounts for 800 calls, etc. I might mention some of these things on comment cards, but I wouldn't skewer them on my ratings because this is just one factor out of many. And this would never be the overriding factor in deciding whether to accept or reject an exchange for me.


----------



## stevedmatt

This argument could go on forever. Again, I feel if you are made aware of this info and still make the exchange, it must not have bothered you that much. And again, I have no problem with the policy and will be going to MG in June. I will pay the fees with no regrets.

But tell me, why do I have to pay extra for daily maid service (if it is even available) when my home resort offers it for free?

Why doesn't the resort I traded into have a pool and jacuzzi when my home resort does?

Why does the resort I traded into charge for use of the lighted tennis courts, but that is also complimentary at my home resort.

Different resorts have different policies and different ammenities. As long as they are explained in print or on the phone before you agree to the trade, you should have no regrets. And if you don't like them, don't make the exchange.


----------



## Caladezi

ladycody said:


> Which, for many WM owners anyway...is the way most exchanges are made.  Because of the way most of our exchanges (called confirm first) are handled...we do not see available units online but deal with RCI on the phone.  To have the info available for _all_ exchangers...the info needs to be on the resort page...listed in the same way the all-inclusive requirements are if surprises are to be avoided.



It would seem to me that this is a problem that you have to take up with RCI, not ding Morritts for charging the fee.  Better yet, if you own in a resort that includes the electric/utility fees in your maintenance fee, just change your by-laws, reduce your maintenance fees, and charge the electric/utility fees for the actual use when you stay at the resort.  That way nobody gets a free ride and you will not pay for something that you don't use.


----------



## ralphd

ladycody said:


> Which, for many WM owners anyway...is the way most exchanges are made.  Because of the way most of our exchanges (called confirm first) are handled...we do not see available units online but deal with RCI on the phone.  To have the info available for _all_ exchangers...the info needs to be on the resort page...listed in the same way the all-inclusive requirements are if surprises are to be avoided.



RCI is supposed to inform the exchanger of any additional charges, conditions or inconveniences when you book the reservation. Are you saying from experience, that you made an exchange and they did not inform you of a charge?


----------



## ladycody

> But tell me, why do I have to pay extra for daily maid service (if it is even available) when my home resort offers it for free?
> 
> Why doesn't the resort I traded into have a pool and jacuzzi when my home resort does?
> 
> Why does the resort I traded into charge for use of the lighted tennis courts, but that is also complimentary at my home resort.
> 
> Different resorts have different policies and different ammenities.



I guess I just dont consider lights in my condo or heat or electricity, in general, to be an _amenity_.  I can even see charging to have AC turned on...since that is frequently a matter of comfort...not necessity.  

Some of my resorts offer year round heated pools...others do not.  Some offer fitness facilities...others do not.  They _all _include lights by which I can read a book and enough electricity to fry an egg or take a hot shower.   

Again...I would likely not trade into a resort that charges such high fees _simply_ because it's not in _my _budget..._and I'm ok with the fact that I cant afford it._  I just think I should be _notified_ of it and would be upset if it came as a surprise.  Since it is a mandatory fee generated by the resort itself, and is not standard throughout the TS community...my only point is that it should be listed on the resort page...just as the mandatory all-inclusive fees are.  If I cant use a particular pool or get maid service without paying a fee...that's fine...I still have a usable condo.  This particular fee makes check-in (and taking your vacation) a non-option unless you pay it...just as the mandatory all-inclusive fees do.


----------



## ladycody

> Are you saying from experience, that you made an exchange and they did not inform you of a charge?



No... I'm saying that I could conceivably put in a search and waste a ton of time waiting for a match to a property that I would likely not want to accept once I was made aware of the fees.  The same would happen if all-inclusive resorts werent listed as such in the resort descriptions.  Based on reviews and pictures alone...I might choose to try and get into one...only to find out when I got a match that it was all-inclusive.  

I have no problem _at all_ with Morritts (or anyone else for that matter)charging whatever they choose...I just hope the exchange companies add it into the resort info.  Truth be told...I wish they could let you know when a resort is in a TOT area as well.  I dont need to know specific dollar amounts...just that these fees will be presented to me should I choose to exchange there...ya know?  I can research, for myself,  just how high the fees might be once I know to expect them.


----------



## ladycody

The following is an example of what I dont want to have happen to me...(from another thread on utilities)


> Kahana Falls is charging an incredibly high fee for utilities, which we were notified after the exchange was final, by letter from RCI. The annoying part was the disclaimer that cancelling the exchange would still result in a loss of most of the exchange fee.


----------



## BocaBum99

This is a very interesting thread.  I support the side that believes the resort can do anything it wants as long as it's disclosed.  Exchangers will either accept the terms of the exchange or reject it. Forget whether or not the resort charges out utility charges or parking fees or occupancy taxes or whatever.   Heck, I would support a resorts right to simply charge a $500 fee to exchangers without describing what it's for.  Just call it maintenance fee offset or trade up prevention tax.

As long as exchangers know what it is and are willing to pay it, then they are getting charged for a fee that they knew upfront.  If they didn't like it, they don't have to make the exchange.  If that reduction in demand results in poor trading power for the owners, then they can vote to lower the charge or remove it entirely.

As alternate example, I think Disney should raise their $95 fee to exchangers to about $250.  I guarantee that people will still make the trades and there will be a negligible reduction in trading power or exchange volume.  DVC owners are getting hosed by trading down and their MFs are not being reduced accordingly because the fee is too low.

It is a completely bogus argument to claim that the resort I deposited included electricity, so yours must as well.  Using that line of logic, the other side could argue that they paid $1000 in maintenance fee and you only paid $500 so you should pay an extra $500 when you get there.   Costs do NOT matter in determining a fair exchange.  What matters is relative supply and demand and alternatives for acquiring the unit such as rentals.  The closest proxy for this value is average rental rates.  If my resort rents on average for $2500 per week and your only averages $1000, then you should pay $1500 when you show up.  Then, you can deduct out the extra fees like the utilities because then you are comparing apples to apples from a market point of view.


----------



## Caladezi

BocaBum
I agree 100% with what you say.  Great post.


----------



## ralphd

It can be argued that some RCI members do not want to book compulsory all inclusive resorts, but the all inclusive owner will book their resort. All inclusive resorts reduce the number of available resorts to members that do not want to use them. 
Why should I be forced to eat at the resort?


----------



## johnmfaeth

Boca Bum,

I agree 100% with your statements other than the DVC as I do not own there or know the particulars.

I think you have eloquated common ground that any Morritts Owner, such as myself, should be very happy with.

It's only fair that the bottom line be clearly shown by both RCI and II for ALL exchanges.

This helps the little guy and Morritt's owners are part of that definition as are all timeshare owners.

John Faeth


----------



## cindi

Boca, I agree with your comments as well. Except the Disney fee. I LOVE exchanging into there for only $95 extra.   

So, who thinks I should be able to cancel my exchange into Morritts without penalty, since I was NOT informed about the extra fees? 

I am still on the fence about that whole thing. I am not independently wealthy, and that additional amount for utilities and per night stay really add up. Added in the huge extra cost of flights (not saying that is the fault of the resort ...     ) I could get two trips instead of the one at Morritts.


----------



## johnmfaeth

Hi Cindy,

I empathize with your position an extra $100 can break the camel's back. Just wanted to add that the reviews for Morritts are extremely good, even post-Ivan. When you factor in the quality, it is still a great deal.

But one has to live within one's budget or marry a rich kid 

John Faeth


----------



## lawren2

cindi said:


> Boca, I agree with your comments as well. Except the Disney fee. I LOVE exchanging into there for only $95 extra.
> 
> *So, who thinks I should be able to cancel my exchange into Morritts without penalty, since I was NOT informed about the extra fees? *
> I am still on the fence about that whole thing. I am not independently wealthy, and that additional amount for utilities and per night stay really add up. Added in the huge extra cost of flights (not saying that is the fault of the resort ...     ) I could get two trips instead of the one at Morritts.



If you read your confirmation you were most DEFINATELY informed about the additional fees:

To Help You Further 
Each unit is air-conditioned with a fully equipped kitchen and has a Television/VCR and internet hook-up. 1BR units have 1 bath, 1 king bed and 1 queen sleep sofa. 2BR units OCC: Max 6/Pri 6 have 1 king bed, 2 twin beds and 1 queen sleep sofa. *A timeshare occupancy tax of US$10 per dayis due upon check-out.* All units provide: iron and ironing board,hair dryer, coffee maker, blender, Lanai and ceiling fans. Two bedroom units also contain a dishwasher and washer/dryer. 1BR units contain a dishwasher. A US$500 refundable security deposit is required upon check-in. A key deposit of US$25 is also required at check-in. *Use ofutilities is metered, you will be charged for use per unit.* ARRIVAL DATES CAN'T BE ALTERED. Book your scuba dives with our resort shop 3-4 weeks in advance: 345/947-2097. Check-in at 4pm. Check-out at 11am. Gift shop on-site. Safety deposit boxes are available in each unit. RESORT IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE UNIT UPGRADES.RCI members cannot trade into 2082 or 5930if they have traded there within the last 4 years.  


RCI would have let you cancel at no fee for 24 hours after the confirmation.

I have paid the fee at Morritts and willingly will pay them again. It is well worth the extra $100 for the week.

You are considering cancelling for +/-  $100 <and that's for a 2 BDRM we paid under $50/week for a 1BDRM> and yet happily pay the $95 extra for Disney...


----------



## KristinB

Rod in Louisiana said:


> Wow!! Great researching skills <smile>. Thanks for the info. Now, the question of the moment is whether RCI passes out that information when exchanges are made by telephone.



Rod,

I can speak from personal experience that when I made three exchanges into a 1 BR at Morritt's Grand (on three separate occasions, for consecutive weeks), I had to endure listening to the guide read all that stuff each time.  When I mentioned that I had already heard it from the previous exchanges, the guide told me that they must read all the notes and disclaimers without exception.  Since they're being recorded, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that they do.

And we used the A/C and the dishwasher pretty regularly when we were there -- our utility charge was around $78 a week, if I recall correctly.


----------



## cindi

lawren2 said:


> If you read your confirmation you were most DEFINATELY informed about the additional fees:
> 
> To Help You Further
> Each unit is air-conditioned with a fully equipped kitchen and has a Television/VCR and internet hook-up. 1BR units have 1 bath, 1 king bed and 1 queen sleep sofa. 2BR units OCC: Max 6/Pri 6 have 1 king bed, 2 twin beds and 1 queen sleep sofa. *A timeshare occupancy tax of US$10 per dayis due upon check-out.* All units provide: iron and ironing board,hair dryer, coffee maker, blender, Lanai and ceiling fans. Two bedroom units also contain a dishwasher and washer/dryer. 1BR units contain a dishwasher. A US$500 refundable security deposit is required upon check-in. A key deposit of US$25 is also required at check-in. *Use ofutilities is metered, you will be charged for use per unit.* ARRIVAL DATES CAN'T BE ALTERED. Book your scuba dives with our resort shop 3-4 weeks in advance: 345/947-2097. Check-in at 4pm. Check-out at 11am. Gift shop on-site. Safety deposit boxes are available in each unit. RESORT IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE UNIT UPGRADES.RCI members cannot trade into 2082 or 5930if they have traded there within the last 4 years.
> 
> 
> RCI would have let you cancel at no fee for 24 hours after the confirmation.
> 
> I have paid the fee at Morritts and willingly will pay them again. It is well worth the extra $100 for the week.
> 
> You are considering cancelling for +/-  $100 <and that's for a 2 BDRM we paid under $50/week for a 1BDRM> and yet happily pay the $95 extra for Disney...



If, in fact, the utilities come to only ~$100, that isn't nearly as bad as what I was expecting. The post about $270 really scared me. Although, even at only $100 it is still plus the additional $10 per day.

And I was NOT read that whole thing about all the extra fees involved when I confirmed. I did see the part about the $10 per day, and also the part about the utilities (I think??) but at no time did I think the utilities could amount to that much $$.


----------



## lawren2

cindi said:


> If, in fact, the utilities come to only ~$100, that isn't nearly as bad as what I was expecting. The post about $270 really scared me. Although, even at only $100 it is still *plus the additional $10 per day*.
> 
> And I was NOT read that whole thing about all the extra fees involved when I confirmed. I did see the part about the $10 per day, and also the part about the utilities (I think??) but at no time did I think the utilities could amount to that much $$.



You most assuredly WERE read the fees when you called to confirm.

Be that as it may, I feel it is worth it. If you don't keep the place cold enough to hang meat the fees are reasonable and approx the ones I stated.

As for the TOT; I have paid it in Hawaii and California on exchanges to name a few. I believe that it is called a transient tax in those states. This is a state or country imposed levy and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the individual resort.


----------



## KristinB

cindi said:


> If, in fact, the utilities come to only ~$100, that isn't nearly as bad as what I was expecting. The post about $270 really scared me. Although, even at only $100 it is still plus the additional $10 per day.
> 
> And I was NOT read that whole thing about all the extra fees involved when I confirmed. I did see the part about the $10 per day, and also the part about the utilities (I think??) but at no time did I think the utilities could amount to that much $$.



Cindi,

That's because gmarine was not referring to Morritt's, but rather to the flat fee levied by the Reef Resort next door (by way of comparison).  I bolded the pertinent items:



gmarine said:


> I've been to GC twice, very nice island, but I wouldnt trade in to the *Reef* having to pay an additional *$270*. JMO.
> 
> The vast majority of timeshares have utility charges as part of the maintenance fees. Charging exchangers for utilities seems to be a way to subsidize the owners at the expense of exchangers. I could even see a small charge, but $270 per week seems excessive to me.



And I'm pretty sure that the VG did not read the info listed by Lawren ("to help you further"), but instead the urgent info originally listed by Philsfan -- I know that's what I was read (because I had to listen to it three times in as many days):



philsfan said:


> Urgent Information
> GOVT. TAX OF $10 UNIT/NIGHT. SECURITY DEPOSIT OF $US 500 CASH OR CREDIT CARD IMPRINT. UTILITY SURCHARGE IS DUE AT CHECK OUT. 1BD UNITS ARE US$40-60/WEEK AND 2BD UNITS ARE $90-$110 PER WEEK BASED ON USAGE. 1/4 YEAR RULE IS STRICTLY EXGRENFORCED TO REGULAR S INTERNAL WAIVED TO 5930 OR 2082. THERE IS CONSTRUCTION ON-SITE AND SOME AMENITEIES ARE LIMI- TED INCLUDING THE ON-SITE RESTAURANT AND DOCK. CAR RENTAL IS RECOMMENDED TO FULLY ENJOY THE ISLAND. CONFIRMATIONS MADE IN ERROR/THAT VIOLATE THE 1/4 YEAR RULE WILL BE CANCELLED BY RESORT.RST IS UNABLE TO ACCOMODATE RE QUESTS FOR UNIT UPGRADES. RST HAS 3 LEVELS NO ELEVATOR.



Hope this helps clarify things!

And I agree with those who believe that the fees are worth it...


----------



## cindi

lawren2 said:


> You most assuredly WERE read the fees when you called to confirm.
> 
> Be that as it may, I feel it is worth it. If you don't keep the place cold enough to hang meat the fees are reasonable and approx the ones I stated.
> 
> As for the TOT; I have paid it in Hawaii and California on exchanges to name a few. I believe that it is called a transient tax in those states. This is a state or country imposed levy and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the individual resort.



Ok, so I was going to let this go. Not important enough to get upset over. But I do NOT appreciate being called a liar.  

I was NOT read all that information. Is there any particular reason you can't or won't believe that? I don't believe in the past I have ever had a history of not telling the truth. And I AM telling the truth now. 

Ok, done. I am over it.


----------



## KristinB

Cindi,

So you remember the $10 a day and mention of the utilities charge, but not the average amount of the utility charge?  I can see where that could happen if a VG got lazy...

I hope you keep the exchange -- it's a beautiful place!  (No, I'm not an owner there.)


----------



## Carolinian

There is a *vast* difference between the *frills* you are talking about and *basics* like electricity.  How would you feel if my resort charged you extra to have a door on your unit???



stevedmatt said:


> This argument could go on forever. Again, I feel if you are made aware of this info and still make the exchange, it must not have bothered you that much. And again, I have no problem with the policy and will be going to MG in June. I will pay the fees with no regrets.
> 
> But tell me, why do I have to pay extra for daily maid service (if it is even available) when my home resort offers it for free?
> 
> Why doesn't the resort I traded into have a pool and jacuzzi when my home resort does?
> 
> Why does the resort I traded into charge for use of the lighted tennis courts, but that is also complimentary at my home resort.
> 
> Different resorts have different policies and different ammenities. As long as they are explained in print or on the phone before you agree to the trade, you should have no regrets. And if you don't like them, don't make the exchange.


----------



## Carolinian

Don't get mad (and ruin your vacation).  Get even!  Bang them with ''1's'' on your comment card score for their thievery of unjustified fees.  The very inhospitable ''hospitality fee'' at Manhattan Club is another good example of something that justifies this response.


----------



## ladycody

I have to agree with the others that dont believe in giving a resort poor scores because of their fees.  If it holds its own in the exchange market while charging those fees...and people are content to pay the fees in order to secure an exchange at that resort...then so be it.  If, on the other hand, there arent enough exchangers willing to pay the fees and the demand is reduced because of that over time...they will forfeit trade power.  

I wont pay for first class plane tickets...but it's fine with me if others do.  If they believe the product to be worth the additional monies...that's fine.  The same holds true here.  No one is _obligated_ to exchange into a resort charging such fees...but if people are willing...that's great...both the exchanger and the resort are happy with the arrangement.  I would personally not choose such an exchange because I believe electric should be covered.  But others are free to do so if it makes them happy.

*note: the above stance assumes that exchangers are informed of fees prior to booking and _preferably_ prior to requesting a particular search...


----------



## Laurie

Carolinian said:


> Don't get mad (and ruin your vacation).  Get even!  Bang them with ''1's'' on your comment card score for their thievery of unjustified fees.


Carolinian, would you feel this vengeful over a $100 US utility charge in Venice? That's what we just paid in June, and we didn't even have hot water, yet it was a great exchange and I'd do it again, and my comment card reflected my overall satisfaction, as it should have. As I said earlier, over half of our European exchanges have had utility charges. I'm not sure why you're singling Morritt's out, when this is such a common practice in so many countries. I'm sure many DAE exchangers regularly incur utility charges.


----------



## lawren2

cindi said:


> Ok, so I was going to let this go. Not important enough to get upset over. But I do NOT appreciate being called a liar.
> 
> I was NOT read all that information. Is there any particular reason you can't or won't believe that? I don't believe in the past I have ever had a history of not telling the truth. And I AM telling the truth now.
> 
> Ok, done. I am over it.



Cindi,
I sincerely apologize if my statement was misconstrued. It certainly was not my intention to imply that you are a liar. I'm sorry.

If you were NOT informed by the RCI VC of the fees, then you weren't.

You were informed of them in writing on-line prior to confirmation as shown in post 72 and the fees are also stated on the confirmation itself which is available on-line immediately and by post shortly thereafter.

I agree that there should be a note about the utility charges AND the Transient Taxes in the resort directory. That is not the fault of the resort but of the exchange company.

Hopefully there are no hard feelings between us.


----------



## Carolinian

Oh, there are lots of reasons to do it.

1) In an earlier thread, someone who owned at a resort on SXM posted that their home resort had abandoned its utility fee for exchangers because it had caused their RCI scores to go down.  This is one proactive way, we can try to accomplish positive change on these unethical fees.

2) It reflects reality.  Having to pay these unethical fees makes check-out unpleasant, so a 1 in the ''check-in/out'' category is highly appropriate.  Similarly, these fees are inhospitalible in the extreme, so a 1 in the ''resort hospitality'' category is also highly appropriate.  I don't bang them on things like resort maintenance or housekeeping for these fees, because I would agree that those categories would not be a proper response.

3) These fees facilitate freeloading by their members at our resorts, and they should not be able to get away with that.

To name just a few.

Actually, I do wish that there was a practical way for resorts to impose reciprocal fees ONLY for incoming exchangers from resorts with particular fees.  That would be the best way to stamp out this unethical practice.




ladycody said:


> I have to agree with the others that dont believe in giving a resort poor scores because of their fees.  If it holds its own in the exchange market while charging those fees...and people are content to pay the fees in order to secure an exchange at that resort...then so be it.  If, on the other hand, there arent enough exchangers willing to pay the fees and the demand is reduced because of that over time...they will forfeit trade power.
> 
> I wont pay for first class plane tickets...but it's fine with me if others do.  If they believe the product to be worth the additional monies...that's fine.  The same holds true here.  No one is _obligated_ to exchange into a resort charging such fees...but if people are willing...that's great...both the exchanger and the resort are happy with the arrangement.  I would personally not choose such an exchange because I believe electric should be covered.  But others are free to do so if it makes them happy.
> 
> *note: the above stance assumes that exchangers are informed of fees prior to booking and _preferably_ prior to requesting a particular search...


----------



## Carolinian

It's not ''vengeful''.  See my post about the reasons for doing so. My point is not to let it spoil your whole vacation.  Put it out of your mind until you have to deal with it at check-out.  Then give them a 1 on your comment car for check-in/out for the unpleasantness that occured when you did have to deal with it.

This might be one of the reasons why many European resorts have low VEP's.

The resort I own at in Europe does NOT charge utility fees, and it has a good VEP (based on its award status and what it is able to pull).  If the association were ever to propose any of these fees, I would speak out strongly against it.

Also, I am not against all fees. For example,  I have done canalboat exchanges, and fuel for the boats is one of those extraordinary expense that one would not expect to be covered in maintenance fees.




Laurie said:


> Carolinian, would you feel this vengeful over a $100 US utility charge in Venice? That's what we just paid in June, and we didn't even have hot water, yet it was a great exchange and I'd do it again, and my comment card reflected my overall satisfaction, as it should have. As I said earlier, over half of our European exchanges have had utility charges. I'm not sure why you're singling Morritt's out, when this is such a common practice in so many countries. I'm sure many DAE exchangers regularly incur utility charges.


----------



## Tia

Agree it that RCI and II the exchange companies should list the information clearly before someone decides to exchange. Then it is your choice.

Each resort has it's costs and they vary by location. I don't believe myself it's completely fair to compare trading some Carribbean resorts where insurance is sky high as well as energy costs, sky rocketed also, to mainland US resorts. The Carribbean resorts we have have high maint. fees compared to many. So when you do trade maybe look at your $ output compared to mine and see it as an equalizer. You get less or you get more for the dollar depending on area and the costs, just my 2¢.

 My one resort has discussed posting signs in units to conserve water and electric, and some owners don't want to conserve while others do, so even owners are not all going to agree. 

Then too not all resorts have owners controlling costs instead they have managements with developers and owners have little say.


----------



## johnmfaeth

This thread is getting geriatric in length and age


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

johnmfaeth said:


> This thread is getting geriatric in length and age


 
Well said, John. We've all stated our positions, and, given the passion that this topic seems to generate in us, it's highly unlikely that anyone will be swayed by opposing arguments. So, from my perspective, I'm going to agree to disagree with some of the other posters, and move on.


----------



## Larry

Carolinian said:


> Morritts is NOT that difficult to exchange into.  If you want difficult, try St. Johns!
> 
> As to going back, I have been to many Caribbean islands, and while Grand Cayman is indeed nice it is NOT at the top of my list to go back.



I concur with Carolinian completely. We own in Aruba and St. Martin and although we enjoyed Grand Cayman Island and Morritts Grand it is not at the top of my list. I liked it better than St. Martin but not as much as Aruba. I was there for 13 days and although the weather was nice for the first two weeks of December there were two full days when we could not go to the beach with rain most of the day as well as the worst wind I have ever experienced during that time of the year in the Caribbean ( and people say Aruba is windy). 

Maybe it was just bad luck but the week before we got there it was so bad that swimming was almost impossible in the ocean and pool. In addition with the poor exchange rate .80 to US dollar I found Grand Cayman to be at least 20% higher than St. Martin or Aruba so to get hit with an additional $100 was a bit much. As an example we don't drink much and did have several meals at the resort. When we checked out my bill was something like $375 Cayman dollars which was about $460 US and although we didn't buy more than our usual amount of meals and drinks at the resort it was more than twice what we ever paid at checkout from a timeshare resort.

Just an aside when we bought at the Pelican in St. Martin during the fire sale the Royal resorts had imposed an additional $100 dollars for utilites and resort fee to both owners and exchangers. The following year they said the $100 caused so many negative responses to RCI and II it was eliminated and maintenance to owners was increased by $100. 

I really believe these types of charges should be part of the maintenance fees since I am now paying twice. Once for the $100 included in my maintenance fee to the Pelican and since I exchanged my Pelican week for Morritts Grand I paid again when I checked out of Morritts. I just don't think that's fair at all


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

Larry said:


> In addition with the poor exchange rate .80 to US dollar I found Grand Cayman to be at least 20% higher than St. Martin or Aruba so to get hit with an additional $100 was a bit much. As an example we don't drink much and did have several meals at the resort. When we checked out my bill was something like $375 Cayman dollars which was about $460 US and although we didn't buy more than our usual amount of meals and drinks at the resort it was more than twice what we ever paid at checkout from a timeshare resort.


 
I would never attempt to convince someone that Grand Cayman isn't an expensive place to visit. However, I must take issue with the statement about the "poor exchange rate." The exchange rate only affects prices if it fluctuates, as it does in the European countries. On 12/31/2001, the value of the Euro was $1.13 USD. Today, the value of the Euro is $.77 USD. That's a dollar devaluaton of 34% against the Euro. If retail prices in Europe had stayed the same for the last five years, the net effect of this dollar devaluation is a 34% price increase. The exchange rate between the Caymanian Dollar and the United States Dollar has been fixed for many years. On 12/31/2001, the value of the Caymanian Dollar (CI) was $.80 USD. Today, the value of the Caymanian Dollar is $.80 USD. So, if retail prices had stayed the same in the Cayman Islands for the last five yers, the net effect of this exchange rate is a 0% price increase. Now, nobody really expects prices to stay the same anywhere, but these same calculations apply, regardless of price increases. The fixed exchange rate has actually worked in our favor.

The real determination of the price of a Caymanian vacation isn't the exchange rate, which has little or nothing to do with the price of that vacation. Some of the determining factors are: the cost of land on a small island; the cost of getting materials, food and other things to an island that produces none of these things; the duties imposed by the Caymanian government on these imported items, such as the huge duty on liquor; the cost of wages for Caymanian employees on an island that has one of the highest standards of living in the Caribbean.

Has anyone noticed that there are no beggers or street vendors on Grand Cayman? In order to sell anything on Grand Cayman, you must, by law, have a storefront location. If you're stopped by the police (and you will be if you speed, or drink and drive), don't even think of offering them a bribe. Try it and you'll be taken straight to jail, and a charge of attmpted bribery will be lodged against you.

Sure, prices on Grand Cayman are expensive, for the above reasons and for other reasons, but I do tire of reading about the "poor exchange rate" year after year, when that has nothing to do with those prices.


----------



## TomCayman

The reality of this situation is that it boils down to supply and demand. Someone mentioned the Disney charge to exchangers, and that was one factor that influenced several resorts following suit and assessing charges on exchangers.

In my opinion, as long as the information is appropriately disclosed by the exchange company prior to confirmation of exchange, then the (potential) inward exchanger can make their own mind up.

I have to say that we had issues with II not informing people for a time, and some time ago we received numerous complaints from exchangers stating that they had NOT been informed by II so we highlighted this by giving exchangers a letter on check in informing them that they should have been informed by II and to complain to II if that was the case.

II received so many complaints about this that they made sure to inform everyone, and we have had very few exchangers in recent years make the complaint that they were not informed.

One more comment about supply and demand is that the exchange companies have consistently failed to give adequate weight to their top trading resorts. We have been promised several times that a level above II Five Star would be launched, but it has yet to happen.

Apart from (say) The Reef, how do you think owners at Four Season Aviara feel about II ? No matter what II gives them for their weeks, it is not fair value. I just rented a week to stay there next year and paid well over $3000 for that.... yup, just answered my own question... the exchange system fails owners at the top resorts, and those owners rent instead of exchange. In 2007 at The Reef we will go over $1m in payments to owners for rental proceeds, as at least twice as many owners rent through us as deposit their weeks through exchange.

The system is broken, but I don't know how they can fix it.


----------



## cindi

lawren2 said:


> Cindi,
> I sincerely apologize if my statement was misconstrued. It certainly was not my intention to imply that you are a liar. I'm sorry.
> 
> If you were NOT informed by the RCI VC of the fees, then you weren't.
> 
> You were informed of them in writing on-line prior to confirmation as shown in post 72 and the fees are also stated on the confirmation itself which is available on-line immediately and by post shortly thereafter.
> 
> I agree that there should be a note about the utility charges AND the Transient Taxes in the resort directory. That is not the fault of the resort but of the exchange company.
> 
> Hopefully there are no hard feelings between us.



No bad feelings now, Lawren. Thanks for your comments.

I have to accept part of the blame of not doing enough due dilligence on this exchange. I didn't have any idea the utility fees could potentially amount to such a high figure. But if I was concerned about it, I should have inquired further on my own.


----------



## Caladezi

Carolinian said:


> Oh, there are lots of reasons to do it.
> 
> 1) In an earlier thread, someone who owned at a resort on SXM posted that their home resort had abandoned its utility fee for exchangers because it had caused their RCI scores to go down.  This is one proactive way, we can try to accomplish positive change on these unethical fees.
> 
> 2) It reflects reality.  Having to pay these unethical fees makes check-out unpleasant, so a 1 in the ''check-in/out'' category is highly appropriate.  Similarly, these fees are inhospitalible in the extreme, so a 1 in the ''resort hospitality'' category is also highly appropriate.  I don't bang them on things like resort maintenance or housekeeping for these fees, because I would agree that those categories would not be a proper response.
> 
> 3) These fees facilitate freeloading by their members at our resorts, and they should not be able to get away with that.
> 
> To name just a few.
> 
> Actually, I do wish that there was a practical way for resorts to impose reciprocal fees ONLY for incoming exchangers from resorts with particular fees.  That would be the best way to stamp out this unethical practice.



Why would you even consider changing into a resort that causes you so much pain.  If you want to "bang" somebody, why would you bang the resort that YOU chose to exchange into, and not the EXCHANGE COMPANY that failed to inform you about the charges.  Further, if you were informed and still choose to exchange into the resort, then the one you should "BANG" is yourself.


----------



## gmarine

The policy for charging seperately for utilities has only one purpose. That is to maintain an illusion that maintenance fees are lower than they actually are and to have exchangers subsidize the fees of owners at resorts that have these kinds of charges.

This is not an amentity that you can choose whether or not you want to take advantage of. This is a necessity. 

Yes, you can certainly choose not to exchange in. That is what I choose to do. 
It doesnt change the fact that it is a stupid policy. Policies of charging for necessities can only lead to more resorts thinking up ways to subsidize high maintenance fees. 

What's next ? Charging for furniture in the unit? A surcharge for linens to be provided? Extra charges to use running water? 
Like Carolinion said, "oh you wanted a door , well thats extra".


----------



## Caladezi

gmarine said:


> What's next ? Charging for furniture in the unit? A surcharge for linens to be provided? Extra charges to use running water?
> Like Carolinion said, "oh you wanted a door , well thats extra".



Now yo're being silly!!!


----------



## lawren2

gmarine said:


> What's next ? Charging for furniture in the unit? *A surcharge for linens to be provided?* Extra charges to use running water?
> Like Carolinion said, "oh you wanted a door , well thats extra".



Many resorts that do not have daily or midweek cleaning do just that; charge for additional linens.

Here is an example of a US resort that we have an exchange to:

Resort ID - 5034
Resort Name Kill Devil Hills, NC, USA


Unit Type 
Max Occ/Privacy - 6 / 6 
Kitchen - Full 
Check-in Date - 06/23/2007 

Directions 
The nearest commercial airport to the resort is in Norfolk, about 90 miles away.Take Highway 64 to U.S. 168 at Great Bridge, then take U.S. 158 to the town of Kill Devil Hills on the U.S. 158 Bypass. After passing the Kill Devil Hills Police Department, go left on First Street and one block to the ocean. If coming from Raleigh, NC take Hwy 64 to Manteo, NC. Follow U.S. 158 Bypass to the town of Kill Devil Hills. Turn right on First Street and follow one block to the resort. 

Additional Information 
Units at The Golden Strand come equipped with all the comforts of home including 2 televisions with VCR and HBO, microwave oven, air-conditioning and private sundeckand wet bar. Requests for unit changes cannot be accommodated. 2BR units OCC: Max 6/Pri 6 have 2 baths, 1queen bed, 2 twin beds and 1 sleep sofa. 3BR units OCC: Max 8/Pri 6 have 2 baths with a whirlpool in the master bath, 1 queen bed, 4 twin beds and 1 sleep sofa. Not all 3BR units have a whirlpool tub. No pets are allowed. A car is necessary to fully enjoy the area. Due to the size of this resort, there is not 24 hour staffat the service desk. *The resort does not provide a mid-week clean, but guests may obtain additional linens for a fee*. 

Urgent Information 
AN OCEAN VIEW IS NOT GUARANTEED AND THE RESORT IS UNABLE TO ACCOMMODATE REQUESTS FOR A UNIT CHANGE. *THIS IS A SMALLER RESORT WITH LIMITED STAFF AND AS A RESULT THE RESORT DOES NOT OFFER 24 SERVICE DESK NOR DOES IT OFFER A MID-WEEK CLEANING. ADDITIONAL LINENS AVAILABLE FOR FEE.*


----------



## Carolinian

The biggest reason to bang them is to be proactive to put pressure on these resorts to end these highly unethical fees.  A previous poster has mentioned one resort he owns at where low scores from exchangers accomplished precisely that.

Why should anyone feel that they cannot exchange into a resort as a result of the resort cheating exchangers by imposed unethical fees?  That just allows their owners to freeload into my resorts without paying utility charges anywhere.  That is part of what needs to be brought to a screeching halt.

There may well be places that these fees would be a deal killer as far as my desire to exchange in, and others where I may grit my teeth and do it anyway.  In the latter, I am not going to dwell on that subject my entire trip,
but the check-out will produce an unpleasant moment, and that unpleasantness will be returned when I fill out my comment card.    Other than those two times, I will put the subject out of my mind.

What do you think of a reciprocal fee system to put an end to the freeloading?  My resort doesn't charge exchangers for things like utilities, cleaning fees, taxes, etc. UNLESS the home resort of the inbound exchanger has those fees for their own exchange guests, and then we hit them will ALL of the very same fees.  Such an approach would seem quite fair to me.  Too bad we don't have the data to impliment such a system now.




Caladezi said:


> Why would you even consider changing into a resort that causes you so much pain.  If you want to "bang" somebody, why would you bang the resort that YOU chose to exchange into, and not the EXCHANGE COMPANY that failed to inform you about the charges.  Further, if you were informed and still choose to exchange into the resort, then the one you should "BANG" is yourself.


----------



## Dean

I wasn't going to jump in on this topic again but I've decided to after all.  First, I can see both sides of the issue and if a resort has inordinate charges in a certain area, I can see them passing A PORTION on to the exchanger but not the entire amount.  I could also see taking the stand that the owners pay for the entire cost of running the resort then decide if they want to own or exchange out or not.  The end result would be they would likely exchange out less, rent more and the resort would likely have an increase in defaults.  That might put the overall resort structure in jeopardy and the resort might close.  Actually that's OK with me as it forces the remaining resorts to toe the line more than the current system and the ones that did survive would be the ones that performed better than their peer's.  

But from a practical side, the way to combat this issue is to vote with your feet.  If enough people opt out, the resort will see the difference in exchange traffic and exchange power, if not, the fee is OK with enough people so who cares.  IMO, accepting an exchange knowing exactly what you were getting then setting out to punish the resort due to the info you knew upfront is petty and dishonest.  As far as I'm concerned, if you accept the exchange knowing the info, you said OK at that point.  Marking the evaluation honestly is certainly fair but that's not what some have suggested.


----------



## Laurie

gmarine said:


> What's next ?  A surcharge for linens to be provided?


Yes, actually some do this - 2 resorts I exchanged into in Italy - one in Sardinia, one in the Alps. Apparently some vacationers bring their own from home. To some extent I just view these as cultural differences - just as in Italy, many restaurants have a "cuperto charge" - for the table, place setting, tablecloth, napkins, bread, however you want to explain it. I know we'd find it odd to think we can eat in a restaurant without a table or place setting, but so it is.


----------



## Cat

One issue that no one has brought up is the abritrary nature of the power surcharge that we have experienced at Morritt's. We were there for two weeks. The first week we were in a 2 BR. There were two of us. We turned the thermostat up to the maximum everytime we went out, and set at 78 when we were in.  We used the oven once each week. We were charged around $50.

The second week we were in a one BR unit that was exactly half the size of our first week (2 BR unit.) We did exactly the same as we did the first week. The charge was the same as our first week, right down to the dollar.

Now don't know about you, but that signals to me that something not exactly honest is going on here. How can the air conditioning charge for a unit double the size of the other, operated exactly the same, cost exactly the same? We asked how they arrived at what to charge. They said it was an exact reading. Since we were at the desk waiting for the reading to come in, we knew it had just been done (supposedly.) We politely showed our bill from the week before, and suggested that what they were telling us was a physical impossibility. Our concerns were shrugged off. We asked to see the meter. We were told no way would they allow us to view the meter. Why would that be the case, unless management had something to hide?

I guess it's not the actual usage that bothers me so much as it appears to be completely arbitrary. They charge what they want to charge without impunity. When they are supposedly charging you what the meter reads, they should include a quick, digital snap of the meter to prove their honesty.

Whenever you charge money for something that is supposed to be actual, you'd darned well better be prepared to prove it. Morritt's arrogantly refused to do so. So let me get this straight: You insist on charging me a fee based upon *only* the amount I use, but you have no way to show me what I used?? Doesn't that leave this open to abuse? Sure seems so to me.

We are not the only people to whom this happened. So if you want to levy a charge and insist that it's the real deal, then be prepared to be questioned when you present the guest with a physical impossibility such as this. I'm not trying to be difficult - I didn't invent the laws of physics.  Because of what Morritt's did to us on this, how can a guest have a reasonable assurance that this "necessary charge" is being administered with documented honesty and no room for abuse?


----------



## cindi

Cat said:


> One issue that no one has brought up is the abritrary nature of the power surcharge that we have experienced at Morritt's. We were there for two weeks. The first week we were in a 2 BR. There were two of us. We turned the thermostat up to the maximum everytime we went out, and set at 78 when we were in.  We used the oven once each week. We were charged around $50.
> 
> The second week we were in a one BR unit that was exactly half the size of our first week (2 BR unit.) We did exactly the same as we did the first week. The charge was the same as our first week, right down to the dollar.
> 
> Now don't know about you, but that signals to me that something not exactly honest is going on here. How can the air conditioning charge for a unit double the size of the other, operated exactly the same, cost exactly the same? We asked how they arrived at what to charge. They said it was an exact reading. Since we were at the desk waiting for the reading to come in, we knew it had just been done (supposedly.) We politely showed our bill from the week before, and suggested that what they were telling us was a physical impossibility. Our concerns were shrugged off. We asked to see the meter. We were told no way would they allow us to view the meter. Why would that be the case, unless management had something to hide?
> 
> I guess it's not the actual usage that bothers me so much as it appears to be completely arbitrary. They charge what they want to charge without impunity. When they are supposedly charging you what the meter reads, they should include a quick, digital snap of the meter to prove their honesty.
> 
> Whenever you charge money for something that is supposed to be actual, you'd darned well better be prepared to prove it. Morritt's arrogantly refused to do so. So let me get this straight: You insist on charging me a fee based upon *only* the amount I use, but you have no way to show me what I used?? Doesn't that leave this open to abuse? Sure seems so to me.
> 
> We are not the only people to whom this happened. So if you want to levy a charge and insist that it's the real deal, then be prepared to be questioned when you present the guest with a physical impossibility such as this. I'm not trying to be difficult - I didn't invent the laws of physics.  Because of what Morritt's did to us on this, how can a guest have a reasonable assurance that this "necessary charge" is being administered with documented honesty and no room for abuse?



Now THAT is scarey.  

I was slowly wrapping my mind around the idea they were doing a utility charge for what I used, but if trying to be careful doesn't impact the charge at the end, then things are out of control. 

I wish there was somewhere to complain about that issue, that might actually make some impact. That is just plain WRONG. :annoyed:


----------



## Cat

Cindi, that's exactly the point. If this were truly an "actual usage" matter, then they should have no problem proving it to those who want to verify. 

Since they are unwilling to "open the books," we came away from there believing it's just one more way to gouge guests, both owners and exchangers, and give them no recourse. The whole thing stinks of 3-day old fish. Either be upfront and honest, with records open for all to see or just don't do it. They want carte blanche to levy charges, but don't want to have to show simple proof of the legitimacy to those who are being required to pay it. They want the money, but insist on keeping its claimed legitimacy shrouded in cloak-and-dagger tactics. Not exactly fair and definitely murky.

Kinda reminds you of RCI's "secret trade power algorithm," doesn't it?


----------



## Larry

Cat said:


> One issue that no one has brought up is the abritrary nature of the power surcharge that we have experienced at Morritt's. We were there for two weeks. The first week we were in a 2 BR. There were two of us. We turned the thermostat up to the maximum everytime we went out, and set at 78 when we were in.  We used the oven once each week. We were charged around $50.
> 
> The second week we were in a one BR unit that was exactly half the size of our first week (2 BR unit.) We did exactly the same as we did the first week. The charge was the same as our first week, right down to the dollar.
> 
> Now don't know about you, but that signals to me that something not exactly honest is going on here. How can the air conditioning charge for a unit double the size of the other, operated exactly the same, cost exactly the same? We asked how they arrived at what to charge. They said it was an exact reading. Since we were at the desk waiting for the reading to come in, we knew it had just been done (supposedly.) We politely showed our bill from the week before, and suggested that what they were telling us was a physical impossibility. Our concerns were shrugged off. We asked to see the meter. We were told no way would they allow us to view the meter. Why would that be the case, unless management had something to hide?
> 
> I guess it's not the actual usage that bothers me so much as it appears to be completely arbitrary. They charge what they want to charge without impunity. When they are supposedly charging you what the meter reads, they should include a quick, digital snap of the meter to prove their honesty.
> 
> Whenever you charge money for something that is supposed to be actual, you'd darned well better be prepared to prove it. Morritt's arrogantly refused to do so. So let me get this straight: You insist on charging me a fee based upon *only* the amount I use, but you have no way to show me what I used?? Doesn't that leave this open to abuse? Sure seems so to me.
> 
> We are not the only people to whom this happened. So if you want to levy a charge and insist that it's the real deal, then be prepared to be questioned when you present the guest with a physical impossibility such as this. I'm not trying to be difficult - I didn't invent the laws of physics.  Because of what Morritt's did to us on this, how can a guest have a reasonable assurance that this "necessary charge" is being administered with documented honesty and no room for abuse?



Wow I really didn't ask to see the meter and was very suspicious that they charged me for my actual usage since we mostly used the ceiling fans and only put on the AC when it was really hot like when we came back for lunch to the unit mid day. I also settled up me bill the night before I checked out so was wondering about my electricity usage from 10:00 PM til 10:00 Am when we checked out of the room. Since I paid the night before did I get free usage for twelve hours or as I suspected they just hit me with an arbitrary charge for the week.

Your post now confirms my suspicions and I paid about twice what you paid for the 2BR unit for the week for supposed "usage". I now agree even more with Carolinian that they should be given a poor rating on hospitality and check out. Other than that I really liked Morritts Grand and gave it high ratings.

Too bad there isn't a catagory on resort ethics.


----------



## Cat

BTW, this happened a couple of years ago, which is why the bill was so low. I imagine now that they are much higher, but doubt that management is anymore cooperative now than they were then about allowing you to verify your charges. Has anyone recently asked to see the meter before checkout?


----------



## Dean

Cat said:


> Cindi, that's exactly the point. If this were truly an "actual usage" matter, then they should have no problem proving it to those who want to verify.
> 
> Since they are unwilling to "open the books," we came away from there believing it's just one more way to gouge guests, both owners and exchangers, and give them no recourse. The whole thing stinks of 3-day old fish. Either be upfront and honest, with records open for all to see or just don't do it. They want carte blanche to levy charges, but don't want to have to show simple proof of the legitimacy to those who are being required to pay it. They want the money, but insist on keeping its claimed legitimacy shrouded in cloak-and-dagger tactics. Not exactly fair and definitely murky.
> 
> Kinda reminds you of RCI's "secret trade power algorithm," doesn't it?


Assuming the basic concept is reasonable to charge the end user for the utilities (maybe maybe not) I would NOT be willing to concede that it must be the actual amount for that week and that unit.  Actually that would be unworkable I would think.  The most reasonable would be if they took last years numbers and made a reasonable projection for the next year.  And work out some way to know what the general consumption was for different size units and possibly for different times of the year.  They work out a formula that returns she amount needed for the year and "fairly" distributes those costs over the number of units occupied for the year.  Thus a 1 BR probably should be less than a 2 BR but likely not half even if exactly half the square footage.   But ultimately in the end you'd have to take their word for it though the concept I mentioned above would be easy to represent to an owner or exchanger.  Still they likely couldn't PROVE it and who's to say they don't add in an extra $50-100 just because they can.  Ultimately you have the same decision when you look at the exchange, take it or leave it.


----------



## Cat

Dean said:


> Assuming the basic concept is reasonable to charge the end user for the utilities (maybe maybe not) I would NOT be willing to concede that it must be the actual amount for that week and that unit.  Actually that would be unworkable I would think.  The most reasonable would be if they took last years numbers and made a reasonable projection for the next year.  And work out some way to know what the general consumption was for different size units and possibly for different times of the year.  They work out a formula that returns she amount needed for the year and "fairly" distributes those costs over the number of units occupied for the year.  Thus a 1 BR probably should be less than a 2 BR but likely not half even if exactly half the square footage.   But ultimately in the end you'd have to take their word for it though the concept I mentioned above would be easy to represent to an owner or exchanger.  Still they likely couldn't PROVE it and who's to say they don't add in an extra $50-100 just because they can.  Ultimately you have the same decision when you look at the exchange, take it or leave it.



Well, Dean, in theory I would agree with you, if that is how it is presented. But that's NOT how it's presented. They tell you that you are billed for your "actual usage." It's disingenuous to make a formula that can allow the same party in a 1 BR to be charged the same in a 2 BR. That formula allows a budget-minded traveler who does without air conditioning to lower fees to be charged the same as someone in that unit who is a wastrel. It shows that the management is not being honest about their "actual usage" claim. Still think it's a defensible stance?

The reason they tell this lie is presumably so that you will watch your usage and not waste. They are thereby implying clearly you that you will be rewarded for your conservation, when in effect, your charge has already been predetermined. How can you "take it or leave it" when you are willfully deceived? "Take or leave" exactly what, pray tell? As I see it, the only decision that can be made is to "leave it" since I don't like being lied to. Maybe you do?


----------



## Cat

Here is the line that Morritt's feeds potential exchangers: "1BD UNITS ARE US$40-60/WEEK AND 2BD UNITS ARE $90-$110 PER WEEK *BASED ON USAGE*."

Additionally, they told us to our face that they "read the meter" before checkout. Assuming your scenario is the actual situation, It that OK with you? Because it's not OK with me. I don't appreciate being fed a line. It's neither an acceptable nor ethical way to conduct business and fosters ill will.


----------



## Dean

Cat said:


> Well, Dean, in theory I would agree with you, if that is how it is presented. But that's NOT how it's presented. They tell you that you are billed for your "actual usage." It's disingenuous to make a formula that can allow the same party in a 1 BR to be charged the same in a 2 BR. That formula allows a budget-minded traveler who does without air conditioning to lower fees to be charged the same as someone in that unit who is a wastrel. It shows that the management is not being honest about their "actual usage" claim. Still think it's a defensible stance?
> 
> The reason they tell this lie is presumably so that you will watch your usage and not waste. They are thereby implying clearly you that you will be rewarded for your conservation, when in effect, your charge has already been predetermined. How can you "take it or leave it" when you are willfully deceived? "Take or leave" exactly what, pray tell? As I see it, the only decision that can be made is to "leave it" since I don't like being lied to. Maybe you do?


If you know that up front you can decide whether to accept the exchange.  If you get the wrong information and make the wrong choice, obviously that is different.  As for your quote "based on usage', you might read it more literally than I would.  While I think one could interpret it that way you have I also think one could interpret it based on the usage over a longer timeframe even as much as a year.  I wonder in your case if they didn't just carry the larger charge over from the first week.  Whether it was truly intentional or just someone at the desk who didn't know what they were doing would ultimately depend on whether it was truly dishonest or not in my book.  And if they truly represent that they read the meter and they don't I would agree that too is dishonest, again we all know with timeshares that just because someone said it doesn't make it true.  And it seems to me that there is far more inaccurate info thrown around by employees of timeshares and exchange companies than any other situation I am personally aware of though it happens across the board to a degree.


----------



## Cat

Dean said:


> If you know that up front you can decide whether to accept the exchange.  If you get the wrong information and make the wrong choice, obviously that is different.  As for your quote "based on usage', you might read it more literally than I would.  While I think one could interpret it that way you have I also think one could interpret it based on the usage over a longer timeframe even as much as a year.  I wonder in your case if they didn't just carry the larger charge over from the first week.  Whether it was truly intentional or just someone at the desk who didn't know what they were doing would ultimately depend on whether it was truly dishonest or not in my book.  And if they truly represent that they read the meter and they don't I would agree that too is dishonest, again we all know with timeshares that just because someone said it doesn't make it true.  And it seems to me that there is far more inaccurate info thrown around by employees of timeshares and exchange companies than any other situation I am personally aware of though it happens across the board to a degree.



All very true, Dean, and agreed. However, when it comes down to having to parse the meaning of the term "actual usage" which should be pretty self-evident, then something is not being done correctly. It's time for Morritt's  and other resorts that levy extra utility charges come clean about how they arrive at a sum. If it's actual usage, then be prepared to demonstrate the legitimacy of how that figure was derived. In this country, if you were just charged a random fee every month for your electricity where the usage of others was factored in, it would not be well received, and you can bet the regulatory board would be down on them like white on rice. It should be the same here. 

Very few would contest a necessary charge. It's the abuse thereof, hiding behind the guise of "high charges" that gets up people's hackles. If fees are not based on actual usage, the flat fees should be disclosed in advance, thus enabling guests to do their due diligence.


----------



## Carolinian

The assertion that someone who finds unethical fees to be a negative should just not make the exchange is not reasonable.  Many exchanges have some negatives.  It may be the location - a block from the beach instead of on the beach, no jacuzzi in the unit, a little off from the season you wanted, or an unethical fee.  One weighs all of that in deciding to make an exchange.

 For each negative, there should be an appropriate place on the  comment card to rate them appropraitely, with a low figure.  If you want to go a particular place and the only resort availible is very basic and you decide to take it anyway, does this theory mean that you should give them high grades on unit quality, unit amentities, resort activities, etc. even if your own experience (even knowing in advance) shows otherwise????  IMHO that would be dishonest, and not an accurate reflection of your experience there.

In particular, Manhattan Club has imposed on exchangers what they call a ''hospitality fee'', which is really nothing but a surcharge on exchangers.
If one wants to go to New York, that doesn't mean they should not not take the exchange.  They can be more proactive in taking action to change this banditry by Manhattan Club by exchanging and them giving them a 1 in the appropriate categories.

I have not yet had an answer from those who defend these fees on the concept of a reciprocal fee imposed by other resorts ONLY on those incoming exchangers whose home resort imposes such fees, but not charged to others.
There is an old saying that ''turn about is fair play''!


----------



## Dean

Cat said:


> In this country, if you were just charged a random fee every month for your electricity where the usage of others was factored in, it would not be well received, and you can bet the regulatory board would be down on them like white on rice. It should be the same here.


Actually there are many locations where they do not read the meter every month in the US.  They just take historical data and then read it every few months and adjust accordingly.  Ultimately it should even out but who's to say they do it correctly.


----------



## Dean

Carolinian said:


> They can be more proactive in taking action to change this banditry by Manhattan Club by exchanging and them giving them a 1 in the appropriate categories.


That's different that what I've understood from your past posts.  I would agree with you that if there was a question directly related to these issues you should answer it honestly good or bad.  However I've understood you to say in the past to take the exchange and mark them low on EVERYTHING, if I misunderstood, I apologize.  If not, my previous comments stand.



> I have not yet had an answer from those who defend these fees on the concept of a reciprocal fee imposed by other resorts ONLY on those incoming exchangers whose home resort imposes such fees, but not charged to others.
> There is an old saying that ''turn about is fair play''!


Defend may be a little harsh and I don't disagree with the idea of where would it all end if we compare every detail.  But when something is so much an outlier sometimes drastic measures are needed.  Ultimately life is too short to make such a big deal about something like this when the best options is to skip it totally when you have the chance.  Or one might not want to "cut off your nose to spite your face" so to speak by missing an exchange that might otherwise be perfect for you.  And the idea that a week is a week is a week is simply not true anyway.  Would you want to trade your bright red weeks for truly off season weeks at poor resorts, I think not but if a week is a week you should be willing to do so.  While not perfect, these are issues that points can easily correct.


----------



## Cat

Dean said:


> Actually there are many locations where they do not read the meter every month in the US.  They just take historical data and then read it every few months and adjust accordingly.  Ultimately it should even out but who's to say they do it correctly.



Agreed that they do estimates sometimes. However, 1) they clearly reveal an estimated reading to be just that, 2) any irregularities are corrected at the time of the next reading (so that ultimately, actual usage DOES factor in) and 3) what others do has absolutely nothing to do with my estimate.

So as I see it, this argument has no bearing on your proposed theory that Morritt's averages everyone's usage that has stayed in that unit. It's simply not germane.

I wouldn't mind if MY usage was the one used since we tend to be very conservative wherever we go (whether or not we 're being charged, but because we're considerate,) but I DO have a problem if what I pay factors in someone else's possibly wasteful usage.


----------



## Carolinian

I apologize if using shorthand like ''popping them with 1's'' might somehow be taken to mean in every category.  When I have explained this in detail in a number of threads, including this one, I have specified which caregories are appropriate.

And one has to look at all factors in an exchange.  While some might call it a trade down, I was happy to trade my red summer 2BR beach holiday week deposit for a blue studio in Europe, becuase the resort had low avaibliity any time of the year and was the only one in the area and the week fit my schedule particularly well even if it was blue.



Dean said:


> That's different that what I've understood from your past posts.  I would agree with you that if there was a question directly related to these issues you should answer it honestly good or bad.  However I've understood you to say in the past to take the exchange and mark them low on EVERYTHING, if I misunderstood, I apologize.  If not, my previous comments stand.
> 
> Defend may be a little harsh and I don't disagree with the idea of where would it all end if we compare every detail.  But when something is so much an outlier sometimes drastic measures are needed.  Ultimately life is too short to make such a big deal about something like this when the best options is to skip it totally when you have the chance.  Or one might not want to "cut off your nose to spite your face" so to speak by missing an exchange that might otherwise be perfect for you.  And the idea that a week is a week is a week is simply not true anyway.  Would you want to trade your bright red weeks for truly off season weeks at poor resorts, I think not but if a week is a week you should be willing to do so.  While not perfect, these are issues that points can easily correct.


----------



## Dean

Cat said:


> So as I see it, this argument has no bearing on your proposed theory that Morritt's averages everyone's usage that has stayed in that unit. It's simply not germane.


Actually I did not argue that for Morritt's only raised the possibility and discussed the idea in general.


----------



## Cat

Dean said:


> Actually I did not argue that for Morritt's only raised the possibility and discussed the idea in general.



Quoted from your post verbatim: "As for your quote "based on usage', you might read it more literally than I would. While I think one could interpret it that way you have I also think one could interpret it based on the usage over a longer timeframe even as much as a year."

I guess I'm not clear, then, what the point was that you were trying to make. Perhaps you can clarify what you meant by throwing out the possibility of an averaged usage being the basis of the charge rather than the "usage" claimed?


----------



## Dean

Cat said:


> Quoted from your post verbatim: "As for your quote "based on usage', you might read it more literally than I would. While I think one could interpret it that way you have I also think one could interpret it based on the usage over a longer timeframe even as much as a year."
> 
> I guess I'm not clear, then, what the point was that you were trying to make. Perhaps you can clarify what you meant by throwing out the possibility of an averaged usage being the basis of the charge rather than the "usage" claimed?


As I stated, I was generally discussing more the concept than the specifics.  But as to that exact point, I was responding to your wording you had quoted.


----------



## Cat

OK, Dean. And as I said, the concept was specious and not applicable to this situation.


----------



## caddie

This is a very interesting and heated discussion. As a Morritt's owner, and one who trades infrequently, I must admit that I can see how a trader would be annoyed to have to pay utility charges at his home resort through maintenance fees, and then get hit with them again when going to Morritt's.

But as a previous poster said, that is not really comparing apples to apples. When I trade my unit and a $805 maintenance fee and go someplace that has a $400 maintenance fee, I'm not getting a $400 refund. Nor is the person who has a lower maintenance fee trading into Morritt's being asked to pay more, other than the utility charge. And let's remember, at least you have the ability to control, somewhat, your cost. That is not the case next door at the Reef, where utility costs are fixed.

Also remember, this is not a new policy. It has been in place for at least 13 years. And put yourself in the shoes of a Morritt's owner. Utility charges in Cayman are astronomical and can fluctuate greatly based on usage. I'd rather pay for what I use than have to pay for what others -- who may not care -- use. It may seem harsh, but it's much more fair.

Now, perhaps if enough RCI traders get up in arms over this and threaten to diminish the resort's status, they will have to take a look at the policy. But I hardly think it will be at the top of the list. Remember, this is a place that was severely damanged by Hurricane Ivan and was closed for a full year afterward. There are oceanfront owners who have been unable to use their home resort since 2003, and yet still pay full maintenance fees. The developer may or may not have been underinsured (there has yet to be an insurance settlement) he may or may not have used association funds (without authorization) to begin rebuilding. We are still six months away from one of the rebuilt oceanfront buildings being completed, and 18 months (they say) from a second building being done. Meanwhile, Morritt's owners have paid a special assessment, those who elected to keep oceanfront units had to pay a "transition fee'' and nobody got any break on maintenance fees.
I'm not saying this makes paying utility fees right or wrong, just that the place has myriad issues which make this one seem trivial.


----------



## Dean

I would have to say in reviewing the II evaluation form that I don't see any place that would directly apply to this area where one could honestly "mark them down" as long as they were accurately told of the info ahead of time.  All one would do would be to add comments in the comment section.


----------



## Carolinian

RCI has two categories, and they both are among those whose numbers count toward award status -

Resort Hospitality - because a rip-off unethical fee is NOT very hospitable
Check-in/out - because having to pay such a fee makes check-out irritating

It has been a while since I have seen the II form, and I do not recall exactly how their categories were set up.


----------



## Cat

caddie said:


> I must admit that I can see how a trader would be annoyed to have to pay utility charges at his home resort through maintenance fees, and then get hit with them again when going to Morritt's.
> 
> But as a previous poster said, that is not really comparing apples to apples. When I trade my unit and a $805 maintenance fee and go someplace that has a $400 maintenance fee, I'm not getting a $400 refund. Nor is the person who has a lower maintenance fee trading into Morritt's being asked to pay more, other than the utility charge. _And let's remember, at least you have the ability to control, somewhat, your cost. _
> 
> _I'd rather pay for what I use than have to pay for what others -- who may not care -- use. It may seem harsh, but it's much more fair.
> _... the place has myriad issues which make this one seem trivial.



IMO, your apples-to-apples statement doesn't apply here. It is clearly understood that when you trade with RCI or II that your unit is traded for someone else's, not someone elses' with the difference paid in maintenance fees. The mf is between the owner and the resort. The exchanger is never in the loop, which is as it should be.

The same is not true of the power bill. Although for the overwhelming majority of resorts in both II and RCI the power bill is part of the maintenance fee. It is most likely an average of historical data.

You mention that we "have the ability, at least somewhat, to control the cost." I illustrated in an earlier post where this is being used as an argument wrongly. It was clearly demonstrated to us that we have NO control whatsoever. We were charged an identical amount for our two weeks, despite the unit on the first week being twice as large as the latter. When told it was an actual meter reading and we asked to see the meter, we were refused.

This means that no matter how cautious you are with your power usage, there's a very good chance that it won't matter, and it's an arbitrary amount set by the management, who then tries to look noble by saying it's "based on actual usage." 

Horse pucky! If they lie about that, then one has to wonder what else that should be based on honesty is being set arbitrarily. It's not right. Morritt's should come clean to its owners, as well as to its exchangers. I'm sorry for the owners who will invariably be offended by this, but it's truth, not based on rancor but logic.


----------



## Caladezi

Cat said:


> When told it was an actual meter reading and we asked to see the meter, we were refused.
> 
> This means that no matter how cautious you are with your power usage, there's a very good chance that it won't matter, and it's an arbitrary amount set by the management, who then tries to look noble by saying it's "based on actual usage."
> 
> .




Had Morritts shown you the meter, what do you think that would have proved?  Can you look at an electric meter and read what it said a week or two ago as compared to a current reading?  No you can't.    Even if you were able to determine the number of kw that you used, would you know the cost per kw hour?  Again--NOT.  _Criticism of moderating on TUG is to be done via email to an adminstrator, and not as a post on the BBS._  If you mean to imply that there are no meters to read, you are mistaken.  There is a meter for each unit and it is read when you check in/out.  If you pay any attention to electric charges that have been reported by people staying at the resort you can easily see that they vary by usage and are not adveraged.  

The reasons that both of your bills were the same, while a strange coincendence, might have a reasonable explanation.  Weather conditions, location of units (Grand or Tortuga), and just the things you used.  Actually, a $50.00/ weeks utility charge is very low for even a one bedroom unit so I don't see that you have anything to complain about.


----------



## caddie

CAT, I do not want to be in the position of defending the place too much because, as posted, Morritt's has issues that are far more troubling than utility charges. But I truly believe your example was a case of poor luck. We've been going there for nearly 15 years. The meter reading and utility charge has always varied based on usage. Yes, I have questioned it from time to time, wondering if they really read a meter or were they just taking an average for that unit and that time of year. Maybe they do. But whenever I have felt my charges were out of line, they adjusted them for me. One tip: this is much harder to do when you are checking out and they and you are stressed. We usually ask to review our bill the night before we are to leave and if there is an issue, we bring it up then. I will continue to maintain that this policy is far better than a fixed charge (like the Reef) where you are stuck with it.


----------



## johnmfaeth

OK, I have to post again while hoping this one would just die becuase Morritts is being singled out while hundreds of other resorts have the same policies. 

First, if you know the fees upfront and still do the trade, you are accepting the deal as a whole. If you don't want it, don't take it and the market will reflect that via decreased demand. Don't accept a deal and then whine, that's unbecoming at best. If you are looking for just causes to attack to satisify your desires for civic duty, that is discussed later in this post.

Let's back a few steps back to reality and who really gets hurt.

First, let's assume that the electric charges are a total fraud, they really cost $10 and they seem to be charging $100. Why not file a formal complaint with the Grand Cayman Government. This is not "Moon over Parador". It is one of the best Caribbean Governments and it's parent, the UK, has the best consumer protection laws on Earth. They put the US to shame in that category. That would hurt the management company who does the "Scam".

Instead, let's single out and nail the resort reputation using ticks in broad categories without the details of the reason those categories were ticked (those details will of course not be listed by RCI and again, more misinformation for the trader). But who get's hurt?

Some nice couple from Ohio who probably go to church and pet dogs they meet on the street.

How? They, like most here, were suckered by a slick TS sales type into paying a huge amount for their unit. A big part of the lies was how wonderful trading all over the world would be. Now, that's not really a lie, but something that the sales types grab onto and paint as totally rosey in far excess of reality. Let's just call the whole sales thing a deception. In any event, they were "lemmings" is what the sales person likely told his co-workers. (I actually overhead them saying that at one resort I own in St. Thomas - was shocked at the two faced distain).

But back to Joe and Mary Lemming. Now we punish their "evil" management company by hurting their trading power, oops, we just punished Joe and Mary instead. Now the trade exagerations become even larger as we "fight for fairness" in hurting their trading power, not for their $10,000 but because of my $100 which I don't think is fair but voluntarily trade into the resort anyway.

You REALLY want fairness in the world of timesharing? Take an hour and write a letter of your "lemming" experience to your local paper, travel mag, etc. Tell them about the resale market. Maybe Joe and Mary would have been "rescued" from wasting thousands that were probably earned in a lifetime of working hard at the expense of family time, just because they had to and ended up with a few extra bucks.

If you weren't burned by a developer, than write about how and why you were one of the lucky ones.

Now go one step further, how badly is the condition of man hurt by all of this, for which many here are so adament? Truth is the $100 is trivial. What matters is a family struggling to feed their family or have decent housing. Or a baby being one of the ONE MILLION per year going blind for want of $5 of anti-biotic eyes drops.

Mother Theresa once said "a problem is a child in a wheelchare, you have no problems, only small and large gifts from..." I refer to her in the social context only, let's not get religious here.

So, if you want to bang your drum for a cause, there are much better ones in timesharing, and even better ones where you live.

Sorry to rant but this thread is tedious at this point. Opinions have been expressed and move on, no one is dying here....


----------



## gmarine

The point of TUG is to discuss issues involving timesharing. If you dont want to participate in the thread then dont. There is no need to tell anyone else they should move on from discussing a topic because you dont like it. 

To do so is unbecoming at best.


----------



## Cat

> Had Morritts shown you the meter, what do you think that would have proved? Can you look at an electric meter and read what it said a week or two ago as compared to a current reading? No you can't. Even if you were able to determine the number of kw that you used, would you know the cost per kw hour? Again--NOT.


Seems that with the previous reading, the ending reading, a knowledge of the per kwh charge and a little 3rd grade math, anyone could figure it all out pretty fast. _Edited out moderation criticism. Criticisms of how TUG is moderated are to be addressed via email to administrators, not on the forums._


> If you mean to imply that there are no meters to read, you are mistaken. There is a meter for each unit and it is read when you check in/out.


Then I fail to see why the big problem to let people see it, or a digital photo of the meter before and after. That's not a lot to ask to prove the need for the extra charge.


> If you pay any attention to electric charges that have been reported by people staying at the resort you can easily see that they vary by usage and are not adveraged [sic].
> 
> The reasons that both of your bills were the same, while a strange coincendence [sic], might have a reasonable explanation. Weather conditions, location of units (Grand or Tortuga), and just the things you used. Actually, a $50.00/ weeks utility charge is very low for even a one bedroom unit so I don't see that you have anything to complain about.


As I mentioned earlier, this charge was a couple of years ago - 3-1/2 to be exact. I'm sure that would be much higher now. And your hostility toward those who have criticized the need for a charge that the management is unwilling to substantiate is simply misplaced. The problem is not levying a charge. The problem is asking guests to pay a charge for which there is no proof. If I were given a telephone bill of $50 and used the phone for a local call for 1 minute, you bet I'd demand to see the breakdown of the charge. I'd hardly call that an unreasonable expectation.

It seems to me that *a very few* certain Morritt's owners are coming from a very hostile, elitist place on this thread, and it neither serves nor represents the resort well. However, it's often the experience that when there is no defense, a strong offense (and ad hominem attacks) will do in its place.


----------



## Dean

Carolinian said:


> RCI has two categories, and they both are among those whose numbers count toward award status -
> 
> Resort Hospitality - because a rip-off unethical fee is NOT very hospitable
> Check-in/out - because having to pay such a fee makes check-out irritating
> 
> It has been a while since I have seen the II form, and I do not recall exactly how their categories were set up.


IMO, neither of these categories would apply to the question directly and to say they do indirectly is a major stretch.

I was wondering, does Morritt's even have individual meters for each unit or just for each building?


----------



## Carolinian

They are the appropriate categories.  Something in the general comment box as you suggest would have little or no impact.  Numbers are what matter and that is the only place one can put some heat to these people who impose inappropriate and unethical fees. Many timesharers seem to figure this out on their own without the necessity of a suggestion on boards like this.  Consider the experience of the resort cited which had to put an end to such fees because of the low comment card scores they caused.  Sometimes you can't make them see the light until you make them feel the heat.




Dean said:


> IMO, neither of these categories would apply to the question directly and to say they do indirectly is a major stretch.
> 
> I was wondering, does Morritt's even have individual meters for each unit or just for each building?


----------



## Dean

Carolinian said:


> They are the appropriate categories.  Something in the general comment box as you suggest would have little or no impact.  Numbers are what matter and that is the only place one can put some heat to these people who impose inappropriate and unethical fees. Many timesharers seem to figure this out on their own without the necessity of a suggestion on boards like this.  Consider the experience of the resort cited which had to put an end to such fees because of the low comment card scores they caused.  Sometimes you can't make them see the light until you make them feel the heat.


I have no problem in honestly answering a question that applies or in writing the appropriate comments in the comments section.  Looking for a box to mark them low to punish them even if it didn't directly apply to the question just to make them "feel the heat" would fall back on my thoughts of being petty and dishonest.


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

gmarine said:


> The point of TUG is to discuss issues involving timesharing. If you dont want to participate in the thread then dont. There is no need to tell anyone else they should move on from discussing a topic because you dont like it.
> 
> To do so is unbecoming at best.


 
I'm in total agreement with you regarding TUG's being a place to discuss issues regarding timesharing. However, this thread has long ago ceased to be a discussion. It's now a repetition of the same arguments for and against, by the same posters, over and over and over again. I'll listen to any new arguments, for or against any topic. But, there hasn't been anything new on this thread for the last three or four pages, and I don't believe the tone of the thread is in line with the spririt intended for TUG discussions. It's gotten so tedious to me that I have, for the first time ever, turned off email notification for a thread to which I've contributed.


----------



## Carolinian

The comments section alone, however, does little or no good UNLESS you give them a low number in the corresponding categories so that they can see cause and effect.

Giving a high mark on hospitality to a resort so inhospitable to impose unethical fees is kind of like thanking someone who has just mugged you.
Would you considere Manhattan Club hospitable because they whack you for a totally indefensible ''hospitality fee''?



Dean said:


> I have no problem in honestly answering a question that applies or in writing the appropriate comments in the comments section.  Looking for a box to mark them low to punish them even if it didn't directly apply to the question just to make them "feel the heat" would fall back on my thoughts of being petty and dishonest.


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

Cat said:


> It seems to me that a very few certain Morritt's owners are coming from a very hostile, elitist place on this thread, and it neither serves nor represents the resort well. However, it's often the experience that when there is no defense, a strong offense (and ad hominem attacks) will do in its place.


 
I understand that Moderators have opinions, and that they are granted the privilege of expressing those opinions, as are all TUG members. I must say though, I am disappointed that the quoted statement was made, and particularly disappointed that it was made by a Moderator. Why is this any less an _ad hominem_ argument than the ones to which you refer?


----------



## jtridle

Cat said:


> As I mentioned earlier, this charge was a couple of years ago - 3-1/2 to be exact. I'm sure that would be much higher now.


 I just returned from Morritt's after Thanksgiving after staying in a l bedroom unit and my charge was $76 and we tried to be frugal.   Considering that Hurricane Ivan has caused expenses on Cayman to increase greatly, I don't know if anybody considers that a huge increase or not.  I am a Morritt's owner, love it there, and don't mind paying the fee.   You want to talk about a ripoff, then look at the Reef''s electric fee next door (a very nice resort too).  They can't make any claim at all that it is a realistic charge when you compare it to Morritt's right next door, which is far less.  I believe what I was charged was in the approximate range of what  somebody on here has reported is the advertised amount by Morritt's.  It is ridiculous for anybody to blame the resort for the governmental imposed $10/nite charge.  IMHO, it is silly to think that a system could be put in place whereby every amenity that differs between the resort you owned to exchange in with and the resort you trade into could be somehow put into a dollar amount and charged to you.  I would hope that was proposed tongue in cheek.  For one thing, you don't always actually "own" the resort you used to trade with.  I own Fairfield points (as a result of converted weeks) and when I ask for a visible online week to be put into RCI to use to trade into Morritt's or any other resort, they deposit a week that I don't own.  That's what I use to trade with. It has no relationship whatsoever to what I own. 

I agree with the position that if you don't want to pay the extra charges, don't go there.  For those of us who have read this thread, the lesson learned ought to be obvious.  Have a week put on hold by RCI while you call the resort or do some research online to find out the details of charges, if that is of a concern to you.  Take some responsibility.   The information for extra charges at Morritt's is on the RCI website.  You just have to look for it, if they didn't tell you when you made the reservation.  I personally believe that most of the time we are told this information, if not all the time, and we might not be listening very closely.  However, now that we all know that there are some resorts that have extra charges, from this point on there is no excuse for complaining about something we could have found out about and may well have been told.

Just my opinion and I know that others hold different opinions.


----------



## Cat

Rod in Louisiana said:


> I understand that Moderators have opinions, and that they are granted the privilege of expressing those opinions, as are all TUG members. I must say though, I am disappointed that the quoted statement was made, and particularly disappointed that it was made by a Moderator. Why is this any less an _ad hominem_ argument than the ones to which you refer?



If you understand that mods have opinions and are granted the _right_ to express them as are all TUG members, then why are you disappointed? The ad hominem arguments to which I was referring have all been deleted out, including the one made against myself, personally.

The statement had nothing to do with you, whatsoever, nor with most Morritt's owners who are reasonable people. It was directed at the very few, as I said earlier, who have been combative, nasty, petty, and even racist in their (now deleted) comments. I have spent much time keeping this thread from becoming a mean-spirited fight by deleting hurtful, vindictive comments. If you want to be "disappointed" I would respectfully submit that those who fail to follow the rules and respect others' rights to opinions are to whom you should direct your disappointment.

And if the fact that mods have opinions and express them bothers you, well, I don't know how to help you with that, as it would seem to be a personal problem.


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

No more opinions from me, folks.  I just forgot to turn off my email notification in my last reply, and I couldn't figure out how to do it without my making another post.  Adios.


----------



## Noni

I guess it's a "personal" opinion that many of us share.  

My opinion is that a moderator should be held to a higher standard and moderate.  Sorry, I guess I misunderstood.

I still agree with the utility charge as it stands.  I knew what it was when I exchanged into the Morritt's group about 10 years ago.  I agree with the way that it is done now.

I still think that Morritt's is being singled out for something that many resorts handle in the same manner.  To be fair, you should list all resorts that charge the usage fee.


----------



## Cat

Noni said:


> I guess it's a "personal" opinion that many of us share.
> 
> My opinion is that a moderator should be held to a higher standard and moderate.  Sorry, I guess I misunderstood.
> 
> I still agree with the utility charge as it stands.  I knew what it was when I exchanged into the Morritt's group about 10 years ago.  I agree with the way that it is done now.
> 
> I still think that Morritt's is being singled out for something that many resorts handle in the same manner.  To be fair, you should list all resorts that charge the usage fee.



And exactly what "higher standard" would that be?? To only give of untold hours of our time and never express an opinion? Do the work and always remain silent? To be told how to do our job by those who haven't a clue what it takes? Hmmm. Interesting perspective. I suggest you take that one up with the Administrators if you seek to silence all moderators who volunteer their time so that TUG can function. 

And incidentally, I *have* been "moderating" this thread since page one so that you and others don't have to read accusative, below-the-belt comments and racist remarks. I assure you that I have spent quite a bit of my own free time cleaning this up after those who just can't seem to manage to act like adults and remain respectful of others.

There is no problem with disagreeing with the opinions of mods on here. However, if you don't like something about the way the board is moderated, per TUG rules, you may feel free to take it up via email with admins, but not write about it on the board. In case you've failed to notice, there are plenty of posts that disagree with my position, and they are still there. You said you wanted your last post disregarded, so I deleted it. If you did not want it disregarded, you should not have said you did.

This is not a discussion of any other resort, BTW. It is a discussion of Morritt's and their procedures of levying charges which they refuse to give evidence of when asked politely by guests, whether exchangers or owners. If you wish to discuss the practice at other resorts, I'd suggest starting another thread, as it's not germane to this topic.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Cat, you have done a marvelous job on this thread.  I think some of these posters should lose their privileges at this point.   I guess I am talking about one particular poster.  I think some of this person's posts have gone way over the top.  

As for Cat's opinions, many of us agree with her and she has a right to hers as we do ours.  

Thank you, Cat, for all you do on TUG.    I appreciate everything!


----------



## Grand Old Man

We have traveled the world for 50 years and visited virtually every Carribean destination. We now own at Morritt's because that is where we want to be. We do not trade and therefore are not affected by the problem being discussed here, but I will interject my opinion anyway. I think the practice of loading utilities into maintenance fees is unethical. It discourages conservation. Those of you who are hurt by this practice should get your resort to change its policy to the more progressive and ethical one addopted by Morritt's.
There! Now you have another opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. tee hee!


----------



## ralphd

Dean said:


> IMO, neither of these categories would apply to the question directly and to say they do indirectly is a major stretch.
> 
> I was wondering, does Morritt's even have individual meters for each unit or just for each building?



Dean,

The Morritt's units are individually metered.


----------



## caribbeansun

I think you've served to highlight an issue TUG needs to address and I shall as you suggest email TUG admin to suggest that a moderator not be allowed to moderate their own comments in a thread as this would seem to be a clear conflict of interest.

I suspect some of your own posts might be considered to be "combative, nasty and petty" by those on the receiving end.  If you can read your own quoted post below and state that it isn't in anyway nasty or a personal attack well then...  

I must admit to being shocked by the idea that someone could make a racist remark in a thread about utilities inwhich everyone's race is, I assume, unknown but stranger things have happened around here over the years.



Cat said:


> If you understand that mods have opinions and are granted the _right_ to express them as are all TUG members, then why are you disappointed? The ad hominem arguments to which I was referring have all been deleted out, including the one made against myself, personally.
> 
> The statement had nothing to do with you, whatsoever, nor with most Morritt's owners who are reasonable people. It was directed at the very few, as I said earlier, who have been combative, nasty, petty, and even racist in their (now deleted) comments. I have spent much time keeping this thread from becoming a mean-spirited fight by deleting hurtful, vindictive comments. If you want to be "disappointed" I would respectfully submit that those who fail to follow the rules and respect others' rights to opinions are to whom you should direct your disappointment.
> 
> And if the fact that mods have opinions and express them bothers you, well, I don't know how to help you with that, as it would seem to be a personal problem.


----------



## Dean

Carolinian said:


> The comments section alone, however, does little or no good UNLESS you give them a low number in the corresponding categories so that they can see cause and effect.
> 
> Giving a high mark on hospitality to a resort so inhospitable to impose unethical fees is kind of like thanking someone who has just mugged you.
> Would you considere Manhattan Club hospitable because they whack you for a totally indefensible ''hospitality fee''?


If it does no good to do it by comments and there is no place to reasonably answer otherwise, it shouldn't be included.  To find a place that doesn't fit is unreasonable, lobby to get the form changed.  If they perform for the fee and you are treated appropriately in the hospitality area, then you should mark them on their performance and not based on the fee.



ralphd said:


> Dean,
> 
> The Morritt's units are individually metered.


Thanks, good to know.  Esp now that we are in RCI as well.


----------



## Cat

Caribbeansun, unless you read the remarks that were edited out, you are being quite judgmental on the issue without any knowledge of it.

Nothing combative, nasty or petty was either written, or intended by me. I don't understand why people to whom I was not referring, nor had in mind, get so defensive. It's regrettable that you seemed to think I was saying such things to you. 

No one was more "shocked" than I to read the racist comment that was posted by a guest, not a member.

I refuse to apologize for the work I do here at TUG, and I refuse to be silenced because of it. The truth is that posters (and a very, very few of them) _only complain when they disagree with what a mod has written._ Then they go on about how mods have no rights to say anything, should be "held to a higher standard" (which has yet to be defined) and are just horrible. As I told another poster, if it's a problem for you, I don't know how to help you, as it's a personal problem.





caribbeansun said:


> I think you've served to highlight an issue TUG needs to address and I shall as you suggest email TUG admin to suggest that a moderator not be allowed to moderate their own comments in a thread as this would seem to be a clear conflict of interest.
> 
> I suspect some of your own posts might be considered to be "combative, nasty and petty" by those on the receiving end.  If you can read your own quoted post below and state that it isn't in anyway nasty or a personal attack well then...
> 
> I must admit to being shocked by the idea that someone could make a racist remark in a thread about utilities inwhich everyone's race is, I assume, unknown but stranger things have happened around here over the years.


----------



## johnmfaeth

Hi Cat,

First, I don't agree with you on the Morritt's surcharge issue, but that is irrelevant to this posting.

What is relevant is that you and the other moderators do a tremendous job at keep TUG2 running. Without you folks, the internet would not have TUG2 as the largest discussion group which provides an invaluable forum for folks to discuss their questions, concerns, and beliefs. In agreement or disagreement.

Racism, religious intollerence, etc. are all manifestations of ignorance. When used in an attack, it clearly shows that the attacker is just too backward to express themselves without slurs. Shame and pity on them.

This thread is an example of what makes TUG2 so valuable. 

I leave you with two favorite Ben Franklin quotes, the first applies to the thread, the second to the moderators - IMHO 

"This is a topic upon which honest men can differ."

and

"If all men were angels, we would need no government"

Keep up the good work and don't let the turkeys get you down !!!

John


----------



## wauhob3

Spence said:


> So they can pass them on to the exchangers when you don't actually use your unit, why else?



All the UK timeshares do the same but in the timeshares I have stayed in it was much more reasonable then the Cayman Islands.


----------



## Cat

Believe it or not, john, I have never said that the surcharge is wrong. If it's needed, it's needed. No one begrudges a necessary cost. Well, no one _reasonable_, that is! 

I'd just like to see how they arrive at the figure. I'm the type that always checks the bill before signing it or paying it, and that's where I'm coming from. It irks me that I just have to take someone's word for it, since that's a leap of faith. That's all. 

So I don't think that we're that far apart, john.

But thank you so much for your kind words. That was so sweet of you to write, and it's very, very much appreciated.  What all we mods do for TUG is the labor of love. It's a dedicated team of highly talented individuals to which I am very proud to belong. 



johnmfaeth said:


> Hi Cat,
> 
> First, I don't agree with you on the Morritt's surcharge issue, but that is irrelevant to this posting.
> 
> What is relevant is that you and the other moderators do a tremendous job at keep TUG2 running. Without you folks, the internet would not have TUG2 as the largest discussion group which provides an invaluable forum for folks to discuss their questions, concerns, and beliefs. In agreement or disagreement.
> 
> Racism, religious intollerence, etc. are all manifestations of ignorance. When used in an attack, it clearly shows that the attacker is just too backward to express themselves without slurs. Shame and pity on them.
> 
> This thread is an example of what makes TUG2 so valuable.
> 
> I leave you with two favorite Ben Franklin quotes, the first applies to the thread, the second to the moderators - IMHO
> 
> "This is a topic upon which honest men can differ."
> 
> and
> 
> "If all men were angels, we would need no government"
> 
> Keep up the good work and don't let the turkeys get you down !!!
> 
> John


----------



## Carolinian

Well, if you want to find reasons not to be proactive to help solve the problem, then to each his own.  But a lot of RCI members apparently figured out how to take corrective action themselves by giving low scores at the resort mentioned in this thread that was forced by low scores to drop such fees.  Other such resorts can be brought to heel too, but not if people sit on their hands instead of taking action, or make excuses not to use the tool that is availible to us.

I wonder if you want to sit back and just take Manhattan Club's ''hospitality fee'' too??????



Dean said:


> If it does no good to do it by comments and there is no place to reasonably answer otherwise, it shouldn't be included.  To find a place that doesn't fit is unreasonable, lobby to get the form changed.  If they perform for the fee and you are treated appropriately in the hospitality area, then you should mark them on their performance and not based on the fee.
> 
> Thanks, good to know.  Esp now that we are in RCI as well.


----------



## Dean

Carolinian said:


> Well, if you want to find reasons not to be proactive to help solve the problem, then to each his own.  But a lot of RCI members apparently figured out how to take corrective action themselves by giving low scores at the resort mentioned in this thread that was forced by low scores to drop such fees.  Other such resorts can be brought to heel too, but not if people sit on their hands instead of taking action, or make excuses not to use the tool that is availible to us.
> 
> I wonder if you want to sit back and just take Manhattan Club's ''hospitality fee'' too??????


If the only way to seek change is to be dishonest and vindictive, you would be better off accepting what is and moving on.  However I feel there are other alternatives to trying to punish a resort with low scores that aren't applicable to the reason you're marking them down.  The best one is simply to skip that resort, period.  If that's not enough for you, write the resort and exchange company as appropriate and add the comments where appropriate in the evaluation.  I can't speak for the Manhattan club specifically I'd have to know more.  And while I would prefer not to have these variables, I am realistic enough to know that not everything is within my control AND there are many issues to be considered.  If I recall, you have also advocated punishing the owners at the resorts that charge an extra fee.  I find that position amusing and sad at the same time but you are welcome to feel this way.


----------



## Carolinian

This is never about punishing individuals.  It is about bringing about a needed policy change.  It is the resort that is being dishonest when it is sticking people up for these fees, making them pay for utilities twice, while the resorts own members who exchange never have to pay for utilities. So you think this is ''honest''????????

You also seem to have it backwards as to honesty.  It would be dishonest to give a high mark for resort hospitality to a resort that is so extremely inhospitable to rip you off with an unethical fee or a high mark for check-in/out when their unethical fee policies cause extreme irritation at check-out. You would have exchangers be dishonest in giving high marks to paper over these problems.

I have responded to the ''skipping the resort'' idea earlier and how that makes no sense, and would refer you to the previous post.  That also does not address the members of  such resorts being able to freeload at our resorts, never having to pay utility fees anywhere.  Do you think that is fair or honest????

There are those who try to work for change where it is needed, and some who sit on their hands and make excuses for not getting involved.  You seem to be in the same camp on this issue as in some other issues we have disagreed on. 

Most timeshrarers who fill out comment cards never read boards like this to be influenced by your argument or mine.  They rely on their own common sense.  My position seems to fit with the common sense of the majority based on the resorts that have had to abandon these fees as a result of low comment card scores.  It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how to put the pressure on for change, even if you yourself do not accept it.

Again, what do you think of the concept of reciprocal fees?  Say my resort normally does not charge for such things but when an inbound exchanger comes in from a resort that does, they are charged by my resort for all of the same fees his resort sticks to exchangers.  As they say, ''turn about is fair play''.



Dean said:


> If the only way to seek change is to be dishonest and vindictive, you would be better off accepting what is and moving on.  However I feel there are other alternatives to trying to punish a resort with low scores that aren't applicable to the reason you're marking them down.  The best one is simply to skip that resort, period.  If that's not enough for you, write the resort and exchange company as appropriate and add the comments where appropriate in the evaluation.  I can't speak for the Manhattan club specifically I'd have to know more.  And while I would prefer not to have these variables, I am realistic enough to know that not everything is within my control AND there are many issues to be considered.  If I recall, you have also advocated punishing the owners at the resorts that charge an extra fee.  I find that position amusing and sad at the same time but you are welcome to feel this way.


----------



## caribbeansun

I made no judgement about edited comments - how could I?  I did not in any way think you were addressing me.  I took exception to the manner inwhich you chose to voice your objections as they seemed to run contrary to the spirit of TUG.  I never suggested that the work you or other mods do is unappreciated and I personally don't agree that you should be held to a higher standard - I do believe that you should be held to the same standard as everyone else.  

I can appreciate that when someone is passionate about a particular topic it can be difficult to remain civil while dealing with people that hold an opposing position - it can be rather frustrating.  I personally found some of your posts to be exactly what you were voicing distain about ie. combative and nasty.  If you can't see that in your writing, which it seems you don't, then this is why I indicated that perhaps it would be appropriate in those situations to have someone else review the content of contenscious posts.

To suggest that I have a personal problem simply because I disagree with you is in my world considered rather nasty.




Cat said:


> Caribbeansun, unless you read the remarks that were edited out, you are being quite judgmental on the issue without any knowledge of it.
> 
> Nothing combative, nasty or petty was either written, or intended by me. I don't understand why people to whom I was not referring, nor had in mind, get so defensive. It's regrettable that you seemed to think I was saying such things to you.
> 
> No one was more "shocked" than I to read the racist comment that was posted by a guest, not a member.
> 
> I refuse to apologize for the work I do here at TUG, and I refuse to be silenced because of it. The truth is that posters (and a very, very few of them) _only complain when they disagree with what a mod has written._ Then they go on about how mods have no rights to say anything, should be "held to a higher standard" (which has yet to be defined) and are just horrible. As I told another poster, if it's a problem for you, I don't know how to help you, as it's a personal problem.


----------



## Grand Old Man

Carolinian said:


> This is never about punishing individuals.  It is about bringing about a needed policy change.  It is the resort that is being dishonest when it is sticking people up for these fees, making them pay for utilities twice, while the resorts own members who exchange never have to pay for utilities. So you think this is ''honest''????????
> 
> 
> There are those who try to work for change where it is needed, and some who sit on their hands and make excuses for not getting involved.  You seem to be in the same camp on this issue as in some other issues we have disagreed on.
> 
> ''.


Dear Carolinean
You seem to think you are the GOSPEL on what timeshare owners want. If you read the posts, there are as many of us who feel that the way Morritt's is doing it is the RIGHT way. We could argue that we should try to get your resort to be responsible world citizens and change THEIR policy.

You are entitled to your opinion, but please respect the fact that, as I stated in a previous post, it just that: an opinion. The fact that it is yours does not automatically make it more valuable than mine and the others who disagree with you.


----------



## gmarine

Grand Old Man said:


> Dear Carolinean
> You seem to think you are the GOSPEL on what timeshare owners want. If you read the posts, there are as many of us who feel that the way Morritt's is doing it is the RIGHT way. We could argue that we should try to get your resort to be responsible world citizens and change THEIR policy.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion, but please respect the fact that, as I stated in a previous post, it just that: an opinion. The fact that it is yours does not automatically make it more valuable than mine and the others who disagree with you.



I dont think that you are taking into account that probably 95% or more of all timeshares dont charge an extra fee for utilities. 

This says the obvious. That the vast majority of timeshare owners and resort managers feel that is the right way to do things.


----------



## McFail

Almost all of the supporters of this policy on this thread are Morritt's owners who are potentially the direct beneficiary of the policy. 

I have yet to see a reply from someone who admits they would like to be charged a reciprocal energy fee - say $60 - at a resort they trade into knowing that it has already been built into that resorts MFs.


----------



## TomCayman

Is it not about time to close this thread ?

Taking the big picture this is in reality all about supply and demand. If the demand was not sufficiently strong for that resort, then any resort that assessed any charge on an exchanger (utilities, or (say) the resort fee that Disney charges exchangers) would see their rating drop.

We could get off on a whole different discussion about the value (or otherwise) of timeshare exchange, as system that was set up in the first place due to the fact that developers were unwilling/unable to facilitate timeshare owners renting out their unused weeks for a commercial return.

Cash is the ultimate exchange currency. I'd ask you all to think about how effectively your resort offers you the option of renting out your unit through them. If they do this for you, then II/RCI exchange effectiveness, fees etc become a lesser issue.

This is veering off topic, see.. time to close the thread, no ?


----------



## Cat

It is the edited comments to which I was referring as nasty and combative. Nothing that has been written (by anyone) and is currently posted falls in that category.

So you are correct in that the mods are held to the same standards. If you choose to infer something from what I write, that is your choice. Saying that someone's captious views are a personal problem is a fact, not an insult, as you seem to want to see it. If I said that someone is a stupid moron because of what he wrote, then _*that*_ is an insult. Since you can't possibly know empirically what was intended, only what _you_ infer from a perfectly civil statement, then as I said before, I can't help you with that. Sorry that it bothers you, but nuance can't be legislated.

If you mean that my _tone_ was not cordial, you are dead-on right. I don't know too many people who, when criticisms are directed publicly square at them, get all warm and fuzzy.  Just as you claim I have offended you or others, even though I have stated that was never the intention, please recognize that you have equally and directly offended me. You state that you feel I've been nasty and combative repeatedly (but I wish you'd take this to email and point out exactly where that is the case.) In fact, if you have a problem with me, it should be discussed privately (via email) as good manners and common courtesy would dictate.

We don't legislate how people feel. That's left entirely up to each person. And if someone has a problem with perfectly simple, civil language, then I do, indeed, consider that to be a _personal problem_, and only he, _personally_, can sort that problem out. You seem to want to continue to read nastiness into anything I say, and truly, whether or not you realize it, only you can change that. 




caribbeansun said:


> I made no judgement about edited comments - how could I?  I did not in any way think you were addressing me.  I took exception to the manner inwhich you chose to voice your objections as they seemed to run contrary to the spirit of TUG.  I never suggested that the work you or other mods do is unappreciated and I personally don't agree that you should be held to a higher standard - I do believe that you should be held to the same standard as everyone else.
> 
> I can appreciate that when someone is passionate about a particular topic it can be difficult to remain civil while dealing with people that hold an opposing position - it can be rather frustrating.  I personally found some of your posts to be exactly what you were voicing distain about ie. combative and nasty.  If you can't see that in your writing, which it seems you don't, then this is why I indicated that perhaps it would be appropriate in those situations to have someone else review the content of contenscious posts.
> 
> To suggest that I have a personal problem simply because I disagree with you is in my world considered rather nasty.


----------



## ralphd

TomCayman said:


> Is it not about time to close this thread ?
> 
> Taking the big picture this is in reality all about supply and demand. If the demand was not sufficiently strong for that resort, then any resort that assessed any charge on an exchanger (utilities, or (say) the resort fee that Disney charges exchangers) would see their rating drop.
> 
> We could get off on a whole different discussion about the value (or otherwise) of timeshare exchange, as system that was set up in the first place due to the fact that developers were unwilling/unable to facilitate timeshare owners renting out their unused weeks for a commercial return.
> 
> Cash is the ultimate exchange currency. I'd ask you all to think about how effectively your resort offers you the option of renting out your unit through them. If they do this for you, then II/RCI exchange effectiveness, fees etc become a lesser issue.
> 
> This is veering off topic, see.. time to close the thread, no ?



Agree with you Tom!


----------



## gmarine

TomCayman said:


> Is it not about time to close this thread ?
> 
> Taking the big picture this is in reality all about supply and demand. If the demand was not sufficiently strong for that resort, then any resort that assessed any charge on an exchanger (utilities, or (say) the resort fee that Disney charges exchangers) would see their rating drop.
> 
> We could get off on a whole different discussion about the value (or otherwise) of timeshare exchange, as system that was set up in the first place due to the fact that developers were unwilling/unable to facilitate timeshare owners renting out their unused weeks for a commercial return.
> 
> Cash is the ultimate exchange currency. I'd ask you all to think about how effectively your resort offers you the option of renting out your unit through them. If they do this for you, then II/RCI exchange effectiveness, fees etc become a lesser issue.
> 
> This is veering off topic, see.. time to close the thread, no ?





Is there any other reason to charge utility fees seperate other than subsidizing owners maintenance fees? With a fixed fee as high as it is at the Reef it isnt going to keep energy consumption down like it possible could if it was metered.
When probably well over 95% of resorts have utility fees included in maintenance fees, it seems this would be the only reason.


----------



## TomCayman

gmarine said:


> Is there any other reason to charge utility fees seperate other than subsidizing owners maintenance fees? With a fixed fee as high as it is at the Reef it isnt going to keep energy consumption down like it possible could if it was metered.
> When probably well over 95% of resorts have utility fees included in maintenance fees, it seems this would be the only reason.



You are correct, we do it to subsidise owner maintenance fees. I have never said otherwise, but this thread is so long it may be tough for people to recall who said what about whom 

Again this thread is so long I am repeating myself, but we do what we can to make sure potential exchangers are made fully aware of the utility surcharge before they confirm their exchange.

At that point it is simply their choice as to whether or not they want to confirm the exchange.

Funnily enough, we don't have any exchanged units sitting empty (or occupied by people owning Blue weeks in Branson).

Debate it all you like, but I'll say a couple of things for the very last time.... 1) supply and demand, and 2) looking after owners as first priority.


----------



## McFail

Ok...some GC owners/representatives are begging to close a thread that is still having valid discourse. Similar to what others have said about visiting these places if you don't like it don't read it. 

Regarding the Reefs policies I have no idea how their electric is metered and accounted for so I am going to make an assumption that there is a main meter for the whole facility becuase their policy is different than Morritt's in that they don't at least claim individual metering. 

My guess is that that they look at their past annual usage then project it and anticipated kWH costs for the next year and divide it by the number of intervals. 

This would be the $285/week cost I think I saw quoted earlier. Consider that this seems to be about 3 times the cost that gets quoted from equivalent Morritt's users. It would take quite an energy hog to make that up that difference. 

If you agree with my logic so far then you have to conclude that you are not only picking up the energy you use in the unit but a shared portion of the common areas of the whole resort. 

This would be a new level of low on this thread. 

Lastly, I am sure Reef owners will be happy to pay a $285 surcharge for every trade into a Disney, Hyatt, Starwood or Marriott property. These properties also do not lack for people wanting to get in and many have higher MFs than the Reef would even with the energy rolled in. 



TomCayman said:


> You are correct, we do it to subsidise owner maintenance fees. I have never said otherwise, but this thread is so long it may be tough for people to recall who said what about whom
> 
> Again this thread is so long I am repeating myself, but we do what we can to make sure potential exchangers are made fully aware of the utility surcharge before they confirm their exchange.
> 
> At that point it is simply their choice as to whether or not they want to confirm the exchange.
> 
> Funnily enough, we don't have any exchanged units sitting empty (or occupied by people owning Blue weeks in Branson).
> 
> Debate it all you like, but I'll say a couple of things for the very last time.... 1) supply and demand, and 2) looking after owners as first priority.


----------



## gmarine

TomCayman said:


> You are correct, we do it to subsidise owner maintenance fees. I have never said otherwise, but this thread is so long it may be tough for people to recall who said what about whom
> 
> Again this thread is so long I am repeating myself, but we do what we can to make sure potential exchangers are made fully aware of the utility surcharge before they confirm their exchange.
> 
> At that point it is simply their choice as to whether or not they want to confirm the exchange.
> 
> Funnily enough, we don't have any exchanged units sitting empty (or occupied by people owning Blue weeks in Branson).
> 
> Debate it all you like, but I'll say a couple of things for the very last time.... 1) supply and demand, and 2) looking after owners as first priority.




Having maintenance fees that are so high that you feel you need to have exchangers subsidize them sure doesnt sound like your putting owners first. 

To me it shows serious lack of respect for exchangers. And I question the integrity of manangement for having a fee so high that it obviously isnt just for utilities. 
There are hundreds of high end resorts that dont treat exchangers that way and that have higher maintenance fees. Even Atlantis, with $2000 maintenance fees, doesnt feel the need to add an extra fee for anything.

If the resort doesnt want exchangers then drop out if II. Having a fee that high to subsidize owners fees is ridiculous. Especially when the resort calls it a utility fee while it actually is more than that.

I will stick to the high end resorts with honest management.


----------



## TomCayman

Sigh.... I get the impression some posts are just put here to make sure they get a response.

The utility fee at our resort IS only for Utilities and yes the cost of Utiliites (in our case Electricity and Water) IS that high.

Our maintenance fees are high because we operate a high quality resort with only 30 timeshare units in a very expensive island, and other than utilities and insurance those costs have gone up very little in the last few years (unfortunately insurance and utilities have skyrocketed). We do feel like we treat our owners very well, in fact our entire business model is based on keeping them happy, as a happy owner is the best sales recommendation.

We certainly respect and treat our exchangers well when they stay with us, but yes, we break out our utility charge from the budget and charge, and yes (I sound like a broken record) we do it because the laws of supply and demand say we can.

only 30 units, gorgeous beach, Cayman Islands, and the only II resort in Cayman on a beach you can actually swim off.... again 30 units only... some supply/demand curve.

Now, I'm sure if you wish you can spin anything I've said (or haven't said) and come up with an angle, but if you want to exchange in and are lucky enough to get an exchange, then do come, you'd  be welcome.... if not, plenty of others will.

That doesn't make me (or our owners) arrogant, it is just a statement of fact.

Lay-tah


----------



## Avery

As an exchanger, I have always counted the days (years) before I could trade in again. Happy to pay the fees, the place is paradise unsurpassed. If the utility fees will break someone's week, Grand Cayman is probably a mistake anyway since everything is pricey. 

I liked it so much I bought a week EOY. Now I'll exchange in 1 in 4, and go as an owner 1 in 4. I'll trade/rent the extra EOY. So for me, it's a wash...


----------



## Carolinian

Funny, when I look at Morritts on RCI, especially after a big bulkbank depoeit, it is pretty much pick any week you want for a good chunk of the year.  I don't know about II, but what I see on RCI indicates that Morritts is far from difficult to exchange into.

As to the 1 in 4, this is also owner-unfriendly, as it makes for a more unfavorable supply/demand curve for exchanging by reducing demand.  The best way to get around that rule for a trade in, is to use an independent like DAE, which can often get Morritts.


----------



## gmarine

TomCayman said:


> Sigh.... I get the impression some posts are just put here to make sure they get a response.
> 
> The utility fee at our resort IS only for Utilities and yes the cost of Utiliites (in our case Electricity and Water) IS that high.
> 
> Our maintenance fees are high because we operate a high quality resort with only 30 timeshare units in a very expensive island, and other than utilities and insurance those costs have gone up very little in the last few years (unfortunately insurance and utilities have skyrocketed). We do feel like we treat our owners very well, in fact our entire business model is based on keeping them happy, as a happy owner is the best sales recommendation.
> 
> We certainly respect and treat our exchangers well when they stay with us, but yes, we break out our utility charge from the budget and charge, and yes (I sound like a broken record) we do it because the laws of supply and demand say we can.
> 
> only 30 units, gorgeous beach, Cayman Islands, and the only II resort in Cayman on a beach you can actually swim off.... again 30 units only... some supply/demand curve.
> 
> Now, I'm sure if you wish you can spin anything I've said (or haven't said) and come up with an angle, but if you want to exchange in and are lucky enough to get an exchange, then do come, you'd  be welcome.... if not, plenty of others will.
> 
> That doesn't make me (or our owners) arrogant, it is just a statement of fact.
> 
> Lay-tah



You have made the point of how management at the Reef feels. There is no spin, no misunderstanding. It is very clear.

Very simply put, The Reef will take advantage of exchangers because they can.


----------



## Avery

Carolinian said:


> Funny, when I look at Morritts on RCI, especially after a big bulkbank depoeit, it is pretty much pick any week you want for a good chunk of the year.  I don't know about II, but what I see on RCI indicates that Morritts is far from difficult to exchange into.
> 
> As to the 1 in 4, this is also owner-unfriendly, as it makes for a more unfavorable supply/demand curve for exchanging by reducing demand.  The best way to get around that rule for a trade in, is to use an independent like DAE, which can often get Morritts.



Do you know how often they get the Grand, or mostly Tortuga?


----------



## rickandcindy23

I pulled some Spring 2007 and Winter 2008 weeks last night with my one bedroom PAHIO.  I was pulling mostly two bedrooms at both of the Morritts' resorts.  This was the first time I have ever checked and there was lots of availability.


----------



## ralphd

Northern Willy said:


> Ok...some GC owners/representatives are begging to close a thread that is still having valid discourse. Similar to what others have said about visiting these places if you don't like it don't read it.



No one is begging, but the posts are repetitive.


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

Cat said:


> Saying that someone's captious views are a personal problem is a fact, not an insult, as you seem to want to see it.


 
Since one of my posts was the first to receive your diagnosis of a "personal problem," I'm compelled to respond.

Here is the post you deemed to be _captious_, followed by the definition of _captious._



> I understand that Moderators have opinions, and that they are granted the privilege of expressing those opinions, as are all TUG members. I must say though, I am disappointed that the quoted statement was made, and particularly disappointed that it was made by a Moderator. Why is this any less an _ad hominem_ argument than the ones to which you refer?


 

Main Entry: *cap·tious* 


Pronunciation: 'kap-sh&s
Function: _adjective_
Etymology: Middle English _capcious,_ from Middle French or Latin; Middle French _captieux,_ from Latin _captiosus,_ from _captio_ deception, verbal quibble, from _capere_ to take -- more at [SIZE=-1]HEAVE[/SIZE]
*1* *:* marked by an often ill-natured inclination to stress faults and raise objections <_captious_ critics>
*2* *:* calculated to confuse, entrap, or entangle in argument <a _captious_ question>

This is the statement, made by you, to which I referred.




> It seems to me that *a very few* certain Morritt's owners are coming from a very hostile, elitist place on this thread, and it neither serves nor represents the resort well. However, it's often the experience that when there is no defense, a strong offense (and ad hominem attacks) will do in its place.


 
I did not infer, nor did I imply that this statement was directed at me. I commented because of my opinion that neither Moderators nor other members should direct terms such as "hostile" or "elitist" at another poster, whether that poster be a member or a guest. I fail to see how my statement could be interpreted by any reasonable person as being captious.




> The statement had nothing to do with you, whatsoever, nor with most Morritt's owners who are reasonable people. It was directed at the very few, as I said earlier, who have been combative, nasty, petty, and even racist in their (now deleted) comments.


 
Another instance of your directing insults at another poster. I don't agree with many of the things said by the poster in question, and I do believe it was your right and your duty as Moderator to delete some of his comments. But, your describing him as combative, nasty, petty, and racist in a public forum is, in my opinion, inappropriate.




> Nothing combative, nasty or petty was either written, or intended by me. I don't understand why people to whom I was not referring, nor had in mind, get so defensive.


 
I wasn't being defensive. I was stating my opinion that your use of these terms to describe another poster was inappropriate for this forum.




> And exactly what "higher standard" would that be?? To only give of untold hours of our time and never express an opinion? Do the work and always remain silent? To be told how to do our job by those who haven't a clue what it takes? Hmmm. Interesting perspective.


 



> I refuse to apologize for the work I do here at TUG, and I refuse to be silenced because of it. The truth is that posters (and a very, very few of them) _only complain when they disagree with what a mod has written._ Then they go on about how mods have no rights to say anything, should be "held to a higher standard" (which has yet to be defined) and are just horrible. As I told another poster, if it's a problem for you, I don't know how to help you, as it's a personal problem.


 



> If you understand that mods have opinions and are granted the _right_ to express them as are all TUG members, then why are you disappointed?



Since you prefer to use _right_ rather than _privilege,_ I'll exercise my _right_ to comment on these quotes.

As a former Board Host for three years on the AOL Travel Boards, I'm very familiar with the amount of time and effort required to moderate forums and discussion boards. Some posters have the ability to get under your skin to the extent that they're on your mind even when you're not performing your duties as Moderator or Host. 

That having been said, I am also of the opinion that the Moderator or Host should be allowed to express their opinions, but should not get further involved in heated exchanges such as we've seen in this thread. It's extremely difficult to moderate when one is involved in the fray and when they themselves are not being moderate.

So, in summary, I do believe that Moderators and Hosts *should* be held to a "higher standard," and I've just defined that standard as I see it. If this is a "personal problem," then so be it.


----------



## Cat

Posted earlier by Rod in Louisiana: (see post #152)

"No more opinions from me, folks. I just forgot to turn off my email notification in my last reply, and I couldn't figure out how to do it without my making another post. Adios."
__________________
Rod in Louisiana

OK, Rod. Whatever you say.  

When people make such mean-spirited comments that they must be edited regularly and multiply, I guess you don't call that combative and petty.  When they imply that their financial standing  because of the resort at which they purchased makes their opinions more valuable than those of dissenters, that isn't elitist. When they make comments about how all owners at their resort view "most" exchangers to behave as if they were brought up in a certain place, that isn't racist (or elitist.) 

Wow. Thanks for the heads-up. Now I know that the person who did all that wasn't the problem._* I*_ am the problem.

Similarly, when someone zeroes in on many items a certain poster says and declares each one to be "inappropriate" or implies that it should be stricken, that isn't captious. And it most certainly isn't a personal problem.

I shall bow to your obviously superior knowledge on the subject of moderating boards, inappropriate behavior, rights vs privileges, the nature of personal problems, and the English language. To all of you who have complained about my horrifying behavior on this board, I sincerely apologize. 

Thank you so much for bringing my inexcusable behavior to everyone's attention, Rod. You are 100% right. I will no longer read nor moderate this thread, since I am obviously "inappropriate" for the job, and incapable according to you and another poster. Additionally, I have a life, and it's currently got much more weighty matters going on than hanging myself out there to take all the potshots anyone with an isp feels like leveling.

Best of all? When I make a statement, _*I* actually do what I say I'm going to do._

So enjoy publicly criticizing the next person who simply has the unmitigated temerity to _express an actual opinion_ on the subject and who gives generously of his/her time in ordedr to keep the discussion from deteriorating into name-calling and insults, as well. You're just so right. It's a plain nightmare, and the board should be cleansed of it.

For future reference, however, you might want to give some thought to taking any criticisms of mods to email, where I have stated over and over that it belongs. Additionally, you'll find this to be not only common courtesy, but also a standard posting rule for the TUG BBSs. That way a thread doesn't get hi-jacked with behavior lectures (which are likewise prohibited by TUG rules) directed at a mod, as has this one. 

With that thought, I leave this thread to those like you who know best.


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

Cat said:


> Posted earlier by Rod in Louisiana: (see post #152)
> 
> "No more opinions from me, folks. I just forgot to turn off my email notification in my last reply, and I couldn't figure out how to do it without my making another post. Adios."
> __________________
> Rod in Louisiana
> 
> OK, Rod. Whatever you say.
> 
> When people make such mean-spirited comments that they must be edited regularly and multiply, I guess you don't call that combative and petty. When they imply that their financial standing because of the resort at which they purchased makes their opinions more valuable than those of dissenters, that isn't elitist. When they make comments about how all owners at their resort view "most" exchangers to behave as if they were brought up in a certain place, that isn't racist (or elitist.)
> 
> Wow. Thanks for the heads-up. Now I know that the person who did all that wasn't the problem._* I*_ am the problem.
> 
> Similarly, when someone zeroes in on many items a certain poster says and declares each one to be "inappropriate" or implies that it should be stricken, that isn't captious. And it most certainly isn't a personal problem.
> 
> I shall bow to your obviously superior knowledge on the subject of moderating boards, inappropriate behavior, rights vs privileges, the nature of personal problems, and the English language. To all of you who have complained about my horrifying behavior on this board, I sincerely apologize.
> 
> Thank you so much for bringing my inexcusable behavior to everyone's attention, Rod. You are 100% right. I will no longer read nor moderate this thread, since I am obviously "inappropriate" for the job, and incapable according to you and another poster. Additionally, I have a life, and it's currently got much more weighty matters going on than hanging myself out there to take all the potshots anyone with an isp feels like leveling.
> 
> Best of all? When I make a statement, _*I* actually do what I say I'm going to do._
> 
> So enjoy publicly criticizing the next person who simply has the unmitigated temerity to _express an actual opinion_ on the subject and who gives generously of his/her time in ordedr to keep the discussion from deteriorating into name-calling and insults, as well. You're just so right. It's a plain nightmare, and the board should be cleansed of it.
> 
> For future reference, however, you might want to give some thought to taking any criticisms of mods to email, where I have stated over and over that it belongs. Additionally, you'll find this to be not only common courtesy, but also a standard posting rule for the TUG BBSs. That way a thread doesn't get hi-jacked with behavior lectures (which are likewise prohibited by TUG rules) directed at a mod, as has this one.
> 
> With that thought, I leave this thread to those like you who know best.


 
I didn't say I'd quit reading the thread, Cat. I said no more opinions from me. However, when you directly attacked me and called my remarks captious, I could not allow that to go unanswered.

And, if you'll reread my post, you'll see that I don't agree with the remarks made by the poster. Some of his remarks were indeed combative, petty, and elitist. Racist? Well, that's a bit of a stretch. But, his making those types of remarks does not, in my opinion, give the Moderator or anyone else the right to call him names in a public forum. Delete his remarks.....ban him....but don't call him names. And, by the way, I don't know the man.....never met him.

In my post, I didn't call you names and I didn't attack you personally. I never said that you didn't have the right to express your opinions. Although I disagree with your opinion on this topic, I never attacked you personally because of that opinion. I never said you were incapable. I simply stated that I had issues with some of the remarks you have made in this thread about another poster.  You have a wonderful command of the English language, but your unveiled sarcasm towards me is unbecoming to you.

Have a nice day, Cat.


----------



## ralphd

TomCayman said:


> That doesn't make me (or our owners) arrogant, it is just a statement of fact.
> 
> Lay-tah



Tom,

I do not think anyone should ever accuse you of being arrogant. Your posts were only providing information.

Tom has tried to be inforrmative and helpful to members seeking advice about Grand Cayman, whether staying at the Reef or any other resort on the island.


----------



## McFail

Any opinions about having to pay for water as an exchanger?


----------



## Carolinian

Hey, don't give them an idea!  They might install pay toilets in the units!



Northern Willy said:


> Any opinions about having to pay for water as an exchanger?


----------



## cindi

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :hysterical:


----------



## JLB

We just got back from Florida and I have a lot of stuff to catch up on, so time is limited.

Since we are going to Morritt's Grand in 2008, could someone tell me if this thread is so long because there is meaningful Morritt's or Grand Cayman info or for other reasons?


----------



## TUGBrian

To everyone,

Attacking and arguing in this manner with a TUG volunteer is UNACCEPTABLE under any circumstances.   These people work VERY hard at what they do...I do think some of you forget they are timeshare owners just like yourselves that are so fond of TUG and this board that they dedicate hours and hours to keeping it running smoothly...so if anything...they deserve every bit of your respect and thanks.

I have allowed the rules to be "loosened" a bit on the BBS to allow for a bit more leeway in offtopic discussion and debate within it so perhaps this is my fault all along....please do not make me regret my decision.

I dont want to hear any replies from anyone defending what happened here....keep the rest of the replies on topic in regards to morrits utility charges and nothing more in this thread.

Brian

(PS.  if you have a problem with this...and your name isnt GINGIN...feel free to email me or pm me to discuss it...however do NOT post anymore of it on this thread)


----------

