# Is Starwood management failing owners ?



## gmarine (Nov 11, 2009)

I've recently received almost all of the maintenance fee bills for my nine timeshare weeks. Several have under 5% increases and none have more than a 10% increase. That is except for the more than 20% increase at Sheraton Broadway Plantation. From other threads on TUG it seems at least one other Starwood managed timeshare has an over 20% increase in maintenance fees.

I realize that there are delinquencies at the resorts in question but are delinquencies limited to Starwood resorts ? None of my other resorts, Marriott included are raising fees so drastically. So that brings the question.

With these increases and the recent Starwood/II system changes that are very unfriendly to owners is Starwood management failing owners ?

I believe they are failing miserably.


----------



## K2Quick (Nov 11, 2009)

They are certainly operating in a different reality than Starwood's competitors.  I just can't reconcile in my mind why Starwood's fee increases would be so much higher than Marriott's in the same markets without something untoward going on.  A while back there was a poll about Starwood's management relative to the rest of the timeshare industry.  I think I answered that they were "no better and no worse" than the norm.  I would revise my answer now.


----------



## Weez (Nov 11, 2009)

gmarine said:


> With these increases and the recent Starwood/II system changes that are very unfriendly to owners is Starwood management failing owners ?
> 
> I believe they are failing miserably.



I think most SVO owners would agree with you. Im not one who is big into writing letters or complaining when I feel it will fall on deaf ears but this one has just struck a nerve with me. 

We should have fully elected boards, BOD and HOA that are put in place by starwood completely defeat the purpose. We truly have no say in who starwood hires, how they maintain or how much they charge for things. We have no one representing us, only people representing starwood.

I know delinquencies happen but if we are being asked to subsidize those fees should we be offered their time? Why should we pay the delinquent fees, allow starwood to rent those units and reap all the benefits? 

Im curious, does anyone know how starwood chooses its vendors? is it competitively bid? The landscaping services, the houskeeping services etc etc.


----------



## LisaRex (Nov 11, 2009)

Weez said:


> We should have fully elected boards, BOD and HOA that are put in place by starwood completely defeat the purpose. We truly have no say in who starwood hires, how they maintain or how much they charge for things. We have no one representing us, only people representing starwood.



Starwood's blatant control of their HOA boards is backfiring on them because there is absolutely no question who to blame for these horrific increases in MFs.  

What exacerbates the problem for WKORV is that the resort is so new that there may still be lots of people left who financed their purchase.   I don't know what kind of terms they were offering, but I'm suspecting something like a 5-7 year loan with a medium interest rate.  Now, if you're an owner who is 3 years into a 7 year loan on a property whose resale value has plummeted, and whose MFs have skyrocketed....wouldn't you choose to simply walk away vs. continuing to pay for something that is worth far less on the fair market than you owe?  

So I fear the problem is going to get worse before it gets better.  I do wonder why Starwood hasn't cut the developer prices significantly in order to mitigate the damage being done to the Owners.  It makes me really wonder what their long-term strategy is.  

Obviously having the current board hand-pick their successors goes against the very spirit of an HOA.  There is absolutely no checks-and-balances.  And I ultimately think that this point will be their Achilles Heel.  You can't sell something and then expect to control it.  In real estate, the courts have been very clear that you cannot put conditions on property (e.g. it must remain a green space) into perpetuity because it limits the current owner's ability to enjoy his property.  If it is he who pays to maintain it, then he should be able to control it.  And that is the point that I think we can successfully sue Starwood, and win.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 11, 2009)

LisaRex said:


> If it is he who pays to maintain it, then he should be able to control it.  And that is the point that I think we can successfully sue Starwood, and win.



That's probably easier said than done...

The nice thing about this point is that maybe this can be a lawsuit against SVO (headquarters) vs. 20 separate lawsuits and against the various HOAs. It reduces the logistics tremendously...


----------



## Weez (Nov 11, 2009)

Does anyone know an attorney that handles class action suits? 

I guess the better question would be are there specific requirements that need to be met in order to bring a class action suit?


----------



## Westin5Star (Nov 11, 2009)

Weez said:


> Does anyone know an attorney that handles class action suits?
> 
> I guess the better question would be are there specific requirements that need to be met in order to bring a class action suit?



Another question; does anyone know any Hyatt execs that would like to purchase SVO?.. please, please, please!!!


----------



## jerseygirl (Nov 11, 2009)

Westin5Star said:


> Another question; does anyone know any Hyatt execs that would like to purchase SVO?.. please, please, please!!!




That would be wonderful, but I think they'd only take a few of the resorts.


----------



## stevens397 (Nov 24, 2009)

How depressing that the organization that I thought was the classiest only excels at screwing the owners


----------



## Westin5Star (Nov 24, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> That would be wonderful, but I think they'd only take a few of the resorts.



Hopefully they would at least take WKORV, WPORV, HRA, WLR, and WKV.  Hyatt is probably very smart and waiting for the right time to buy us; I can't wait.


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 24, 2009)

How about Westin Desert Willow, and Westin River Front Mountain Villas?


----------



## jerseygirl (Nov 24, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> How about Westin Desert Willow, and Westin River Front Mountain Villas?




I'd say yes to Westin Desert Willow, but Hyatt already has GORGEOUS ski resorts in Colorado.


----------



## yumdrey (Nov 24, 2009)

Why only Hyatt? Hilton also has very limited locations, most of their resorts are in Orlando, las vegas and Hawaii. They need something in Maui, Kauai and other US areas. I would be happy to hear Hilton purchase starwood. Can it happen? My Hilton resort has only around $20 increase for next year's MF. Such a shame on starwood.


----------



## Stefa (Nov 24, 2009)

So what happens if Hyatt or Hilton were to take over some of the Westin resorts?   Obviously the HOA would be replaced (which would be a good start), but what other changes would we see besides the renaming?   Would they renegotiate all the contracts such as for maintenance and housekeeping?  

How long would the changeover take?   Would there be SAs or would fees maybe stabilize for awhile?

What happens to the Sheratons and other less-desirable resorts?


----------



## grgs (Nov 24, 2009)

yumdrey said:


> Hilton also has very limited locations, most of their resorts are in Orlando, las vegas and Hawaii. They need something in Maui, Kauai and other US areas. I would be happy to hear Hilton purchase starwood. Can it happen? My Hilton resort has only around $20 increase for next year's MF. Such a shame on starwood.



The limited locations is the main negative as far as I'm concerned.  The main reason we chose Starwood over Hilton (which does seem to have a pretty good points system) was Hilton's concentration in Orlando & Vegas, neither of which is a strong draw.  Starwood has a greater variety of locations.  However, at this point, I'd be willing to consider it.

Glorian


----------



## DanCali (Nov 24, 2009)

Stefa said:


> So what happens if Hyatt or Hilton were to take over some of the Westin resorts?   Obviously the HOA would be replaced (which would be a good start), but what other changes would we see besides the renaming?   Would they renegotiate all the contracts such as for maintenance and housekeeping?
> 
> How long would the changeover take?   Would there be SAs or would fees maybe stabilize for awhile?
> 
> What happens to the Sheratons and other less-desirable resorts?



There is no chageover yet but I wish one of these companies approached owners with such an initiative. I mean we own the resorts and can vote on a change of management, no? They just need to want to manage them and be able to commit to reasonable MFs.

I don't think this is even possible but I think that at some resorts owners would be better off selling these as condos and splitting the proceeds. If a WKORV unit would sell for 1.5M, that's 30,000 per owner. I'd take that and buy a Marriott in a heartbeat! For resorts like SDO and SBP any positive selling price would be better at this point than being stuck with an asset that won't sell...


----------



## jerseygirl (Nov 24, 2009)

I own at both Hilton and Hyatt .... my take:


Hyatt has the nicer resorts and although they're in limited locations, they're pretty good locations for the most part (and they have an excellent arrangement with II should an owner want to travel outside the system).
Hilton has the best management from a "customer-friendly" point-of-view.  They allow resale buyers into the points program AND provide them with the ability to trade for hotel points.  They raised the number of hotel points awarded to timeshare conversions to offset the points devaluation (unheard of with the other majors).  Only negatives are the limited locations and RCI.

Come to think of it, a buyout from Hilton would get my vote too -- especially if they'd keep some sort of relationship with II (my affiliate resort can trade through II!  And, they'd probably take all the resorts.

I'm an "anyone but the Yankees" fan ... guess I'm becoming an "anyone but Starwood" fan too.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 24, 2009)

So if one wanted to propose to the Board an agenda item to vote on like "The Board will commence looking for a new management company to replace Starwood" (including obtaining owner votes) how do we go about doing that?

I imagine that anyone with even remote ties to Starwood on the Board will need to recuse themselves from voting...


----------



## l2trade (Nov 24, 2009)

I agree with everyone on this thread so far.     It is time to push for changes.  Just like Gmarine said, I believe Starwood is failing miserably.


----------



## LisaRex (Nov 25, 2009)

Count me in as a former very happy member of HiltonHHonors.  You cannot beat DoubleTrees and/or Embassy Suites when traveling with children.   If Hilton had had a presence in Maui, I'd probably be a Hilton TS owner today. From calling a locksmith when we locked our keys in the car at the ES Columbia, SC to upgrading both me and the other couple traveling with us to OF suites at the Hilton Hawaaian Village (as a silver!), to sending me home with a tin of cookies at the local Doubletree Suites, I have only had positive experiences with Hilton hotels. 

Personally, I'd be giddy if Hilton bought out WKORV-N.


----------



## tombo (Nov 25, 2009)

With the Starwood sales in the tank, with owners defaulting at high rates, with most of the resort's expenses out of control due to poor mgt and lack of income from MF's I don't see Starwood as a bargain to buy. I can understand why Starwood might want to (or have to) sell, but I sure can't imagine why Hyatt or Hilton would want to buy it.


----------



## Transit (Nov 25, 2009)

"Is Starwood management failing owners ?"  They have ,I will most likely dump my Non-SVN after the vacations I already have booked.I'll keep my SVN unit with the hopes that Starwood can recover somewhat but my better judgement is telling me to get out completely while there is something to salvage.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 25, 2009)

tombo said:


> With the Starwood sales in the tank, with owners defaulting at high rates, with most of the resort's expenses out of control due to poor mgt and lack of income from MF's I don't see Starwood as a bargain to buy. I can understand why Starwood might want to (or have to) sell, but I sure can't imagine why Hyatt or Hilton would want to buy it.



Maybe I am missing something,but why is everyone referring to Hilton or Hyatt "buying out" SVO... Is there anything to buy from them? WE are the owners of the resorts.... ("Starwood is hired to administer reservations, clean the toilets, and take out the trash etc... "). 

If someone wanted to manage these resorts all they need to do is come out with a proposal that would be fair to owners (e.g. full transparency, reasonable MFs, and a commitment that they will increase MFs only when absolutely necessary in a responsible manner - maybe also propose a cap like no more than CPI + 2%) as well as to the new management company in the form of a reasonable management fee that can get them a decent profit. I am pretty sure that many owners at resorts (especially with few developer owned units) would vote for this if MFs were back to 2005 levels, even at the loss of SVN trades...

So what am I missing? Why do they even need to talk to Starwood...?


----------



## Stefa (Nov 25, 2009)

Dan

I don't really understand what is involved in changing management (which is why I asked some questions above) but, perhaps, people are thinking it would be easier to get Starwood to give up control voluntarily than it would be for owners to organize and have them removed.   In that case, another management company would probably have to buy them out.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 25, 2009)

Stefa said:


> Dan
> 
> I don't really understand what is involved in changing management (which is why I asked some questions above) but, perhaps, people are thinking it would be easier to get Starwood to give up control voluntarily than it would be for owners to organize and have them removed.   In that case, another management company would probably have to buy them out.



They are making money at our expense via excessive management fees, housekeeping fees, rental fees etc... In fact, you can argue that the more delinquencies, the better off Starwood is because the pocket more rental commissions and hosekeeping fees which otherwise they wouldn't get. This is a cash cow for them (at least on the management side) - I can't see them giving it up voluntarily. 

The sales effort is a different story. TUG negatie sentiment here seems to affect quite a few buyers in backing away from a purchase decision... that's probably hurting Starwood, but since they are not developing new resorts I don'tknow how much they care.


----------



## gmarine (Nov 25, 2009)

Owners need to ask themsleves a few questions to see if they are better off with Starwood or are they better off having a different management company. Try these for starters.

1. Is Starwood effective at keeping maintenance fee increases to a reasonable level ? Nope, they fail that test.

2. Does Starwood have good communication with owners? Nope, failed that test really badly.

3. Is Starwood taking ALL owners into consideration when making changes to its policies?  Well we all know the answer to that one. A big resounding " NO"

4. Is Starwood listening to owners complaints? Certainly not yet. And most owners complaints have been answered only by a form letter, which judging by the emails I have gotten, only makes owners more angry.

5. Is Starwood being honest with owners and abiding by my resorts governing documents? I cant speak for all resorts, but for SDO and SBP owners, the answer is no.  

6. Since Starwood is such a well known brand, does having Starwood as my management company help keep resale prices up, similar to Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton etc ?  Nope, fails that one too. Other prime season branded resorts dont sell for $1 on EBAY or worse, go unsold. 

For many owners of many resorts its time to look to dump Starwood.
IMO, there is no reason why owners should pay excessive management fees to Starwood when they arent doing their job.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 25, 2009)

gmarine said:


> Owners need to ask themsleves a few questions to see if they are better off with Starwood or are they better off having a different management company. Try these for starters.
> 
> 1. Is Starwood effective at keeping maintenance fee increases to a reasonable level ? Nope, they fail that test.
> 
> ...



I agree with everyting above, but have one comment regarding Point 6 above.

Voluntary resorts, which have the ability to trade via SVN, do command higher resale values. WKV sells for quite a bit more than SDO, WKORV sells for quite a bit more than WPORV, and SVV for quite a bit more than SVR. Owners at these resorts (and to a lesser extent HRA and WSJ) would be concerned about impact on resale values and those concerns would impact their choice. If a new management company had good internal trading opportunities (whether they keep the Staroptions, or some other system that would work)  those concerns could be mitigated.


----------



## yumdrey (Nov 25, 2009)

tombo said:


> I can understand why Starwood might want to (or have to) sell, but I sure can't imagine why Hyatt or Hilton would want to buy it.



Like I mentioned above, Hilton has very limited locations - Orlando, Vegas, Hawaii (not Maui or Kauai) and NYC. If Hilton has nice resorts in Maui & Kauai, and those beautiful properties on westcoast & Caribbean, it will compliment Hilton system and will sell much better.
I love Hilton's online reservation system, reasonable Open season prices & availabilities, their respectful manner to resale buyers, wonderful management.


----------



## amanven (Nov 25, 2009)

If Starwood was dumped right now, how easily could it be done?  Starwood must have some clauses in their managerial contract that set out a specified length of time they must manage the resorts.  Can they be removed before their contract is up or would there have to be a payment of some kind to Starwood for premature termination of the managerial contract?


----------



## pharmgirl (Nov 25, 2009)

Title should be Starwood has FAILED owners - not just are they failing

I am so disappointed and disgusted by this company


----------



## LisaRex (Nov 25, 2009)

DanCali said:


> Owners at these (mandatory) resorts (and to a lesser extent HRA and WSJ) would be concerned about impact on resale values and those concerns would impact their choice.



Red edits are mine.

I think most owners in Maui, HRA, and WSJ bought because they wanted to visit there as they've always had the highest MFs, relatively speaking, compared to other Starwood resorts. So I don't think it'd be a huge issue, especially if a new firm were to manage the property more efficiently. And there's always II or direct exchanging.  As far as SVN goes, I now think SVN is overrated because of the supply and demand issue.  So giving up SVN wouldn't bother me at all.

I think the biggest obstacle, aside from Starwood itself, would be from elite owners who bought because of the 5* platinum-for-life benefit.  They paid big bucks for that benefit and it would be a real loss for them.


----------



## yumdrey (Nov 25, 2009)

DanCali said:


> I agree with everyting above, but have one comment regarding Point 6 above.
> Voluntary resorts, which have the ability to trade via SVN, do command higher resale values. WKV sells for quite a bit more than SDO, WKORV sells for quite a bit more than WPORV, and SVV for quite a bit more than SVR.



It has been true so far. However, we have mandatory owners (use SVN for internal exchange) who worry about SVN internal trade availability. Unlike before, many owners couldn't get what they wanted within SVN system this year. It will seriously impact mandatory resorts' resale prices. Those Westin resorts in Maui (WKORV & North) were sold over $15,000 for island view a year ago. now they were sold around $8,000 on ebay and even ocean view/ocean front units were sold under $15,000. If starwood doesn't provide more availabilities within SVN internal exchange, the prices will fall much more than this soon.


----------



## yumdrey (Nov 25, 2009)

LisaRex said:


> Red edits are mine.
> I think the biggest obstacle, aside from Starwood itself, would be from elite owners who bought because of the 5* platinum-for-life benefit.  They paid big bucks for that benefit and it would be a real loss for them.



Hilton's elite program is nice too  
If Hilton give Diamond elite status for life to 5* elite starwood owners, it will make equal? Is starwood's 5* elite is far superior than Hilton's diamond elite?


----------



## tombo (Nov 25, 2009)

DanCali said:


> They are making money at our expense via excessive management fees, housekeeping fees, rental fees etc... In fact, you can argue that the more delinquencies, the better off Starwood is because the pocket more rental commissions and hosekeeping fees which otherwise they wouldn't get. This is a cash cow for them (at least on the management side) - I can't see them giving it up voluntarily.
> 
> The sales effort is a different story. TUG negatie sentiment here seems to affect quite a few buyers in backing away from a purchase decision... that's probably hurting Starwood, but since they are not developing new resorts I don'tknow how much they care.



That is the problem with developer based resorts that are set up where the developer remains in control after the original inventory is sold out. All resorts are built and sold by developers so they can make a profit. If the developer reaches a certain point (75% sold out for example) and turns the HOA over to the owners, then the resort will usually be operated in an efficient cost controlling manner. If the developer retains control of the board and is the Mgt company for the resort things usually get very expensive for the owners. As the developer has fewer sales their income falls. How can they make more coporate profit? Simple charge more for mgt fees. Do they need to bid out housekeeping? No do it themselves and make a profit for themselves. Do they bid out renovations? No, give it to a company they own or who will pay them an overide or kickback. Annual MF's keep getting higher and what can the owners do about it? Nothing because the developer controls the board and every expense the resort pays. The more the developer charges the owners in mgt fees, houskeeping fees, renovations, upkeep, etc, the more profit the developer makes. Can you vote them off as the resort's mgt company? Usually they have it set up so that you can't. Can you sue them? Sure but you might or might not win and good luck getting in touch with enough owners who will pay their fair share of the legal fees.

I own at several resorts that are developer run and all have higher MF's than the resorts I own at which are owner controlled. The smaller independent resorts which are owner controlled usually have the most reasonable MF's from my experience because their goal is to provide the best services possible for the cheapest cost. After a resort is basically sold out the developers only way to make a profit at the resort is on the backs of the owners.

 Developers make more money every time the MF's go up at resorts they manage so there is little incentive for them to keep costs down. Board members and mgt companies at owner controlled resorts on the other hand only keep their jobs if they keep the annual MF's as low as possible.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 25, 2009)

tombo said:


> That is the problem with developer based resorts that are set up where the developer remains in control after the original inventory is sold out. All resorts are built and sold by developers so they can make a profit.



And Starwood, unfortunately for us, seems to be the worst among all the developer based resorts. There is no other developer that raised MFs anywhere close to what Starwood did both over a 5 year horizon as well as in 2010. Many people seem shocked by what happened with 2010 fees, but this is by no means anything new... even without Maui taxes or delinquencies excuses Starwood looks terrible on this front when you look at 2004-2009.


----------



## pharmgirl (Nov 25, 2009)

We have Marriott and Starwood timeshares in Hawaii - all bought from developer
No regrets since we love the units.  We wanted the 'assurance' of big name brands that i know from staying at the associated hotels.

However, starwood has not been succesful in running a timeshare organization.  We wanted hawaii but also the opportunity to trade for timeshares in other locations.  We decided to sell our vacation house as it was too much work, staying there always would be boring after a while - so timeshares were the answer - no work and opportunity to stay at beautiful locations.  Costs were reasonable compared to a summer house.  We still love KORV but feel trading within SVO is not reasonable and maint. fee increases are unreasonable compared to Marriotts

My question to those who say when location is sold out then HOA takes over and developer leaves.   With marriott resorts doesn't marriott still run them?same for Hilton?

I would welcome Hilton, Marriott etc taking over from Starwood and not really be happy without a 'name brand' associated location


----------



## tombo (Nov 25, 2009)

pharmgirl said:


> We have Marriott and Starwood timeshares in Hawaii - all bought from developer
> No regrets since we love the units.  We wanted the 'assurance' of big name brands that i know from staying at the associated hotels.
> 
> However, starwood has not been succesful in running a timeshare organization.  We wanted hawaii but also the opportunity to trade for timeshares in other locations.  We decided to sell our vacation house as it was too much work, staying there always would be boring after a while - so timeshares were the answer - no work and opportunity to stay at beautiful locations.  Costs were reasonable compared to a summer house.  We still love KORV but feel trading within SVO is not reasonable and maint. fee increases are unreasonable compared to Marriotts
> ...



Marriott has more reasonable MF's than Starwood but could not be considered inexpensive when compared to the owner controlled resorts. Marriott has some of the highest MF's in the industry along with Hilton and Hyatt. Marriott has some great resorts but if they were under control of owner controlled boards who could hire efficient cost cutting Mgt companies the MF's would be much lower. A couple of Mariotts have thrown Marriott out as the Mgt company from what I have read. I think one is on hilton Head and I am not sure where the other resorts(s) that have done likewise are located.

My average 2 bed room MF's at owner controlled resorts is less than $650 a year including taxes and reserves. The lowest 2 bed room Marriott MF's are close to $1000 and many in Hawaii and Aruba approach or exceed $2000 annually. I would guess the average annual expense for a 2 bed room with Marriott would be close to $1300.

Here are some 2010 MF examples to compare in Maui and Kaui.

MarriottMaui Ocean Club Molokai, Lanai & Maui Towers
1Bdrm $1538.81
2Bdrm $1692.70

MOC Lahaina & Napili Towers 
2Bdrm $1896.49
3Bdrm $2275.79

Owner controlled in Maui:

Kamaole Beach Club 2 bed 2 bath $749

The Gardens at West Maui one bed $585

Sands of Kahana 2 bed 2 bath $943

Kahana Villa Vacation Club 2 bed 2bath $942

Kahana Falls one bed one bath $500

Maui Beach Vacation Club one bed one bath $640

Kahana Villa Vacation Club one bed room one bath $545

Maui Lea at Maui Hill one bed room 2 bath $1108

Sands of Kahana one bed room 2 bath $864



Same thing in Kauai.

Marriot Kauai Beach Villas one bed unit's MF's are $1590 in 2010

Owner controlled resorts:

Lawai Beach Resort one bed one bath $859

The Cliffs Club one bed 2 bath $917

The Point at Poipu 2 bed 2 bat $1200

The Cliffs Club 4 bed 4 bath $1252

Pono Kai Resort one bed one bath $649

Pahio at Kauai Beach Villas 2 bed 2 bath $1117

Hanalei Bay Resort 2 bed 2 bath $1200

The Makai Club Cottages 2 bed 2 bath $1145


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Nov 26, 2009)

tombo said:


> Marriott has more reasonable MF's than Starwood but could not be considered inexpensive when compared to the owner controlled resorts. Marriott has some of the highest MF's in the industry along with Hilton and Hyatt. Marriott has some great resorts but if they were under control of owner controlled boards who could hire efficient cost cutting Mgt companies the MF's would be much lower. A couple of Mariotts have thrown Marriott out as the Mgt company from what I have read. I think one is on hilton Head and I am not sure where the other resorts(s) that have done likewise are located.
> 
> My average 2 bed room MF's at owner controlled resorts is less than $650 a year including taxes and reserves. The lowest 2 bed room Marriott MF's are close to $1000 and many in Hawaii and Aruba approach or exceed $2000 annually. I would guess the average annual expense for a 2 bed room with Marriott would be close to $1300.
> 
> ...



I don't feel all of your comparisons are comparing Apples to Apples.  I've stayed at the Cliff's Club and while our unit was okay it wasn't a Westin.  There is definitely a huge QUALITY gap between the resorts.  I haven't stayed at the other ones so, I cannot compare.  I also believed that Marriot left some of their timeshare units because the owners did not want to keep up with the Marriott standards.  I know, for some of the Colorado units I thought Marriott wanted the units to be upgraded to Marriott standards and the HOA did not.   

One of the reasons I picked Marriott and/or Starwood for timeshare units because I like the consistency between the units.  They will always be upgraded on a schedule (at least Marriott units are).

I guess... my biggest fear would like our 1st condo rental in Maui.  It was in the Kihei area (resort will be nameless).  Anyways... the photos online were nothing like the unit we received.  We were informed that the owners maintain all the unit at different rates.  Anyways... we were in a the back of the complex with a dark unit with very little windows.  No A/C.  The bugs would run when I flicked on the lights.  It was basically a dump.  The furniture was soiled from wet bathing suits, etc...  The same occurred when we stayed at a timeshare in SF.  The unit was just basically a dump but people continue to write rave reviews about these places.  So, I guess, we expect a certain standard and some of these other places just remind me of staying in an apartment (and I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that but it just isn't my cup of tea).  So, I've come to love the Marriott and Westin quality.  I like the resort amentities offered.  If I didn't I wouldn't buy these timeshares.  I would have gotten a no name brand if it didn't matter to me.  I can honestly say it does matter to me.  But I'm at the point with Starwood that the price is not keeping up with my desire to stay there anymore.


----------



## jerseygirl (Nov 26, 2009)

I own a couple of "no-name" beach front timeshares in Florida that I absolutely love (truly independent, dedicated HOA boards who do everything in their power to find the right balance between "nice" (not luxurious) and "cost effective," but ... you're right, they're not Westin, Hyatt, Hilton, Marriott, etc -- not fair comparisons.

And, I too love the quality that the name brands provide ... and the amenities (I want restaurant choices, room service, music by the pool, fun bars, etc.).  

But, I think it's worth mentioning that I'm questioning Starwood's sanity in the recent WSJ refurb (which is costing us an arm and a leg).  I've been there twice this year -- and although both units looked lovely on the surface, you didn't have to look too far to find the flaws in the white/cream soft furniture.  What were they thinking?  Kids visit this place all the time -- white was a really poor choice in my opinion.






How many years will it be before these need replaced?  2? 3?  We had to do a total refurb at my "no name" beach timeshare in Florida and the HOA had the good sense to buy furniture that appears to be holding up to the traffic quite well.

I don't mind when luxury comes with a price, but I expect common sense as well.  Is that too much to ask?


----------



## tombo (Nov 26, 2009)

ciscogizmo1 said:


> I don't feel all of your comparisons are comparing Apples to Apples.  I've stayed at the Cliff's Club and while our unit was okay it wasn't a Westin.  There is definitely a huge QUALITY gap between the resorts.  I haven't stayed at the other ones so, I cannot compare.  I also believed that Marriot left some of their timeshare units because the owners did not want to keep up with the Marriott standards.  I know, for some of the Colorado units I thought Marriott wanted the units to be upgraded to Marriott standards and the HOA did not.
> 
> One of the reasons I picked Marriott and/or Starwood for timeshare units because I like the consistency between the units.  They will always be upgraded on a schedule (at least Marriott units are).
> 
> I guess... my biggest fear would like our 1st condo rental in Maui.  It was in the Kihei area (resort will be nameless).  Anyways... the photos online were nothing like the unit we received.  We were informed that the owners maintain all the unit at different rates.  Anyways... we were in a the back of the complex with a dark unit with very little windows.  No A/C.  The bugs would run when I flicked on the lights.  It was basically a dump.  The furniture was soiled from wet bathing suits, etc...  The same occurred when we stayed at a timeshare in SF.  The unit was just basically a dump but people continue to write rave reviews about these places.  So, I guess, we expect a certain standard and some of these other places just remind me of staying in an apartment (and I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that but it just isn't my cup of tea).  So, I've come to love the Marriott and Westin quality.  I like the resort amentities offered.  If I didn't I wouldn't buy these timeshares.  I would have gotten a no name brand if it didn't matter to me.  I can honestly say it does matter to me.  But I'm at the point with Starwood that the price is not keeping up with my desire to stay there anymore.



There is no question that Marriott provides a high quality stay consistently as does Hyatt, Hilton, and Starwood. Most of the independent resorts I listed are not nearly as plush as the chains and I did not mean to infer that there was no justification for higher fees at the chains because there is. I would pay more to stay in some of the chains, but there is a limit to how much more  am willing to pay. In some instance I won't pay as much for a chain as I will for an independent due to location. Many Marriott beach locations are near the beach not on the beach in Hilton Head, Panama City Beach, etc. I would rather stay in an older less plush oceanfront resort (and pay more for it) than a plush chain located a short drive or stroll from the beach. To each his own but in Hawaii and most anywhere I go to vacation I am in my room very little and I don't want a dump, but I sure don't want to pay double each year for designer curtains and stainless steel refrigeraters. I have never come back from a vacation feeling my trip was ruined from lack of granite counter tops, non designer decorating touches, or lack of crown moulding. Sometimes I love a rustic resort for a change of pace. Some of the best vacations my family has ever taken were spent in National Park accomodations which are more run down and have less amenities than the worst motels I have stayed in overnight. Rooms in-park at Yellowstone and Yosemite are must stay locations. Apparently many agree since you have to reserve at about a year in advance to get a room.

 The problem is that the chains have little incentive to provide that quality while controlling costs. The more fluff they add the higher fees they feel that they can justify charging.  As these resorts keep raising the annual fees at much higher rates than the cost of inflation their value of ownership decreases. There will come a point that most owners will no longer feel the quality of the rooms are worth the expense. Whether that point is $1500, $2000, $2500, or $3000 in annual MF's that point will eventually be reached. In addition with a little searching most of these chain resorts can already be rented on Redweek and Tug for equal to or less than the owners pay in annual MF's. No matter how nice the resort is why purchase and be obligated to ever increasing MF's and inevitable assessments when you can rent for cheaper?

At an independent resort if they want to assess for this or that renovation, raise MF's, increase the mgt fees paid to the company, give employees raises, etc, they have to answer to the owners. If the owners don't like what the board and/or mgt comapny is doing, the owners can vote the board out and replace the management company. The board and mgt companies at ower controlled resorts have to be accountable for their expenses and their jobs depend on it. That is the best model to keep costs down at resorts.

At most of the chains where owners don't control the board/mgt company, the chains assess as they see fit, raise what they charge to manage the resort almost annually, and raise MF's with no regards to what the majority of owners want. The only time the chains have incentive to keep MF's low is when they are selling at new resorts. When the masses are going through the sales presentations they want to proclaim loudly that this can be yours for only $850 a week each year. After the resort is sold out the MF increase train starts rolling because now everyone is trapped and has to pay whatever the resort decides to charge, sell their week, or get turned over to collections. 

I no longer want to be an "owner" at any resort where I am forever obligated to pay whatever the developer feels like charging without regards to the majority of owner's wishes. Been there, done that, and I am so over it.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 26, 2009)

*Why pay big dollars to get what you can do for yourself?*



pharmgirl said:


> We have Marriott and Starwood timeshares in Hawaii - all bought from developer
> No regrets since we love the units.  We wanted the 'assurance' of big name brands that i know from staying at the associated hotels.
> 
> I would welcome Hilton, Marriott etc taking over from Starwood and not really be happy without a 'name brand' associated location



The only "assurance" that a brand name management offers is that your fees will be higher in most cases. Thats because to keep the brand name means accepting their rules. First is the required level of unit furnishings, fixtures and finishes. Same with common areas. Nothing wrong with that and nothing whatsoever to prevent a non-name brand from having exactly the same items if the HOA Board/owners wish that level of quality. 

Second is the management fee. In most cases the name brand writes the contract to favor themselves and are sure to do a cost plus guaranteed type contract. Of course many non-names do the same but may not have the clout to hang around and collect on it.  So you are getting an inflated (often 10-15%) fee level to have the "name" on the resort/system. 

Third is the upgrade/maintenance work. The contract will say that only the "approved" vendors can do the work (read another hefty percentage add on to the favored vendors) as well as the standard management overhead added to each project. This can be 25-50% more costly than the exact same work done on a competitive bid situation. And if the HOA refuses? The name walks. 

Thats just a sample of the way fees can quickly spiral out of control quickly when the name calls the shots. Once the resort quality is set and the owners are in control there is NO reason that the name needs to hang on to keep things at the desired level. In fact when Marriott dropped some resorts (a pattern they have had for years - go in and get out) the resulting change to an independent management resulted in lower fees and IMPROVED resorts. The reduction in overhead tacked on by Marriott allowed the HOA/management to make improvements at lower costs and get as good or better products and finishes. Adding a big fixed overhead doesn't buy anything but extra costs to owners. 

It is up to those owners to set the quality they desire to have - the name brand isn't required to have a hand in it.  To do it by using the name brand to enforce quality is an extremely expensive way to do what any well run management/HOA can accomplish on their own if they are willing to pay the cost.  It should be easier to convince the reluctant owners to pony up the difference between K-Mart quality and Stickley type rather than paying 25-50% more to be forced by the brand name to do the same. Most would understand that the end result is the important part and getting it at the best price is in everyones best interest. That is NOT by overpaying for the brand name IMO.


----------



## Stefa (Nov 26, 2009)

Most of us who purchase branded timeshares understand that the fees will be higher for the reason stated above.  We accept that because of the quality and trading opportunities that we believe make owning with Starwood, Hyatt, etc worthwhile.   

The problem with Starwood isn't that the fees are higher; it's that the fees are increasing at such an alarming rate.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 26, 2009)

*Far too much for what you get - no reason for it*



Stefa said:


> Most of us who purchase branded timeshares understand that the fees will be higher for the reason stated above.  We accept that because of the quality and trading opportunities that we believe make owning with Starwood, Hyatt, etc worthwhile.
> 
> The problem with Starwood isn't that the fees are higher; it's that the fees are increasing at such an alarming rate.



When you give them an open checkbook and a guaranteed contract why are you surprised? They have nothing to lose in raising fees to any level they desire and no threat of being removed. Far too much to pay for my taste.


----------



## Ken555 (Nov 26, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> In fact when Marriott dropped some resorts (a pattern they have had for years - go in and get out) the resulting change to an independent management resulted in lower fees and IMPROVED resorts. The reduction in overhead tacked on by Marriott allowed the HOA/management to make improvements at lower costs and get as good or better products and finishes.



Could you list specific resorts that Marriott left and which are improved today? I'd like to look into them. Thanks.


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Nov 27, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> I own a couple of "no-name" beach front timeshares in Florida that I absolutely love (truly independent, dedicated HOA boards who do everything in their power to find the right balance between "nice" (not luxurious) and "cost effective," but ... you're right, they're not Westin, Hyatt, Hilton, Marriott, etc -- not fair comparisons.
> 
> And, I too love the quality that the name brands provide ... and the amenities (I want restaurant choices, room service, music by the pool, fun bars, etc.).
> 
> ...


  I agree... I'm not sure what they were thinking with all that white.  They have the same white at WKORV and surprisingly it has held up well.  I'm not sure what they do but the last time we stayed there was in a unit that was at least 4 years old and there wasn't as much wear and tear that I expected to see.  I've seen worst at Disney Vacation Club Resorts.  

I don't believe Starwood is making the best choices for their owners but I'm not sure the independent HOA is the way to go yet as the previous poster mentioned.  I'm not ready for that.  It is fine if that poster is but that's not what I bought into.


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Nov 27, 2009)

Ken555 said:


> Could you list specific resorts that Marriott left and which are improved today? I'd like to look into them. Thanks.


  I can't remember their exact names but some were in Colorado and one in Hilton Head.


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Nov 27, 2009)

tombo said:


> There is no question that Marriott provides a high quality stay consistently as does Hyatt, Hilton, and Starwood. Most of the independent resorts I listed are not nearly as plush as the chains and I did not mean to infer that there was no justification for higher fees at the chains because there is. I would pay more to stay in some of the chains, but there is a limit to how much more  am willing to pay. In some instance I won't pay as much for a chain as I will for an independent due to location. Many Marriott beach locations are near the beach not on the beach in Hilton Head, Panama City Beach, etc. I would rather stay in an older less plush oceanfront resort (and pay more for it) than a plush chain located a short drive or stroll from the beach. To each his own but in Hawaii and most anywhere I go to vacation I am in my room very little and I don't want a dump, but I sure don't want to pay double each year for designer curtains and stainless steel refrigeraters. I have never come back from a vacation feeling my trip was ruined from lack of granite counter tops, non designer decorating touches, or lack of crown moulding. Sometimes I love a rustic resort for a change of pace. Some of the best vacations my family has ever taken were spent in National Park accomodations which are more run down and have less amenities than the worst motels I have stayed in overnight. Rooms in-park at Yellowstone and Yosemite are must stay locations. Apparently many agree since you have to reserve at about a year in advance to get a room.
> 
> The problem is that the chains have little incentive to provide that quality while controlling costs. The more fluff they add the higher fees they feel that they can justify charging.  As these resorts keep raising the annual fees at much higher rates than the cost of inflation their value of ownership decreases. There will come a point that most owners will no longer feel the quality of the rooms are worth the expense. Whether that point is $1500, $2000, $2500, or $3000 in annual MF's that point will eventually be reached. In addition with a little searching most of these chain resorts can already be rented on Redweek and Tug for equal to or less than the owners pay in annual MF's. No matter how nice the resort is why purchase and be obligated to ever increasing MF's and inevitable assessments when you can rent for cheaper?
> 
> ...



Yep.. you are right we don't spend much time in the room but I do spend a lot of time outside the room.  So, let's compare the amenities at The Cliff Club (and I've stayed here) compared to Westin KOVR (this is where I own).  The pool at the cliff is apartment like.  It is a long rectangle and has a hot tub at the end.  It provides no room for families really to run around and play.  In fact, I was given a lot of dirty looks because my kids were too noisy.  So, I much prefer the pool layout at WKORV.  There is a toddler pool and a pool slide.  The resort offers all kinds of silly games during the day.  Finally there are tons of kids for my kids to play with.  At the Cliff's club is very quiet.  On site at WKORV I have access to a SPA, 2 restaurants, a small store, snack bar, movie rentals, business center, gym, many pools, beautiful scenery.  There is tons of outside space.  The Cliff club does have some nice outside space but it is over looking a cliff with no real beach access.  So, I'm sorry to say I love the location of WKORV as it is right on the beach.  

Anyways... I don't mean to offend you but I don't want to give up those amenties for an independently run HOA that isn't going to replace the gym equipment for 20 years plus.  

I think, we might be 2 timesharers that are at different points in our lives.  You probably don't have kids that care about the amenities offered at a larger resort where my kids thrive at place like WKORV.  They are very social and love meeting people.  At the Cliff's Club we were lucky if ran into one person the entire day.  But I'm also glad there are different resorts out there so, people can have choices.  I'm not happy with Starwood MF increases which are totally different from Marriot, Hilton or Hyatt increases..


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 27, 2009)

ciscogizmo1 said:


> I can't remember their exact names but some were in Colorado and one in Hilton Head.



Correct. I don't recall the names either.  Too many resorts!


----------



## LisaRex (Nov 27, 2009)

FWIW, I'd be happy to have Starwood remain as managers if they allowed a truly independent HOA to be seated and represent our interests. 

But I'll say this again: Something is up with Starwood.  They have to know that signficantly raising their MFs, again, in this economy is going to cause a snowball effect of more delinquencies/rising MFs.  They have to know that these raises are pissing off even their most ardent supporters and driving more people away. 

Their competitors, who've been around long enough to have survived  economic downturns, and who operate in the same areas as Starwood, have not had to raise their MFs. Marriott has not only kept MFs steady but has slashed the prices on new developer purchases in order to stimulate more business.  Starwood, on the other hand, is still asking pre-crash prices.  It's  the "La La La La" method of management. 

When they decided to halt the Aruba, Cabo, and WKORV-N-N developments, we asked then, "What are they going to do now to make money?"  The big dollars, the kind of dollars that impress CEOs and stockholders, are in new developments.  Well, now that the smoke has cleared, I think it's pretty obvious what their solution was. They decided to squeeze their owners for every penny they could, while focusing all their energies on one development: the WKORV-N-N project.

The fact that they are willing to fight Maui County in order to get the green light to build, even now, is very telling.  Who in their right mind flips the bird to folks who have the power to quadruple property taxes with the stroke of a pen?  Who in their right mind expands even as the resorts right next door are reporting record delinquencies?  Who in their right mind builds in a place where tourism is down significantly in an economy that is reporting double digit unemployment?

Desperate people, that's who.  I think they are counting on WKORV-N-N to be their salvation. They are counting on the economy turning around by the time this thing is built.  And if, in the meantime, they need to hop on the backs of the owners at existing resorts, and create phony excuses as to why their MFs have to increase 25% each year, in order to survive until then, then that's what they're willing to do.  Even if it means drowning half of us in the process.  It's survival of the meanest out there, and Starwood has shown us repeatedly how tenacious and viscious they can be.


----------



## jarta (Nov 27, 2009)

LisaRex,   ...   "The fact that they are willing to fight Maui County in order to get the green light to build, even now, is very telling. Who in their right mind flips the bird to folks who have the power to quadruple property taxes with the stroke of a pen? Who in their right mind expands even as the resorts right next door are reporting record delinquencies? Who in their right mind builds in a place where tourism is down significantly in an economy that is reporting double digit unemployment?"

Perhaps someone who thinks the testimony at the zoning hearing that supported the open space (bike path?) should allow Starwood to get the building permits for Maui 3?

Please read the actual transcript of the plan commission hearing for the 2nd SMA.  I have posted the link below.  It seems the locals and neighbors do not share your attitude about Starwood.

http://www.co.maui.hi.us/archives/85/112707.min.part 1.pg1-50.pdf

...   eom


----------



## LisaRex (Nov 27, 2009)

jarta said:


> Please read the actual transcript of the plan commission hearing for the 2nd SMA.  I have posted the link below.  It seems the locals and neighbors do not share your attitude about Starwood.



My attitude about Starwood is that they are pissing off the local politicians, who couldn't be clearer that they don't want more timeshares.  Maui has retaliated by passing outrageously high property tax assessments aimed squarely upon timeshare developments. 

Pages 19-20 of your own link reveals that bias, as do other articles and resolutions.  Which makes me wonder why they are choosing to pursue this project, in this crappy economy, and in a place that clearly doesn't welcome them. The only thing I can figure is that they are desperate. Do you have another take on the matter?

http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2006/07/10/story1.html
http://www.mauicounty.gov/archives/117/080307.pdf (see No. 08-72)
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/500583.html?nav=10


----------



## Transit (Nov 27, 2009)

LisaRex said:


> Do you have another take on the matter?



Wouldn't building a 3rd TS in that same area seriously further diminish the values of the first two? I thought that project was DOA


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 27, 2009)

Transit said:


> Wouldn't building a 3rd TS in that same area seriously further diminish the values of the first two? I thought that project was DOA



Starwood already owns the property and has broken ground- I think they figure that when the economy improves, it will be sellable.  I doubt if they are willing to lose the investment they have already made in developing the 3rd resort.  Plus, remember that they don't care what happens to resale prices.


----------



## jarta (Nov 27, 2009)

LisaRex,   ...   "Pages 19-20 of your own link reveals that bias, as do other articles and resolutions."

I posted link to the transcript because you called Starwood vicious, tenacious, mean and "flipping the bird" to the Maui authorities.

The link to what the neighbors and locals around WKROV said at the SMA hearing certainly is different than your name-calling.  Did you actually read the transcript?  At pages 18-23 a long-time opponent of development on Maui was explaining why he supported Starwood and Maui 3.  At page 18-19 a commissioner asked him why he supported this development along the ocean while he had opposed so many, many others.  Mr. Lindsey then distinguished between parasitic developers who add nothing to Maui (destroy environment and bulldoze archeological sites) and symbiotic developers (like Starwood - his words, not mine) who work with the locals to maintain the environment and Hawaiian traditions and sites.  

Here's the link again.  Please read what it says.  And, for once, be fair in categorizing what is said there about Starwood:

http://www.co.maui.hi.us/archives/85/112707.min.part 1.pg1-50.pdf

Others, testifying at the beginning (Mr. Pluta president of the not-for-profit West Maui Improvement Association *and* the West Maui Taxpayers Association and a Lahaina resident for 35 years and the native woman, Auntie Patti Nishiyama, born and bred in Lahaina, who stated that Starwood was going to build a park dedicated to late (deceased) Lahaina kapunas) had some pretty nice things to say, too.  These native Hawaiians thought Maui 3 would be pretty "pono."

Pono, according to the Pukui/Elbert Hawaiian dictionary, means goodness, uprightness, morality, moral qualities, correct or proper procedure, excellence, well-being, prosperity, welfare, benefit, behalf, equity, proper, righteous, right, upright, just, virtuous, fair, beneficial, successful...and more.

http://leslienotes.typepad.com/the_long_and_short_of_it_/2008/03/pono-is-a-very.html

Who's the one who is vicious here?

...   eom


----------



## James1975NY (Nov 27, 2009)

DanCali said:


> They are making money at our expense via excessive management fees, housekeeping fees, rental fees etc... In fact, you can argue that the more delinquencies, the better off Starwood is because the pocket more rental commissions and hosekeeping fees which otherwise they wouldn't get. This is a cash cow for them (at least on the management side) - I can't see them giving it up voluntarily.
> 
> The sales effort is a different story. TUG negatie sentiment here seems to affect quite a few buyers in backing away from a purchase decision... that's probably hurting Starwood, but since they are not developing new resorts I don'tknow how much they care.



I do not think that SVO is making much on renting delinquint owners weeks after the HOA is paid. There are so many rental opportunities without getting SVO involved at all.


----------



## jarta (Nov 27, 2009)

kapunas, usually referred to as Aunties and Uncles, are life changing ancestors and elders.  Here's an example of what a kapuna can mean to a Hawaiian:

http://www.moolelo.com/naiwi.html

...   eom


----------



## Fredm (Nov 27, 2009)

jarta said:


> LisaRex,   ...   "Pages 19-20 of your own link reveals that bias, as do other articles and resolutions."
> 
> I posted link to the transcript because you called Starwood vicious, tenacious, mean and "flipping the bird" to the Maui authorities.
> 
> ...



I was impressed by the contributions Starwood has made, and its commitments to future support of Hawaiian cultural preservation, and schools. 

Maui is currently burdened by a few elected officials who could not make a decision without the aid of a wind sock.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 27, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> I do not think that SVO is making much on renting delinquint owners weeks after the HOA is paid. There are so many rental opportunities without getting SVO involved at all.



I thought it's the other way around. Not much left for the HOA after SVO is paid... 

My impression was the HOA uses Starwood to rent the units and first Starwoods gets a rental commission, then they get daily housekeeping fees, then the HOA gets paid (if anything is left over). I would be glad if someone would show any evidence that it works in a different manner...

Almost any other way to rent delinquent units would be more efficient for owners, but since Starwood would be worse off it won't happen. The HOA can allow other owners to rent them ("adopt a week"), post them on a HOA website etc... but I haven't seen any of this.

In fact the HOA would be better off talking over delinquent units, converting the to StarPoints (thus ceding the week to Starwood) and selling Starpoints to owners for say $1500 for 80K SPs (Starwood would need to allow this to happen of course). I doubt the HOA makes anywhere close to $1500 on a WKORV delinquent unit after rental comissions and housekeeping fees... But since I think Starwood keeps most of the rentals cash anyway (commissions+housekeeping), and doesn't have to pay StarPoints, this won't happen either...


----------



## gregb (Nov 27, 2009)

If I am not mistaken, Starwood has a rental program where they will rent out an owner's week, keeping 50% of the rental for their efforts.  I expect that the HOA would get the same deal.

Greg


----------



## DanCali (Nov 27, 2009)

gregb said:


> If I am not mistaken, Starwood has a rental program where they will rent out an owner's week, keeping 50% of the rental for their efforts.  I expect that the HOA would get the same deal.
> 
> Greg



As far as I know that program was discontinued a while ago for owners. If they did rent it for a paying owner though, arguably that owner paid for housekeeping so there is no need to charge again for that (although it could be 7 times vs 2 times, but maybe that difference somehow gets included in the rental commission)

I wouldn't be surpised if they do get a 50% commission from the HOA for renting delinquent units. But they also provide daily housekeeping which they likely charge for because delinquent units haven't paid for that... Cleaning up a 2BR villa is not cheap and probably doesn't come from the rental commission.

I have no idea how the accounting here works so I can only speculate. What I am pretty certain is that it benefits Starwood more than the HOA... If rental revenues went to the HOA perhaps our bills would be lower.


----------



## gregb (Nov 27, 2009)

DanCali said:


> As far as I know that program was discontinued a while ago for owners. If they did rent it for a paying owner though, arguably that owner paid for housekeeping so there is no need to charge again for that (although it could be 7 times vs 2 times, but maybe that difference somehow gets included in the rental commission)
> 
> I wouldn't be surpised if they do get a 50% commission from the HOA for renting delinquent units. But they also provide daily housekeeping which they likely charge for because delinquent units haven't paid for that... Cleaning up a 2BR villa is not cheap and probably doesn't come from the rental commission.
> 
> I have no idea how the accounting here works so I can only speculate. What I am pretty certain is that it benefits Starwood more than the HOA... If rental revenues went to the HOA perhaps our bills would be lower.



Well I think that since current owners are making up the difference for the MF of the delinquent owners, the MF for delinquent owners has effectively been paid and the HOA would just be trying to recoup the value.   

Greg


----------



## gregb (Nov 27, 2009)

jarta said:


> Please read the actual transcript of the plan commission hearing for the 2nd SMA.  I have posted the link below.  It seems the locals and neighbors do not share your attitude about Starwood.
> 
> http://www.co.maui.hi.us/archives/85/112707.min.part 1.pg1-50.pdf



Jarta,  Thanks for the link.  I was reading it, but could not find part 2.  How did you find those minutes?  I looked on the Maui County archives 
http://www.co.maui.hi.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=91 and I don't see any planning committee meeting on 11/27/2007.  Thanks for any pointers you can provide.  

I appreciate that you provide references for your assertions.

Greg

Edit:  Ok I found it.  I googled "Maui County Planning Commission" and it took me to the correct pages for the Planning Commission.  Guess that is different from the Planning Committee of the County Council.  The link to the commission minutes is:
http://www.co.maui.hi.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=85

Greg


----------



## DanCali (Nov 27, 2009)

gregb said:


> Well I think that since current owners are making up the difference for the MF of the delinquent owners, the MF for delinquent owners has effectively been paid and the HOA would just be trying to recoup the value.
> 
> Greg



But this is not a one time shortfall... If owners at SVV didn't pay MFs when they were $1100, they won't start paying when MFs are $1600. If anything it will just get worse. The same goes for other resorts.

Unless HOAs fine a better way to deal with delinquencies (other than getting rental commissions and hosekeeping fees into SVO's pockets) some of these resorts are on an inevitable crash and burn course.

Almost anything would be better than letting Starwood to the rentals for us.


----------



## jarta (Nov 27, 2009)

Dan,   ...   "Unless HOAs fine a better way to deal with delinquencies (other than getting rental commissions and hosekeeping fees into SVO's pockets) some of these resorts are on an inevitable crash and burn course.

Almost anything would be better than letting Starwood to the rentals for us."

You've gotta be kidding!  One housekeeping staff just for timeshare users and another whole housekeeping staff just for rentals of delinquent units?  Think of it!  Two sets of maids pushing two sets of carts holding duplicate towels and soap around the resort?  lol!

One rental company advertising, keeping records, collecting money and accounting for delinquent rentals; another doing the same thing for everything else at the resort?  That's the way to run a resort?  Yikes!

The rental commissions and the housekeeping fees are paid by the delinquent owner as a deduction from the rent.  I posted that prevalent State law on delinquencies long ago.  Didn't you read it?  

The net rental is applied against the delinquency and any shortfall still has to be paid to the HOA by the delinquent owner.  If anyone is "cheated" by the charges for rental commissions and housekeeping fees which are deducted from the rent, it is the deadbeat owner, not the resort HOA.  So, who cares?    ...   eom


----------



## DanCali (Nov 28, 2009)

jarta said:


> Dan,   ...   "Unless HOAs fine a better way to deal with delinquencies (other than getting rental commissions and hosekeeping fees into SVO's pockets) some of these resorts are on an inevitable crash and burn course.
> 
> Almost anything would be better than letting Starwood to the rentals for us."
> 
> ...




Jarta,

I am sure your love and loyalty to the Starwood organization are genuine and well-intentioned, but you never cease to amaze me how you can take one or two sentences someone posts, twist them completely out of context, and digress in directions which COMPLETELY MISS THE MAIN POINTS!!!!

So let's hone in on why almost anything would be better than the current status quo... I'll start by using SVV as an example since it has lots of delinquencies.

Starwood can rent a 2BR at SVV for roughly $150 to $200 per night. Let's be optimistic and say they do it for $200/night. On a 7 night rental they gross $1400. From that the owner or HOA or whoever pay them a 50% commission so we are left with $700. We still need to pay 7 housekeeping charges for a 2BR... how much does that cost? Since we know owners get billed $200-$400 for 1.5 housekeeping charges via MFs, I'd say $100/night is pretty optimistic. So if Starwood charges $100/night for 7 nights what's left to the HOA after this rental is a big ZERO. Note that Starwood made quite a bit of money on it though...

Now when I said "Almost anything would be better than letting Starwood to the rentals for us" I obviously mean that there are pretty simple and constructive ways that even a high school kid can think of in which the HOA can do better than $0. Of course you can come up with ideas on how the HOA can do worse, but for some reason it is obvious to everyone that is not what I meant - except you...

For example, the WKORV HOA can have a website and allow WKORV owners to rent delinquent weeks for the value of MFs. After some period, if delinquent weeks are left over, they could allow SVN owners from other resorts or even the general public to rent weeks for "fair market value", which may even be profitable to the HOA and cover the website maintenance costs (which I am sure you will comment on). Neither of these require 7 housekeeping charges by the way - 1.5 cleanups should suffice and the HOA can pay Starwood for that. All the remaining revenue would go to the HOA. Is this better than $0? Probably...

By the way - if Starwood runs the website for the HOAs we can pay them some fixed cost for that - I don't care. I just think 50% commissions on rentals and 7 housekeeping charges leaves nothing or close to nothing for the HOAs...

How about the idea that the HOAs should be able to take over and cede delinquent units to Starwood in exchange for StarPoints, just like a (developer) owner can. They can even do it by the March 31 deadline and Starwood can do what they want with the units (rent them and keep all the revenues). The HOAs though should then be allowed to sell or auction Starpoints to owners at that resort with the revenue covering MF shortfall. It may not cover the entire shortfall, but would it do better than $0? Probably...

The point is that we can do much better if the HOAs were in the driver's seat in making the decisions and Starwood cooperated to help the HOAs too, not just itself.

As for your comment "_If anyone is "cheated" by the charges for rental commissions and housekeeping fees which are deducted from the rent, it is the deadbeat owner, not the resort HOA.  So, who cares?_" - are YOU kidding me? If the "deadbeat" owner has less to pay for the delinquent MFs, and the shortfall at the end of the year is greater because Starwood gets all the rental revenue then who gets punished at the end of the year? The obvious answer here is that we do since our MFs go up - I think we all learned that the hard way... So I do care and so should you!


----------



## LisaRex (Nov 28, 2009)

jarta said:


> I posted link to the transcript because you called Starwood vicious, tenacious, mean and "flipping the bird" to the Maui authorities.The link to what the neighbors and locals around WKROV said at the SMA hearing certainly is different than your name-calling.



I'm not sure if you're deliberately being obtuse or you're just pretending.  So instead of arguing, I'm just going to ask other folks to read my comments and try to understand them vs. relying on your interpretation of what you think I said. 



> Who's the one who is vicious here?



Someone tries to rob, cheat, and swindle me and I'll fight back. It's going to take more than a 9" wood chipper to get this chick to back down.


----------



## jarta (Nov 28, 2009)

Dan,   ...   You complain that my response misses your points.  

I could do the same.  Your response misses my points.

That does not mean that your points are right and my points are wrong (or vice versa).  It means that in discussing Starwood everything is not black and white.  There are good things and bad things.  There is arrogance, spin, high maintenance fees, an inability or lack of desire to communicate clearly (see arrogance) and extremely high prices for the initial product.

There is also well-kept resorts, great beds, well-designed lockoff units adding to your options of use, washers and dryers in every unit, ease and flexibility of trading (II or Staroptions; with II even now getting you more bang for your buck on trades), extremely professional management, the benefits to the resort brought by association with the Starwood name and the resorts (most of them) are in very nice locations.

You look at the delinquencies and see incompetence.  I look at them and see a management company that is being proactive in adding a realistic amount for delinquencies caused by people down on their luck because of the economy.  You look at the high taxes in Maui and see something wrong with Starwood.  I read the actual transcripts of the planning commission and see self-important government officials who are cutting their own throat by coming down hard on a developer that has $100M invested and has met every question that was raised by locals.  You look at locations like SBP and see trading nirvana.  I look at SBP and would never go there because I went there once and didn't like the schtick or tacky ambience of Myrtle Beach.  You look at the phone-in reservation system and see an out-moded service.  I look and see a company wanting to retain a personal touch with the owners.

I am happy with my Starwood purchases and I don't appreciate the attacks which I see as merely mean, vicious and tenacious attempts to "flip the bird" at Starwood and, as a result, to drive down the value of what you and I own.  You are unhappy with Starwood.  I understand why.  It's expensive.  I guess you need a place to vent about it.  TUG has a lot of venters - about 25 of them.

You cannot understand why I am happy.  In being happy, I don't think I am alone.

IMO, the inflamatory language goes too far.  There is no evidence of robbing, cheating or swindling owners by Starwood when it manages properties.  I'm still waiting to see the evidence posted.  But, all I see posted is the accusation - without evidence that it is true.

So, we will continue to differ and, from time to time, I will point out the unsupported or misinformed nature of the attacks - and I will be accused of missing the point.  (But, I still enjoy reading your posts, Dan.)   ...   eom


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 28, 2009)

*When its required its no favor*



jarta said:


> You look at the delinquencies and see incompetence.  I look at them and see a management company that is being proactive in adding a realistic amount for delinquencies caused by people down on their luck because of the economy.



Realize there is nothing being done for the good of the owners by grace of Starwood regarding delinquent accounts. It is pretty much standard law everywhere that condo/timeshare associations/management are REQUIRED to take take every step possible to reduce delinquencies and, when they do occur, take steps to cover them through any available source up to and including assessing the paying owners.  It does seem to smack of incompetence when other management groups are able to both keep the number of delinquencies lower and do a much better job of recovering those fees from sources other than increased fees than what Starwood has been prone to do.  It isn't proactive planning to handle accounts after they go sour - it's proactive to have a plan to avoid delinquencies altogether and to minimize them when they do occur. Neither approach seems to be Starwoods MO.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 28, 2009)

jarta said:


> You look at the delinquencies and see incompetence.  I look at them and see a management company that is being proactive in adding a realistic amount for delinquencies caused by people down on their luck because of the economy.



Jarta - you again managed to switch the topic from discussing how monies are allocated in delinquency rentals to heavenly beds and washers/dryers...

My previous post had a hypothetical example of how delinquency monies may be allocated in the case of SVV. In that example there was not much left for the HOA (in fact nothing). That example can be extended to SBP, WKORV etc and in all those cases if indeed Starwood charges a 50% commission and 7 housekeeping charges we'll reach the conclusion that there is not much left for the HOA (but Starwood made a nice profit from a "deadbeat" owner).

In trying to keep on point - do you disagree with my SVV example? Do you think monies are allocated in a manner way which leaves more for the HOA and less for Starwood (there is X amount of rental revenue so this is a zero sum game between what Starwood gets and what the HOA gets)?

How about the hypothetical ideas I proposed to make things better? - do they leave more for the HOA? Do you have any ideas so that rental revenues actually go to cover delinquencies rather than enriching Starwood? Do you disagree with my assessment that if things don't change in the way rentals are handled then the situation will get a lot worse?


----------



## Fredm (Nov 28, 2009)

DanCali said:


> Jarta - you again managed to switch the topic from discussing how monies are allocated in delinquency rentals to heavenly beds and washers/dryers...
> 
> My previous post had a hypothetical example of how delinquency monies may be allocated in the case of SVV. In that example there was not much left for the HOA (in fact nothing). That example can be extended to SBP, WKORV etc and in all those cases if indeed Starwood charges a 50% commission and 7 housekeeping charges we'll reach the conclusion that there is not much left for the HOA (but Starwood made a nice profit from a "deadbeat" owner).
> 
> ...



The POINT being missed here is that your "solutions" are theoretical, however "better" they may be.
Owners have no means to enact alternative procedures. Unless, of course, the manager is dumped.

You have stated in other postings that you have no time or inclination for such pursuits. So, why the constant grinding?


----------



## jarta (Nov 28, 2009)

timeos,   ...   "It does seem to smack of incompetence when other management groups are able to both keep the number of delinquencies lower and do a much better job of recovering those fees from sources other than increased fees than what Starwood has been prone to do. It isn't proactive planning to handle accounts after they go sour - it's proactive to have a plan to avoid delinquencies altogether and to minimize them when they do occur."

You are entitled to your opinion.  I am entitled to mine.

First, the property manager and the HOA cannot make people pay.  They can only rent out the property and deposit the net proceeds to the delinquent account.  Under modern timeshare law they have recently (thanks to ARDA's lobbying) been provided with a quick remedy for delinquencies - non-judicial foreclosure of the lien.

The timing of when to file that foreclosure proceeding is a matter of discretion for the HOA and management to decide.  If there is any blame that can be affixed, it is that several Starwood managed properties may not have filed for non-judicial forclosure fast enough.  But, perhaps they got caught in a situation where the rentals of delinquent units had always been sufficient in amount and number so that there were no previous shortfalls if an owner was late in paying.  The decrease in rental demand for timeshares due to the economy may have caught them with their pants down and caused a large shortfall for the first time.  These are unusal economic times.

So, having been stung once, Starwood seems to have all Starwood resorts adding something to the 2010 budget to cover future delinquent owners.  I see that as proactive.

As far as I can tell, Starwood is the only timeshare chain to be doing this.  I cannot believe that the situation will get better any time soon and I cannot believe Starwood is the only place with delinquency problems.  Maybe they are because of the high maintenance fees.  But, I suspect that other chains will be announcing soon that they have 2010 delinquencies.  We will see soon enough.

If they don't have delinquencies, good for them.  But, if they do, can they still rely on rental income to bail them out?

I have never said the higher assessment "death spiral" argument is wrong.  In the long term, it may be right.  I am willing to take the risk that it is not.  

Where I part company with other posters here is when they start posting that Starwood is merely lining its pockets by robbing and stealing from the fees to maintain the resorts.  Everyone has their vision of what the degree of improvements, finish and amenities should be.  Not everyone is willing to pay the price it takes to maintain them.

Like Dan's posts, I enjoy yours, too, because they are rational, not over the top or venomous and they are delivered by someone who has obviously been there.   ...   eom


----------



## DanCali (Nov 28, 2009)

Fredm said:


> The POINT being missed here is that your "solutions" are theoretical, however "better" they may be.
> Owners have no means to enact alternative procedures. Unless, of course, the manager is dumped.
> 
> You have stated in other postings that you have no time or inclination for such pursuits. So, why the constant grinding?



Of couse they are theoretical because Starwood would never agree to something that makes the HOA better off at Starwood's expense... It was suggested that rentals of delinquent units are an optimal solution to delinquencies - I was suggesting that the current manner in which it is done does not help our cause at all and there are better ways, however hypothetical they may be.

But main takeaway point is that it looks like the "rentals," which some people think are the solution to the delinquencies, are not bringing in much if anything to the HOAs. Unless someone understands the money allocation differently... If we keep saying "they will rent the deinquent units to cover MF shortfalls" that will not solve anything for the resorts and will make matters even worse when MFs rise in the subsequent years. Current rental revenues go mostly or solely to Starwood (again, this is a conjecture so feel free to correct me on this).

While I don't have much desire to take on Starwood head on - I keep grinding on this because I believe it is important to keep our eyes open to what is happening and not get diverted into talking about washers/dryers...


----------



## jarta (Nov 28, 2009)

DanCali,   ...   "Current rental revenues go mostly or solely to Starwood (again, this is a conjecture so feel free to correct me on this).

Can you accept this correction?

*By agreement*, rental revenues on non-delinquent properties that would go unused are split 50/50 between the resort and Starwood until the rental income for the resort exceeds 2.5% (usually) of the resort's budget for the fiscal year.  Then, the entire "overage" rental goes to Starwood.

*By statute* (in most States), rental revenues on delinquent properties (after deduction of rental costs and housekeeping) goes to the delinquent account and is used to offset all or a portion of the delinquency.   ...   eom


----------



## jarta (Nov 28, 2009)

DanCali,   ...   And, all this is done within the resort's operating budget.

Starwood double dips by collecting an additional amount from the delinquent owner by charging for rental costs.  The HOA double dips by collecting an additional amount for the housekeeping.  The delinquent owner pays twice for these services if the delinquent account is brought current.   ...   eom


----------



## DanCali (Nov 28, 2009)

DanCali said:


> Starwood can rent a 2BR at SVV for roughly $150 to $200 per night. Let's be optimistic and say they do it for $200/night. On a 7 night rental they gross $1400. From that the owner or HOA or whoever pay them a 50% commission so we are left with $700. We still need to pay 7 housekeeping charges for a 2BR... how much does that cost? Since we know owners get billed $200-$400 for 1.5 housekeeping charges via MFs, I'd say $100/night is pretty optimistic. So if Starwood charges $100/night for 7 nights what's left to the HOA after this rental is a big ZERO. Note that Starwood made quite a bit of money on it though...





jarta said:


> Can you accept this correction?
> 
> *By statute* (in most States), rental revenues on delinquent properties (after deduction of rental costs and housekeeping) goes to the delinquent account and is used to offset all or a portion of the delinquency.   ...   eom



I'm not sure I understand what is the "correction"... 

We were discussing rentals of delinquent units and it sounds like we both agree that Starwood first gets commissions, then housekeeping and only then the HOA gets paid. 

You may think that is fair and that is the right way to go. Using realistic numbers, I have already argued a couple of posts ago that this leaves almost nothing or close to nothing to conver delinquencies. 50% commissions and 7 housekeeping charges eat up all the rental revenues...

It is not a solution that helps owners or HOAs deal with delinquencies if Starwood gets 100% of rental revenues and there is nothing left over for delinquencies...

Slowly but surely you are getting to my point!


----------



## jarta (Nov 28, 2009)

DanCali,   ...   Sounds like you don't like the provisions of the State statutes permitting the charging of the rental costs and housekeeping.

It's pretty hard to ignore what a State staute allows.

The HOA is entitled to the rent.  Would you have Starwood forego the (passed through from HOA) rental costs and the *HOA* (not Starwood) forego the housekeeping?

Whose side are you on - the delinquent owner's?   ...   eom


----------



## DanCali (Nov 28, 2009)

jarta said:


> DanCali,   ...   Sounds like you don't like the provisions of the State statutes permitting the charging of the rental costs and housekeeping.
> 
> It's pretty hard to ignore what a State staute allows.
> 
> ...



It's not an issue of whether I like it or not (I don't)... Do you like it? 

The reality is that if this is the "solution" then it is not a solution because it allows Starwood to get all or the vast majority of the revenue while the HOA remains with delinquent MFs. Do we agree on this?

As long as we agree that this is not a solution then let's stop pretending that the current manner in which units are rented helps the HOAs, because it doesn't. If delinquent accounts remain delinquent, MFs will continue to go up, and the death spiral scenario will be inevitable.

I had a few hypothetical proposals which all improve on the status quo... As Fred pointed out, thay are all wishful thinking - and I agree with him because in the current situation Starwood already gets all the revenue income anyway, so why would they change anything?

And no, I'm not on the delinquent owner's side - but I am on the owners' side... are you?


----------



## Fredm (Nov 28, 2009)

jarta said:


> DanCali,   ...   Sounds like you don't like the provisions of the State statutes permitting the charging of the rental costs and housekeeping.
> 
> It's pretty hard to ignore what a State staute allows.
> 
> ...



The misunderstanding is who benefits from the housekeeping charges.
Dan assumes Starwood benefits. You assume the HOA does.
Have I stated this correctly?


----------



## jarta (Nov 28, 2009)

DanCali,   ...   "the "solution" it is not a solution because it allows Starwood to get all or the vast majority of the revenue and the HOA remains with delinquent MFs. Do we agree on this?"

No, we do not agree.  Starwood does not get "all or the vast majority" of the rent.  The HOA may or may not remain with delinquent MFs.  It depends on the rent collected.

The landlord, by statute, is the HOA.  The rent goes to the HOA.  The HOA pays Starwood for its rental costs.  The HOA keeps the housekeeping cost.  The delinquent account gets credited for the net rent.

If the net rent is more than the amount due, the owner gets a credit against the next year's assessment (like any overpayment).  If the net rent is less than the delinquency, the owner is still delinquent.  That amount can be liened and foreclosed.

I admit that in these unusual economic times, the unit may not even rent (think SDO in mid-Summer or Mountain View in mud season or SBP almost any time).  And, even if it rents, the rent will probably be short of the delinquent amount of the MFs and the delinquent fees.

But, we certainly do not agree on much else about renting of delinquent accounts.   ...   eom


----------



## tombo (Nov 28, 2009)

ciscogizmo1 said:


> Anyways... I don't mean to offend you but I don't want to give up those amenties for an independently run HOA that isn't going to replace the gym equipment for 20 years plus.
> 
> I think, we might be 2 timesharers that are at different points in our lives.  You probably don't have kids that care about the amenities offered at a larger resort where my kids thrive at place like WKORV.  They are very social and love meeting people.  At the Cliff's Club we were lucky if ran into one person the entire day.  But I'm also glad there are different resorts out there so, people can have choices.  I'm not happy with Starwood MF increases which are totally different from Marriot, Hilton or Hyatt increases..



You seem to think that only the chains upgrade and renovate. All of my resorts do so whether they are chains or not, and unfortunatelly the renovations and upgrades often come with assessments from both chains and independents. The difference is that at the owner controlled resorts they better justify the renovation expenses by obtaining multiple bids or the board/mgt company will be gone. Same goes with housekeeping, upkeep, mgt fees, etc. They know that they better be providing the best services they can for the least expensive cost. Most of my independents keep MF's low while building in enough reserves to prevent having to charge assessments on upgrades. Many independent resorts are very nice with regards to amenities and accomodations, it is not an either/or situation where the resort will not be nice unless it is a chain. 

I am at a different point in life than you are. I am empty nest and since my kids are young adults they don't look for other kids to play with. I am at the age where it is nice to lay by the pool without a lot of screaming kids running around and splashing you. It is nice and oh so relaxing to have a pool area where the majority of people are adults. 

We typically leave the resort to go hiking and exploring by 9 or 10 in the morning and don't return until dark. We eat breakfast and supper in the room more often than we eat out. When I want to eat out I usually don't eat on site because I would rather go to the highest rated restaurants in the area to enjoy local foods, and very rarely is one of those top rated restaurants on site at any timeshare. 

I too want to be Ocean front at any place I go, so we are in agreement there. There are numerous non chain timeshares in Hawaii, Florida, and the Bahamas, etc that are ocean front, the chains don't have a monopoly on that. 

Usually the chains are huge complexes swarming with people. Often getting a chair by the pool requires getting up at daylight to put towels on some chairs to reserve them or else by 10 am you will be out of luck until late in the day. I like smaller resorts where there aren't the masses of people crowded onto the beach or pool area like lemmings on their way to the ocean. A smaller pool is all that is required for smaller resorts because fewer people are on site. The downside to smaller resorts is that there are less amenities. This is due to occupancy levels more than whether it is an independent or a chain IMO. 

I loved the Vistana Villages renovated unit I stayed in this summer but the pools were very crowded. The rooms were large and as nice as any I have stayed in at any resort. It is a resort I would like to own if the MF rises weren't double digit each year and I am afraid that in 10 years they will have another renovation costing each owner several thousand dollars in assessments. I looked on e-bay after returning and considered buying because it is a great resort, but I was too afraid that the MF's would get too high in the near future. I will probably trade for a week there again in 4 years, but I will do it with a trade that has MF's of $550 and an exchange fee of $164 which is cheaper than owning.

I like the big giant resorts and the huge pools to vacation in sometimes for a change, but overall I tend to prefer smaller resorts with fewer people where the people at the front desk know your name by the end of the week. I like coming back to the resort to eat lunch and easily getting a chair by the pool. I like parking right in front of my room. I like walking up a flight or 2 of stairs to get to my room rather than waiting in line to get on an elevator in the lobby. At check in and check out it is great to not have to queue up to get your room keys. It is nice to know that the same people will be next door to you each and every year. There are things I like better about the mega resorts, and things I like better about the smaller resorts, but if I had to pick one it would be a smaller resort.

As you said thank goodness there are different choices for different tastes. If the chains would reign in their expenses, keep MF's reasonable, and look out for the owners more than they do and I would own more chain resorts than I do. Since the chains have shown little ability or desire to control costs I don't want to own at any chains anymore. To each his own and no offense taken.


----------



## jarta (Nov 28, 2009)

FredM,   ...   "The misunderstanding is who benefits from the housekeeping charges.  Dan assumes Starwood benefits. You assume the HOA does.
Have I stated this correctly?"

Yes.  

But, it's not the only problem.  DanCali is against any major amount being assumed and deducted from the rent for rental costs and housekeeping because, in his mind, it perpetuates the delinquency.

I assume that the HOA passes the rental cost on to Starwood.  It may be 50% of the rent; it may be less.  Neither Dan nor I know.

I assume that the HOA keeps the housekeeping costs of salaries and materials because that is a HOA expense in the budget.  But, I do not know for sure.  It seems like a simple accounting allocation.  Any other allocation really seems quite improper.  (My experience as a HOA board member indicates that, even if for only insurance purposes, the employees working at a property are HOA, not management company, employees.)  But, likewise, Dan does not know that Starwood gets any housekeeping fees.   ...   eom


----------



## DanCali (Nov 28, 2009)

DanCali said:


> Starwood can rent a 2BR at SVV for roughly $150 to $200 per night. Let's be optimistic and say they do it for $200/night. On a 7 night rental they gross $1400. From that the owner or HOA or whoever pay them a 50% commission so we are left with $700. We still need to pay 7 housekeeping charges for a 2BR... how much does that cost? Since we know owners get billed $200-$400 for 1.5 housekeeping charges via MFs, I'd say $100/night is pretty optimistic. So if Starwood charges $100/night for 7 nights what's left to the HOA after this rental is a big ZERO. Note that Starwood made quite a bit of money on it though...





Fredm said:


> The misunderstanding is who benefits from the housekeeping charges.
> Dan assumes Starwood benefits. You assume the HOA does.
> Have I stated this correctly?





jarta said:


> DanCali is against any major amount being assumed and deducted from the rent for rental costs and housekeeping because, in his mind, it perpetuates the delinquency.



The way I stated it is that commissions and housekeeping charges go to Starwood and the remainder covers delinquencies. I also argued that there is no "remainder" in most cases. 

I believe Jarta is focusing on a technicality that net funds after commissions first go to the HOA. The HOA then pays the management company (Starwood) for housekeeping and the net is used to cover the delinquent account. This is an accounting issue which changes nothing...

If my interpretation of what jarta said is correct it's the same result... Starwood ends up with the housekeeping costs (whether or not those funds are parked at the HOA in the interim) and the "remainder" is used to cover delinquencies.

The bottom line in is that after a 50% commission and 7 housekeeping charges there isn't much left over, if anything. Jarta and I agree to disagree on this, but I also provided a simple numerical example to illustrate my argument... Housekeeping charges for a 2BR villa may be in fact more than $100, but as jarta said we don't really know this. We also don't know if commissions are 50%, but Starwood used to charge owners 50% on rentals. 

And I am not against deducting rental commissions and housekeeping charges- people/companies should get paid for a service they provide. But is the the best "solution"??? Why rent daily instead of weekly? Why 7 housekeeping charges? Can we get creative with Starpoints in any way? Like I said before - almost anything is better than $0...

What I want if for us to understand that in the current situation delinquencies are covered only after a (hefty) rental commission that benefits Starwood and 7 housekeeping charges that benefit Starwood. I think that even jarta agrees with this. I also think the current arrangement will lead to the destruction of some resorts because I don't believe this helps cover delinquencies.

People can use their own numbers and will probably reach the same conclusion I did - i.e., Starwood gets most or all of the rental revenue. This is not a good solution to the delinquency problem.


----------



## Fredm (Nov 28, 2009)

jarta said:


> FredM,   ...   "The misunderstanding is who benefits from the housekeeping charges.  Dan assumes Starwood benefits. You assume the HOA does.
> Have I stated this correctly?"
> 
> Yes.
> ...



I agree. We don't know any of it.
Not how much the rental fee is.
Not how much the rental amount is.
Not how housekeeping is charged, or allocated.

For anyone to be making assertions (accusations) without this information is irresponsible.


----------



## Ken555 (Nov 28, 2009)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there's a great deal we don't know and which we should try to discover. For instance, we are uncertain of:

1. The cost of the daily cleaning for Studio/1Bed/2Bed? (I believe this is different at each resort, based on the charges for optional extra cleanings.)

2. Does the revenue for the cleaning go to the HOA, which then pays Starwood, or directly to Starwood? Keep in mind that the renter pays Starwood. Jarta's comment makes sense to me:



> The landlord, by statute, is the HOA. The rent goes to the HOA. The HOA pays Starwood for its rental costs. The HOA keeps the housekeeping cost. The delinquent account gets credited for the net rent.



3. Does Starwood (ever) rent the unit at a price less than the cost of daily cleaning + Starwood commission? (I certainly hope not). Are they restricted to renting at any price? 

4. What is the Starwood rental commission? (50%?)

5. Is Starwood's rental commission net after direct costs (such as cleaning) or before such costs? (I assume it's based on gross revenue, before costs).

6. Does Starwood pay the HOA for cleanings for stays on StarPoints / Cash and Points?

7. Does Starwood pay the HOA any fees for rental for stays on StarPoints / Cash and Points? Does Starwood then get a 50% commission of such fees? (I suspect so)


----------



## DanCali (Nov 28, 2009)

Fredm said:


> I agree. We don't know any of it.
> Not how much the rental fee is.
> Not how much the rental amount is.
> Not how housekeeping is charged, or allocated.
> ...



Yes, there is much we don't know. However, I tried to be conservative in my examples (e.g. only $100 to clean a 2BR condo) and based them on whatever information I did know (e.g. owners used to pay 50% rental commissions when there was a rental program). I'd actually classify that as responsible rather than irresponsible...

On top of that, I have stressed several times that was I was saying was based on conjectures and educated guesses. I also invited people who had better information (including SVO people who probably read these threads) to correct my assumptions. I would be happy to find out that I am totally off base and that there is a substantial amount of rental revenues left over to cover delinquencies.

What is irresponsible is how Starwood raised MFs through the years... and on this topic I can provide numbers based on facts, not just conjectures (but they can also be found in other threads).


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 28, 2009)

http://www.broadway-plantation.com/?gclid=CJTC6I-5rp4CFRQhnAod337jmg

The rentals on this site offer some with daily housekeeping, some without.  I don't know if this is an official rental site for Starwood.


----------



## LisaRex (Nov 28, 2009)

Fredm said:


> I agree. We don't know any of it.
> Not how much the rental fee is.
> Not how much the rental amount is.
> Not how housekeeping is charged, or allocated.
> ...



I'd agree, except it's impossible to get this data from Starwood. We are deliberately kept in the dark.  I've personally asked about rental income and gotten nothing back but a canned response re delinquencies.  I've personally asked for an email address to contact my HOA, and Starwood has repeatedly denied me this information. 

How are we to gather information if no one will respond to us?  Not allowing us to contact our representatives is, in my opinion, is not only irresponsible, but unethical.


----------



## jarta (Nov 28, 2009)

rickandcindy23,   ...   "

I doubt it is an official site.  Here is the netsol "whois" information for the domain name "broadway-plantation.com."

"Current Registrar: PSI-USA, INC. DBA DOMAIN ROBOT  
IP Address: 72.233.126.204 (ARIN & RIPE IP search)  
IP Location: US(UNITED STATES)-TEXAS-PLANO"

In fact the domain name is currently listed for sale.  It may now be a dead link or a cybersquatter hoping to make money on the domain name by reserving it and, then, selling it.   ...   eom


----------



## Fredm (Nov 28, 2009)

LisaRex said:


> I'd agree, except it's impossible to get this data from Starwood. We are deliberately kept in the dark.  I've personally asked about rental income and gotten nothing back but a canned response re delinquencies.  I've personally asked for an email address to contact my HOA, and Starwood has repeatedly denied me this information.
> 
> How are we to gather information if no one will respond to us?  Not allowing us to contact our representatives is, in my opinion, is not only irresponsible, but unethical.



Lisa, I don't know how else to say this. I have said it before, without effect. So, please forgive the lengthy response.
It is not directed toward you, but to the discussion at large.

I will use the WKORV and its Governing Documents as my point of reference.

Like it or not,  all owners agreed to invest the HOA BOD with complete authority to approve budgets, and manage them.
They alone can decide on special assessments, and any other financial matters which are required to run the resort.

Individual owners do not have a "right" to all the information which is considered when the BOD makes a decision. That is their job.
It is the only way an association can be run.

It is beyond my comprehension to understand how an individual owner would expect to receive the information necessary to determine the adequacy of board decisions.

An owner may not like the end result of the decisions the BOD makes. That does not somehow give the owner a right to demand the information they deem necessary to be comfortable with it. Or, to bless the adequacy of the decision.

How is the Board to respond to the myriad of individual questions owners may have? Never mind carry on a dialog which would result from never ending questions posed by the information itself. It is literally impossible. Nor, would all interested parties derive the same conclusion from the same information.

No matter how you cut it, it comes down to some number of individuals empowered to make those decisions to make them.

Yes, the BOD has a fiduciary responsible to the membership at large. If the membership is dissatisfied with the performance of the BOD, it can be replaced. So can the resort manager. The BOD will only respond to a majority of the membership. It must be so.

I implore you consider the reality of this.
The ONLY way you will have the opportunity to judge the actions of the BOD is to solicit and obtain a majority of the owners to: 1) amend the vacation plan declaration and by-laws, and/or 2) replace the BOD and the manager. 

In so doing you can then assume the responsibility of appointing a new BOD and manager, re-writing that portion of the governing documents which may be modified (as it cannot be thrown out altogether), and then define how the new BOD is to report to the general membership.

The first step is to contact all owners.
Despite statements made to the contrary, the complete and accurate member list, including current mailing address, is available to any owner upon written request.
Certain procedural requirements must be satisfied, but they are a matter of form that relate to assurance that the list will be used for membership related business and not commercial purposes.
The requesting member will be charged a copy fee for the list.

At the end of the day, this all comes down to a crisis of confidence. No amount of information will satisfy some on this board. There will always be questions about motive, etc.

There can be no half measures.  Once a campaign begins to demand that the BOD be responsible to other than their own good judgment, there is no other alternative but to replace it.
That also means replacing Starwood. The resort will become independent.  

Having been an elected official of a Bay Area municipality, I can tell you with some conviction who is doing whom a favor by serving on an elected board. One should be careful to understand that.

I can also tell you that it is possible to change the status quo, if need be. It does take resiliency, stamina, organization, and a certain amount of money.

Tough talk won't do it. Especially when it is repetitive, to the same choir of 50 like minded folk. 
Try it on 5000 folks who do not immediately see the advantage of having Starwood's name removed from the resort. The tiring and frustrating exercise of explaining the obvious to those who do not see the campaign point of view will, if nothing else, gain an appreciation of what the BOD must think of all who criticize and demean their efforts and intentions.  

Every journey begins with a first step. 
The message must be constructed and distributed to ~10,000 owners. Any thought to what the message would be, exactly?

Including postage and materials, say $1 per owner for initial distribution. A hundred passionate volunteers pony up $100 each. Each is responsible for getting 50 out of 100 owners to sign a petition.  The effort is in business.

All the rest of what is going on here is getting boring.


----------



## jarta (Nov 28, 2009)

FredM   ...   Bravo!  Well stated.  Every word of it!  And, yes, it can be done.   ...   eom


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 28, 2009)

*Is this King David?*



Fredm said:


> Individual owners do not have a "right" to all the information which is considered when the BOD makes a decision. That is their job.
> It is the only way an association can be run.



I agree with the vast majority of your post, but not this paragraph. What information exactly are owners barred from seeing? Having served on Boards we have always assumed and been told, as well as read in all sorts of regulations and bylaws, that ALL Association operating and Board documents are open to inspection by the owners. We serve FOR them as their representatives. Anything we do, anything we purchase, any documents we sign - they are all subject to review by the owners. They can't demand changes to our choices - except by voting us out - but they have every right to see the basis for it, any contracts signed and so forth. And of course the financial records are to made available to any owner on reasonable demand. 

This isn't a monarchy - it is a sitting Board of Directors. They answer to the owners who supposedly voted them on and that they are supposed to represent.  They do not answer to the Management - if they do something is seriously out of whack.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 28, 2009)

Right on, John!  *The assumption that a BOD of an HOA doesn't have to defend decisions they make is nonsense.*  Certainly, once a decision is made, it is done, but at least in smaller resorts we can vote the HOA board members out, when and if we don't like what they do.  When a big company IS the governing board, what do we have as owners except big maintenance fee bills and assessments, with no reasoning behind them?  They owe it to the owners to communicate the truth.  Stating in a maintenance fee bill that others aren't paying, so the fees are going up, that is just too simple.  I want to know what efforts are being made to force those payments.  I want to know whether rental income is helping our bottomline, or if Starwood just keeps it all.  I want to know what Starwood's responsbility is to US, as owners.  

Fred, and this isn't intended to sound rude at all, but if you are tired of the conversation, you don't have to keep on reading it.  Nor do you need to keep on reading, Jarta.


----------



## jarta (Nov 29, 2009)

timeos,   ...   You are close to correct.  Fred said no right to see all information considered when a BOD makes a decision.  He is right.  Also, please see the exceptions at the end of the statute.  Maybe you two are actually saying the same thing.  

In Florida, for example, *after* the decision is made, however, the decision and the information concerning the decision becomes an official record that must be made available under section 718.111(12)(c):

"(c)  The official records of the association are *open to inspection* by any association member or the authorized representative of such member at all reasonable times. The right to inspect the records includes the right to make or obtain copies, at the reasonable expense, if any, of the association member. The association may adopt reasonable rules regarding the frequency, time, location, notice, and manner of record inspections and copying. *The failure of an association to provide the records within 10 working days after receipt of a written request shall create a rebuttable presumption that the association willfully failed to comply with this paragraph. A unit owner who is denied access to official records is entitled to the actual damages or minimum damages for the association's willful failure to comply with this paragraph. The minimum damages shall be $50 per calendar day up to 10 days, the calculation to begin on the 11th working day after receipt of the written request. The failure to permit inspection of the association records as provided herein entitles any person prevailing in an enforcement action to recover reasonable attorney's fees from the person in control of the records who, directly or indirectly, knowingly denied access to the records for inspection.* Any person who knowingly or intentionally defaces or destroys accounting records that are required by this chapter, or knowingly or intentionally fails to create or maintain accounting records that are required by this chapter, is personally subject to a civil penalty pursuant to s. 718.501(1)(d). The association shall maintain an adequate number of copies of the declaration, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and rules, and all amendments to each of the foregoing, as well as the question and answer sheet provided for in s. 718.504 and year-end financial information required in this section on the condominium property to ensure their availability to unit owners and prospective purchasers, and may charge its actual costs for preparing and furnishing these documents to those requesting the same. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the following records shall not be accessible to unit owners: 

1.  Any record protected by the lawyer-client privilege as described in s. 90.502; and any record protected by the work-product privilege, including any record prepared by an association attorney or prepared at the attorney's express direction; which reflects a mental impression, conclusion, litigation strategy, or legal theory of the attorney or the association, and which was prepared exclusively for civil or criminal litigation or for adversarial administrative proceedings, or which was prepared in anticipation of imminent civil or criminal litigation or imminent adversarial administrative proceedings until the conclusion of the litigation or adversarial administrative proceedings. 

2.  Information obtained by an association in connection with the approval of the lease, sale, or other transfer of a unit. 

3.  Medical records of unit owners. 

4.  Social security numbers, driver's license numbers, credit card numbers, and other personal identifying information of any person"

Public records include names and mailing addresses and, if known, telephone numbers of owners.  Also, bids for contracts and contracts let.  Also, rental records when the association is acting as rental agent of properties.

Meetings are to be open unless when they discuss litigation, contracts or personnel.

Here's the link for anyone interested:

http://www.flsenate.gov/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=ch0718/ch0718.htm

Please note that the records are "open to inspection" only.  They are not to be removed and are subject to reasonable limitations by the board.  So, ask away for the materials you want to inspect.  The statutes grant you a right to inspect documents (and a right to receive the budget and notice of the meeting).  The statutes do *not* grant you a right to an *explanation* from the HOA of every detail of the operations of the resort.   ...   eom


----------



## LisaRex (Nov 29, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Individual owners do not have a "right" to all the information which is considered when the BOD makes a decision. That is their job. It is the only way an association can be run.
> 
> It is beyond my comprehension to understand how an individual owner would expect to receive the information necessary to determine the adequacy of board decisions.
> 
> An owner may not like the end result of the decisions the BOD makes. That does not somehow give the owner a right to demand the information they deem necessary to be comfortable with it. Or, to bless the adequacy of the decision.



Being answerable to your constituency is the entire POINT of a representative form of government.  Answering their concerns, defending their positions even if it angers some people, communicating with the folks  they were elected to represent -- these are all inherent responsibilities of our elected leaders whether they are on an HOA board or US Congress. _In a true representative form of government, we don't have to bless the adequacy of our leader's decisions because we have something better -- the power to vote them out of office._  Starwood has stripped us of that power because they do not allow contested elections and because they hand pick the people who appear on the ballot.

I am flabbergasted that you believe that people without a voice should just sit back and shrug their shoulders because "that is what we signed up for."  I have news for you: That is NOT what I signed up for. WKORV/N is supposed to have an HOA.  That is a HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, created for the sole purpose of representing the owners. You know and I know that Starwood does not have a real HOA, in the sense that they represent the Owners. The developer installed the first board and that board has then hand-picked their successors.  In short, they represent STARWOOD.  The voters at North were not even supplied with the board member's _names_ in the last proxy, let alone their ages, occupations, or platforms.  It is a sham election.  The way they've controlled the HOA is unethical and indefensible.  

Until my HOA board is freely elected, then I do not accept that I "willingly" signed on to allow them to govern on my behalf and should just sit down and shut up.

Bottom line:  If our leaders are not answerable to us, if they are not there to represent our interests and to hear our concerns, then we don't have a representative form of government at all; we have an autocracy.


----------



## Fredm (Nov 29, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> > anything we purchase, any documents we sign - they are all subject to review by the owners. They can't demand changes to our choices - except by voting us out - but they have every right to see the basis for it, any contracts signed and so forth. And of course the financial records are to made available to any owner on reasonable demand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fredm (Nov 29, 2009)

> Bottom line:  If our leaders are not answerable to us, if they are not there to represent our interests and to hear our concerns, then we don't have a representative form of government at all; we have an autocracy.




Lisa, that is EXACTLY what a BOD is, while they are serving.
It is not a representative form of government.

Yes, they have a fiduciary responsibility. Unless, and until, they have violated that responsibility, it is their job to perform it.

You and every other owner can vote them out. But, I suggest that if they have violated their fiduciary responsibility voting them out is letting them off too lightly. They have personal liability. That is a grave responsibility. One that is performed as a service to the owners at large.

It is no different in a publicly held company. 
The BOD is responsible to the shareholders. But, only the shareholders, at large. 
Take overs are required to change the board to the liking of the stakeholder. 
Timeshare owners have the same right. I already suggested a way to go about it.


----------



## LisaRex (Nov 29, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Lisa, that is EXACTLY what a BOD is, while they are serving.It is not a representative form of government....You and every other member can vote them out. But, I suggest that if they have violated their fiduciary responsibility voting them out is letting them off too lightly.



We elect someone to represent our interests, and they vote on our behalf. That is the very definition of a representative form of government.  Our HOA violates the spirit of the law that requires owner representation if not the letter of the law. 

How can we possibly vote someone out when we don't even know the name of the person to vote out? We have no information on how anyone voted. We don't know anything except that our MFs are spiraling out of control. 

Other HOAs have newsletters, websites, and even (gasp!) emails where you can contact your rep.  We have an entire corporate department devoted to HOAs and the best we can get is a canned response, if ANYTHING. 

And how can we possibly make a case that they are violating their fiduciary reponsibility when you say we're not supposed to be able to participate and demand answers?


----------



## Fredm (Nov 29, 2009)

LisaRex said:


> We elect someone to represent our interests, and they vote on our behalf. That is the very definition of a representative form of government.  Our HOA violates the spirit of the law that requires owner representation if not the letter of the law.
> 
> How can we possibly vote someone out when we don't even know the name of the person to vote out? We have no information on how anyone voted. We don't know anything except that our MFs are spiraling out of control.
> 
> ...



I will repeat what I have already said:

*"I implore you consider the reality of this.
The ONLY way you will have the opportunity to judge the actions of the BOD is to solicit and obtain a majority of the owners to: 1) amend the vacation plan declaration and by-laws, and/or 2) replace the BOD and the manager."*

*"At the end of the day, this all comes down to a crisis of confidence. No amount of information will satisfy some on this board. There will always be questions about motive, etc.

There can be no half measures. Once a campaign begins to demand that the BOD be responsible to other than their own good judgment, there is no other alternative but to replace it.
That also means replacing Starwood. The resort will become independent."
*


----------



## Fredm (Nov 30, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Fred, and this isn't intended to sound rude at all, but if you are tired of the conversation, you don't have to keep on reading it.



No, I don't. I choose to read, and participate.

I am sorry if my comments go against the grain. They are intended to bring what I believe to be an uncomfortable truth to the discussion. 

I  understand those who prefer be told what they wish to hear, rather then what they need to know.

The frustration over this issue is palatable. 
Hopefully, you will notice that I am not defending the status quo. If anything, I am suggesting a genuine course of action that can actually produce a result. In this respect, my comments are more militant than most.

The difference in my position is that it requires one to actually consider what can be done about it. And, yes, debunk misconceptions about democracy and representative government. 

I find it curious there are plenty of back slapping "atta boys" 
for 'victim" speeches, and not much regard for the empowering ones. 

Of course, empowerment requires action.  "Power to the people" slogans are a good attention-getter. To be effective, it is a really good idea to know what the viable courses of action are. A good place to start is understanding where we are. Not where we wish we were.

Everyone is entitled to vent frustration and anger over a set of circumstances. 1,2, 10 times. After a very long while one wonders what the point is.

Thought I would bring that to the conversation.


----------



## xcg001 (Nov 30, 2009)

Fredm,

I disagree with you that replacing BOD means replacing Starwood. Starwood (corporation, not timeshare unit) seems fine having Sheraton/Westin names on thousands of hotels it doesn't own or control. I see no problem why Starwood can not still be management company while HOA BOD being elected by the owners. Marriott seems to be perfectly fine with owner controlled HOA at its resorts as long as resorts can maintain certain quality level. I personally believe it would be stupid for Starwood to walk out of generous management contract. Of course we don't know that but there is no way to know for certain unless we replace the current board. Heck it may even turned out that the current HOA board does not need to be replaced if we force them to open a dialog with owners and they start working together with us owners to find solution for delinquencies/uncontrolled MF raises. 




Fredm said:


> *
> There can be no half measures. Once a campaign begins to demand that the BOD be responsible to other than their own good judgment, there is no other alternative but to replace it.
> That also means replacing Starwood. The resort will become independent."
> *


----------



## DanCali (Nov 30, 2009)

xcg001 said:


> Heck it may even turned out that the current HOA board does not need to be replaced if we force them to open a dialog with owners and they start working together with us owners to find solution for delinquencies/uncontrolled MF raises.



There is no incentive for the Board to have a dialog with you/us when they can hide behind gatekeepers that answer our questions with canned responses. It just won't happen, unless drastic measures (such as the ones proposed by Fred) are taken. Another way is to try to run for the board and see what happens...

Unfortunately, even if you had mailing addresses of owners - 10,000 of them involves $4000+ in postage... and that's just the beginning. It is such an uphill battle and the outcome so uncertain that most individual owners may find it easier just writing off their Starwood losses and moving to Marriott or just renting going forward.


----------



## Fredm (Dec 1, 2009)

Ken555 said:


> Could you list specific resorts that Marriott left and which are improved today? I'd like to look into them. Thanks.



Ken.

In Florida: Longboat Keys.

Hilton Head: Swallowtail and Spicebush at Sea Pines

Vail, StreamSide (Aspen section only).

Swallowtail and Spicebush owners decided to leave Marriott.
Marriott severed the relationship with the others when the HOA would not agree to upgrade to Marriott specs.

These are from memory. I do not know if they are better off. Just identifying them.

I do know that the catalyst for all was a determination that in each instance the I.I. 5 Star Rating was in jeopardy unless corrected.


----------



## Troopers (Dec 1, 2009)

Just returned from a nice 12 day turkey break......

Anyways....



DanCali said:


> There is no incentive for the Board to have a dialog with you/us when they can hide behind gatekeepers that answer our questions with canned responses. It just won't happen, unless drastic measures (such as the ones proposed by Fred) are taken. *Another way is to try to run for the board and see what happens...*



Would you or anyone else here be willing to be on the board?  Not me...and I certainly wouldn't be on the board subject to your terms.


----------



## Weez (Dec 1, 2009)

Troopers said:


> Just returned from a nice 12 day turkey break......
> 
> Anyways....
> 
> ...



I think many would be willing to be on the boards. I think the inherent problem is not electing people to the boards, its stopping starwood from appointing "their" people. The entire board should be elected.


----------



## DanCali (Dec 1, 2009)

Troopers said:


> Would you or anyone else here be willing to be on the board?  Not me...and I certainly wouldn't be on the board subject to your terms.



I haven't given it much thought but my initial instinct is that it's much easier to cut my losses and walk away than to fight windmills like Don Quixote...


----------



## Troopers (Dec 1, 2009)

Weez said:


> I think many would be willing to be on the boards. I think the inherent problem is not electing people to the boards, its stopping starwood from appointing "their" people. The entire board should be elected.



I don't disagree with you on an open election.  Assume that is the case.  Who wants it?

I would be *VERY SURPRISED* if any of the Starwood Tuggers would want to be on the board under the terms and conditions that is currently being discussed by the group.  If anyone says they be willing to, my money is that he/she is lying.  Being a board member is a thankless job....one is certainly going to fail by what is being requested here of board members.


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Dec 2, 2009)

tombo said:


> You seem to think that only the chains upgrade and renovate. All of my resorts do so whether they are chains or not, and unfortunatelly the renovations and upgrades often come with assessments from both chains and independents. The difference is that at the owner controlled resorts they better justify the renovation expenses by obtaining multiple bids or the board/mgt company will be gone. Same goes with housekeeping, upkeep, mgt fees, etc. They know that they better be providing the best services they can for the least expensive cost. Most of my independents keep MF's low while building in enough reserves to prevent having to charge assessments on upgrades. Many independent resorts are very nice with regards to amenities and accomodations, it is not an either/or situation where the resort will not be nice unless it is a chain.
> 
> I am at a different point in life than you are. I am empty nest and since my kids are young adults they don't look for other kids to play with. I am at the age where it is nice to lay by the pool without a lot of screaming kids running around and splashing you. It is nice and oh so relaxing to have a pool area where the majority of people are adults.
> 
> ...


  No, I think other resorts upgrade but not in a timely manner.  For example, I was staying at Suites at Fisherman's Wharf in SF.  I believe it is a Shell Vacation resort.   You can look at the pictures that I have in my signature.  The place was rated online as 5 stars by everyone but I think, everyone is rating it 5 stars because of the location.  The unit we got hadn't been updated in like 20 years down the the sheets and blankets.  I kid you not.  In fact on the sofa sleeper the bed sheets were sewn together to stay together.  The master bedroom bedspread was very thin and worn looking.  The carpet looked so bad I didn't let my child crawl on it.  The place had a very outdated kitchenette.  I was really disappointed because the lobby looked promising.  They were in the process of updating as they replaced the sink in the bathroom.  I'm not sure why they just didn't redo the bathroom.  The curtains I was afraid to touch for fear they would fall apart.  The furniture had to be original, it looked like what the pictures on II show.  Even on the their web site they still show that old couch.  In person that couch looks horrible.  It stained and dirty period.  It is old.  But people continue to give this place high marks and I just don't understand because it is not a 5 star resort.  I'm sure they are still working on the updating as speak but I'd never stay there again.  We've also stayed at the Cliff's Club in Kauai and the Worldmark Depoe Bay.  The Cliff club had some issues like holes in the wall, etc... but nothing major like the Suites at Fisherman's Wharf.  

I do like onsite restaurants for convenience and a little store but not required.  However, I do need onsite amenities like a pool, tennis courts, workout room, volleyball, keiki club, beach with ocean, etc..   One week we stayed at the Westin in Princeville and they had this guy come by and teach the kids' some basic surf boarding lessons.  It was nice as it was on site and it was an activity to do.  

So far knock on wood, none of my resorts have had special assessments.  I noticed Marriott Kauai did when the flooding occurred a few years ago but that was unusual.  It seems like most my resorts set aside money for normal wear and tear on furniture, appliances, painting, etc...  I do like the upkeep at my resorts better than some of the other ones I've visited.  Hopefully, I'll have a chance to visit some more no brand resorts but the ones I've visited so far I'm not impressed.


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 2, 2009)

*It isn't limited to name brands. Any resort can be great or suffer decline*



ciscogizmo1 said:


> No, I think other resorts upgrade but not in a timely manner.
> 
> So far knock on wood, none of my resorts have had special assessments.  I noticed Marriott Kauai did when the flooding occurred a few years ago but that was unusual.  It seems like most my resorts set aside money for normal wear and tear on furniture, appliances, painting, etc...  I do like the upkeep at my resorts better than some of the other ones I've visited.  Hopefully, I'll have a chance to visit some more no brand resorts but the ones I've visited so far I'm not impressed.



Once again you are confusing name brand management and upgrade/maintenance. I sit on a Board that has made it a never ending project to improve the resort.  That attitude was born out of a decade of name brand management that failed miserably at doing any type of upgrades or even just maintaining what was originally built  but was charging the same level of outrageous fees - even in 1999 - that we see now from Starwood, Marriott and other "name brands".  After changing management - an annual savings of close to $500,000!!! - the Board bit the bullet, had a SA to get things back into shape and put in place a program to ensure as much as possible that adequate funding would be collected slowly over time for reserves to both maintain and to upgrade the resort. Believe me that annual $500K helped go a long way toward those improvements and has served the owners much better than lining the old developer/management pockets with the cash. I find it interesting that looking at other resorts they had managed, that group no longer exists as it was, the fees are up and the resorts are mostly in dire need of serious renovations and upgrades. Many have had or plan special assessments. 

Being under a brand name management/developer and charging the "vanity fee" that usually carries does nothing to guarantee resort quality but does virtually guarantee a higher than needed cost of management and any renovations that do get planned. It is a very costly way to get upgrades to be forced to pay premium through the brand name vs getting the same quality done independently.  Some want that safety net but it is a very costly one and is actually no guarantee at all that things will be top notch.


----------



## tombo (Dec 2, 2009)

ciscogizmo1 said:


> So far knock on wood, none of my resorts have had special assessments.  I noticed Marriott Kauai did when the flooding occurred a few years ago but that was unusual.  It seems like most my resorts set aside money for normal wear and tear on furniture, appliances, painting, etc...  I do like the upkeep at my resorts better than some of the other ones I've visited.  .



You have been lucky. Marriott assesses at many of their resorts and the MF increases at Marriotts percentage wise are double digit every year at many resorts too.

In 2008 the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club assessesd about $1000 a year for 2 years and at the same time had an increase in MF's in 2008 of about 35%.

In 2005 Mariott Kauai Beach Club had a $1000 or more assessment over 2 years recently.

Here is a TUG quote from a Streamside Vail Birch owner: "the annual MF bill that came today. About what I expected -- $2,499 or $2470 for a 2BR ski week, $1612 or $1671 for a 1BR ski week, $1060 for a studio ski week.
......... 33 percent of those fees are the master condo assessment from HPUD for the clubhouse improvements, of which I think - I think - this is the final year."

The MF increases for Beach Place in 2007 Another Tugger:" For 2007 the HOA is proposing $1095...a $173 increase or 18.8%. Call it assessment or MF increase, that is ridiculous. The cost of living index is not increasing at 10% a year. If my electricity bills, food expenses, property taxes, and wages aren't increasing at those huge percentages each year then neither should my MF's. "

Look at the MF increases over the last 3 to 5 years at virtually all Marriott resorts. http://www.tug2.net/advice/marriottmf.htm  Do you really think all the chain resorts will be great to own if they keep doubling MF's every 7 or 8 years? There will come a point where no one wants to own a week where you are paying $2000 to $3000 to have the right to stay there for a week that you can rent for $1500 or less.

Marriott motel room rental rates have been holding steady over the last 3 to 5 years. I can rent Marriott motels in prime locations for about $175 night currently. Those same rooms were about $150 seven years ago. If they increased the room rates at the same rate they increase timeshare MF's then those rooms would now rent for over $300 a night. No one would pay $300 a night when the competitor next door has as nice of a room as Marriott does but they only charge $175 a night. If Marriott (and other chains) can upgrade, maintain, and renovate their motels while controlling lodging fees, why can't they do it at their timeshares? The answer is simple. If they don't control costs at their hotels no one will stay there.Because of competition they must remain competitive. Their timeshare owners have no choice but to pay whatever Marriott (or any chain) charges. In 10 years I will be surprised if any chains (or possibly any timeshares) will be a bargain to own because it is rapidly approaching the point where it is cheaper to rent a week than it is to stay at the same resort as an owner. Some of the chains have already reached the point where owners can't even rent their weeks for enough money to cover what they paid in MF's. The never ending annual double digit rate increases will IMO be the demise of many of the chains in the near future, and unfortunatellly many independents too. Why own when it is cheaper to rent?


----------



## Fredm (Dec 3, 2009)

Troopers said:


> Just returned from a nice 12 day turkey break......
> 
> Anyways....
> 
> ...



Nope, not me.

It would be interesting to hear from those who have served, or currently serve, on boards or other elected offices:

1).Would you want your personal telephone numbers, address, etc. published for convenience of all who wished to interrogate you? 

2). Do you feel it your responsibility to personally respond to all inquiry regarding actions you have taken?


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 3, 2009)

*yes, be responsive and explain reasoning if needed*



Fredm said:


> 1).Would you want your personal telephone numbers, address, etc. published for convenience of all who wished to interrogate you?



No. It should be perfectly acceptable to have an email just for your Board service set up if possible & ask that any faxes/letters etc go to your attention at the resort. That way you are accessable but not exposing your life to possible crazy's.



Fredm said:


> 2). Do you feel it your responsibility to personally respond to all inquiry regarding actions you have taken?



Yes. Either as an individual reasoning or as the group (Board) decided. It may be a personal response or one from the Board as a whole but owners deserve a direct answer to reasonable questions.  My Boards pride themselves on free & complete communications with the owners we represent.


----------



## LisaRex (Dec 3, 2009)

I served on our HOA board (458 homes in our subdivision; I know because I personally labeled and stamped the newletter before it became webified) for five years -- from '95 through '99.  Of course my name and phone number was published in the newsletter, as was the name and contact number of every representative.  That was the whole point.  Our neighbors communicated their concerns to us, and we filtered through them all to pinpoint a few issues that we might be able to help fix.  

I don't expect my HOA rep to provide his personal email, but I do expect him to provide an email address that is not through corporate.  Otherwise, I have no faith that Starwood is passing along our comments. The developer and HOA are at times in an adversarial relationship, like it or not, and I don't want my comments to be filtered by the former.  If the owners are stomping mad about MF increases, then the board ought to know for no other reason than because future increases might impact delinquency rates. 

I definitely expect more communication from the Board to owners re critical issues, such as delinquencies or property tax increases.  Just a "We've submitted our formal appeal on November 16th to Maui County and will let you know when a decision is handed down." would go a long way toward bridging that communication gap.  A small website devoted to each resort would be ideal; All the HOAs could even share one site and split the costs.  

Would I be willing to serve? I have already printed out the paperwork.


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Dec 3, 2009)

tombo said:


> You have been lucky. Marriott assesses at many of their resorts and the MF increases at Marriotts percentage wise are double digit every year at many resorts too.
> 
> In 2008 the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club assessesd about $1000 a year for 2 years and at the same time had an increase in MF's in 2008 of about 35%.
> 
> ...



I think, some of these increases were not preventable.  I'm pretty sure the Kauai one was a result of the parking lot flooding that caused a considerable amount of property damage.  I'm not sure about the Aruba one (I'd have to research it).  I still think Marriott does a better job overall at controlling costs.  But to be fair I'm sure Marriott has made it fair share of mistakes over the years.  Marriott has been in the timeshare business for 25 years.   With Starwood they have a lot of growing pains from their lack of locations, their relationship with II, their lack of customer service and management skills in running a timeshare, their poor computer system.  

I work with a lot of homeowners in my business and smaller doesn't always mean better.  Sometimes having power of the masses and experience is the best.  I do believe Starwood does not have a budget agenda and has a difficult time controlling costs as it isn't a goal.  

I never compare hotels to timeshares as they don't provide the same benefits.  A hotel does not have a full kitchen as most timeshares do.  A hotel isn't meant to be a home away from home experience.  And, I don't compare Residents Inns, Homewood suites, etc.. to timeshares either as they are never located in Hawaii.

You gotta remember I'm the timesharer that wants luxury but doesn't want to deal with the headaches of it.  If I did I would have bought my cabin in Tahoe a long time ago and created my own luxury.  But I like the fact that someone else is taking care of it.  I don't vacation to be  bothered by repairs and maintenance.  When, we stayed at the Suites of Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco it was DEPRESSING.  There was no way you'd want to spend a minute in the room.  It wasn't a vacation to me.  To me it seems like you want the cheapest possible amenitites because you are not going to spend any time in the room which is fine but that's not me.  Seriously, if that is your position I don't understand why you timeshare.  Why not just stay in the cheapest motel you find and save your money.  At least with a hotel you can decide when you want more luxury accomandations or when you want to spend a little less.  

I don't think anybody here said that timesharing is the cheapest route to go....  at least I know I didn't.


----------



## Fredm (Dec 3, 2009)

ciscogizmo1 said:


> I think, some of these increases were not preventable.  I'm pretty sure the Kauai one was a result of the parking lot flooding that caused a considerable amount of property damage.  I'm not sure about the Aruba one (I'd have to research it).  I still think Marriott does a better job overall at controlling costs.  But to be fair I'm sure Marriott has made it fair share of mistakes over the years.  Marriott has been in the timeshare business for 25 years.   With Starwood they have a lot of growing pains from their lack of locations, their relationship with II, their lack of customer service and management skills in running a timeshare, their poor computer system.
> 
> I work with a lot of homeowners in my business and smaller doesn't always mean better.  Sometimes having power of the masses and experience is the best.  I do believe Starwood does not have a budget agenda and has a difficult time controlling costs as it isn't a goal.
> 
> ...



You are correct. The Marriott resorts mentioned were unavoidable circumstances. 

Kauai Beach Club had the flood and a sink hole in the parking lot.

Aruba Ocean Club had a leaky roof and windows which are the fault of the builder. Marriott put up half the money to repair the damage. The bill had to be paid. Now litigation may get the repair money back.

StreamSide at Vail was a matter of the place not being up to Marriott standards. it needed major upgrades, or lose I.I.'s 5 Star rating. 
The Aspen section of that resort opted out of the Marriott system rather than spend the money. The other sections ponied up.


----------



## tombo (Dec 4, 2009)

ciscogizmo1 said:


> I .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I timeshare because I want to stay in 2 bed room 2 bath units ocean front with full kitchen's, washer/dryer, etc, for cheaper than I can rent similar accomodations. You still assume that non chain resorts are dumps. Some are, some are not. I can enjoy my stay at a resort that doesn't have Hyatt/Westin decorator touches and amenities, but I have never stayed twice in a timeshare that wasn't nicely maintained. I am not as picky as you, but don't assume that I want to spend a week at the beach in a motel 6, because I don't. I only stay ocean front in timeshares I own, and rarely am I not ocean front when I exchange for beach or Island locations. 

For me if timesharing isn't the cheapest way to go, then why own? You can rent Westin, Hyatt, Marriott, private wholly owned condos, etc from owners, from II, from RCI, or direcly from the resorts. If you can rent from owners and II/RCI for as cheap as owning I can't understand the advantage of owning. You have to make the original outlay to purchase, you are obligated to annual MF's and MF increases, and you likely will be liable for assessments in the future. Why not rent last minute wherever you want and not worry about increased MF's, assessments, and no worries about booking 10 or 12 months in advance just to get the week or location you want? Renting allows you to book wherever you want, whenever you want to go. No fighting for good views,good weeks, good resorts. Simply rent exactly what you want and do it when you want it. 

I have a very wealthy friend and he says he wouldn't consider timeshareing. I was explaining how much I enjoy it and he says when he decides to go on vacation he does so a month or so in advance, calls his travel agent and tells him where he wants to go, and then he is done. He said 6 months in advance is way too far in advance to know whether he will be tied up or not, he said if he booked trips 10 months or one year in advance he would be cancellling them often. I understand because I have had to cancel/rent/bank weeks I couldn't use because i booked way in advance and things came up. If I am staying at my resorts for far cheaper than I can rent i will reserve a year in advance on the phone at 8 am to get a good week/resort. If I am saving a lot of money I might be flexible on which week I will take. If I am not saving a lot of money i will rent at my convenience and no way am I going to lock in reservations one year in advance.

Why not let owners upgrade at their expense and simply rent or exchange for an upgraded room? If the reason you don't mind paying high MF's is because it is still far cheaper than renting at the same resort, I agree (to a point). If you simply like to say I own at XYZ resort even though you could stay at the same location for about the same money without owning i don't understand. 

I traded a one bed room non chain winter ocean week with $535 annual MF's for a 2 bed 2 bath Sheraton Vistana renovated July week this summer. I don't own there, but I stayed in the same units owners do for less than owners pay in MF's. I didn't have to pay $1000's in a multi year assessment, yet i stayed in a newly renovated room.  Sure I can only do it once every 4 years but I can also do OLCC every 4 years, DVC every 4 years, HGVC every 4 years, Bonnet Creek, etc, etc, etc. Non chains can easily trade for chains if the non chain is highly rated, in a great llocation, and in a prime week.

If it costs me as much or more to own as I could rent comparable accomodations, I would much rather rent. Any resort I buy will rent for double MF's or I am not buying. If MF's at my resorts rise to the point where I can't make profit renting the week when I don't want to use them myself, then I sell the week. If owners are renting their weeks out to others for anywhere close to what they pay for annual MF's, then the free market system is telling you that owning at that resort is not feasible. If the rentals are bringing much higher rental income than the cost of MF's, then that is a resort that might be worth owning. The only reason to own timeshares is to save money over renting for personal use,to make a profit renting out weeks you own, or because your week will trade into weeks at other resorts who have much higher annual MF's than what you own (once again saving you money). JMO.


----------



## tombo (Dec 4, 2009)

Fredm said:


> You are correct. The Marriott resorts mentioned were unavoidable circumstances.
> 
> Kauai Beach Club had the flood and a sink hole in the parking lot.
> 
> ...



Two of the three were avoidable IMO. 

The contactor was hired by Marriott who put on the faulty roof AOC. That is Marriott's problem, not the owners. Marriott should cover the repairs and sue to recover damages from the builder they hired. Surely Marriott hired licensed and bonded contractors. If they don't recover from the builders it is still not the owner's fault. Marriott's poor choice of contractors should be Marriott's financial loss, not a financial burden passed on to the owners.

Streamside Vail was not maintained and upgraded to II's 5 star standards by Marriott. Marriott should be able to maintain and upgrade keeping the 5 star status with the reserves built into in the annual MF's. If they don't manage the finances well enough to maintain the resort's buildings and amenities at the level required to remain 5 star and keep II happy, then it is Marriott's fault. Of course once II points out their poor mgt of the resort Marriott assesses the owners to get the resort back up to standards even though it isn't the owners fault. Every resort that assesses to upgrade their resorts that have fallen into disrepair like Vistana Villages, etc, etc, etc, could be classified as unavoidable circumstances using that criteria.

Now I will not blame Marriott for the sinkhole unless the sinkhole resulted in faulty design by the contractor Marriott hired. With no evidence of why the sink hole occurred, I will say that was beyond marriott's control.


----------



## jarta (Dec 4, 2009)

> tombo,   ...   "Streamside Vail was not maintained and upgraded to II's 5 star standards by Marriott. Marriott should be able to maintain and upgrade keeping the 5 star status with the reserves built into in the annual MF's. If they don't manage the finances well enough to maintain the resort's buildings and amenities at the level required to remain 5 star keep II happy, then it is Marriott's fault."



I do understand that on the yearly assessment Marriott, like Starwood or any management company, will have substantial input.  However, the buck stops with the HOA board.  

If the yearly assessments for operations and/or reserves are kept low by the HOA and the resort is not well maintained, things will wear out quicker.  And, a special assessment to put the place back together will probably be necessary.

The entire maintenance and reserves are somewhat hydraulic.  Over time, if you push down one place by delaying maintenance, the piper is paid later.  The overall costs are the overall costs.

And, if the HOA board then does not want to expend the money necessary to maintain the 5 star II rating, Marriott surely is not required to keep the resort in the Marriott family.

And, the same thing can happen at Starwood.   ...   eom


----------



## DanCali (Dec 4, 2009)

jarta said:


> And, if the HOA board then does not want to expend the money necessary to maintain the 5 star II rating, Marriott surely is not required to keep the resort in the Marriott family.
> 
> And, the same thing can happen at Starwood.   ...   eom



Or you can write:

And, if the HOA board then does not want to expend the money necessary to maintain the 5 star II rating Marriot's/Starwood's profitability after hotel losses, Marriott/Starwood surely is not required to keep the resort in the Marriott/Starwood family.

And, the same thing can should happen at Starwood before valuations become negative due to unjustifiable MFs which are higher than rental costs.  eom


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 4, 2009)

*Add to this add to that - pretty soon its big money*



jarta said:


> I do understand that on the yearly assessment Marriott, like Starwood or any management company, will have substantial input.  However, the buck stops with the HOA board.
> 
> If the yearly assessments for operations and/or reserves are kept low by the HOA and the resort is not well maintained, things will wear out quicker.  And, a special assessment to put the place back together will probably be necessary.
> 
> ...



Except that Marriott, like other Developer controlled management companies, doesn't let the Board make financially prudent choices. At one of the mentioned resorts (it may have been more) the HOA wanted to get the required work done by a qualified contractor they found but Marriott would only approved THEIR contractor (with added overhead) in addition to their suppliers (with added overhead) on top of the additional fees they have built into their contract to "manage" things like renovation projects (more overhead cost) meaning the bottom line exceeded the budget and not by some small amount. After Marriott was booted the Board got the work(and more) done to standards for far less. It is those types of costly and needless charges added that make "name brand" management far too costly for far too little added value.


----------



## Fredm (Dec 4, 2009)

tombo said:


> Two of the three were avoidable IMO.
> 
> The contactor was hired by Marriott who put on the faulty roof AOC. That is Marriott's problem, not the owners. Marriott should cover the repairs and sue to recover damages from the builder they hired. Surely Marriott hired licensed and bonded contractors. If they don't recover from the builders it is still not the owner's fault. Marriott's poor choice of contractors should be Marriott's financial loss, not a financial burden passed on to the owners.
> 
> ...



Facts would help. 

StreamSide was an acquired resort. The HOA Board is and was entirely controlled by the owners before Marriott showed up. 
The condition of the property was not of Marriott's making.
The HOA approved budgets were not sufficient to address the required deferred maintenance. And certainly not sufficient to upgrade. 

Aspen section had every right to choose not to make the improvements, and not want to pay for the Marriott management override.  Good for them.

Branding costs more. No question about it. But to declare Marriott an incompetent manager is laughable. Operations management is their business. They are the largest in the world, and certainly among the most competent.

Most Starwood owners look at Marriott fees with envy.
Some question why foreclosures and delinquencies are not impacting Marriott 2010 dues as badly, and assume that Marriott reserves are therefore less than adequate.
I have a different take. Marriott is so much better at containing costs that sufficient reserves were already accumulated. Thus, making the side by side comparisons more dramatic than they appear.

I am not a blind Marriott cheerleader. But, I do know a good program when I see one.


----------



## Fredm (Dec 4, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> ... but Marriott would only approved THEIR contractor (with added overhead) in addition to their suppliers (with added overhead) on top of the additional fees they have built into their contract to "manage" things like renovation projects (more overhead cost) meaning the bottom line exceeded the budget and not by some small amount. After Marriott was booted the Board got the work(and more) done to standards for far less. It is those types of costly and needless charges added that make "name brand" management far too costly for far too little added value.



This is often true. Such is the price of branding.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Dec 4, 2009)

*Premium Deluxe Timeshare Toiletries.*




timeos2 said:


> It is those types of costly and needless charges added that make "name brand" management far too costly for far too little added value.


But at least with Marriott & the rest of the blue chip name brands, owners & renters & exchange guests get to shower down with top-quality Timeshare Soap. 

As for me, I'd rather pay non-inflated maintenance fees even if I have to shower down using standard-quality Timeshare Soap -- not that there's anything wrong with the high-priced kind. 

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


----------



## Fredm (Dec 5, 2009)

AwayWeGo said:


> But at least with Marriott & the rest of the blue chip name brands, owners & renters & exchange guests get to shower down with top-quality Timeshare Soap.
> 
> As for me, I'd rather pay non-inflated maintenance fees even if I have to shower down using standard-quality Timeshare Soap -- not that there's anything wrong with the high-priced kind.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Alan,

Is the M in Mpumalanga pronounced, or silent?


----------



## Twinkstarr (Dec 5, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Most Starwood owners look at Marriott fees with envy.
> Some question why foreclosures and delinquencies are not impacting Marriott 2010 dues as badly, and assume that Marriott reserves are therefore less than adequate.
> I have a different take. Marriott is so much better at containing costs that sufficient reserves were already accumulated. Thus, making the side by side comparisons more dramatic than they appear.
> 
> I am not a blind Marriott cheerleader. But, I do know a good program when I see one.



With Lakeside Terrace, I think that maybe the exception to the rule(I know my fees are a lot less than the Vail, CO Marriott's).

I certainly don't see many threads on the Marriot board with tales of double digit MF increases. Even at places like OceanWatch at MB.


----------



## Fredm (Dec 8, 2009)

Twinkstarr said:


> With Lakeside Terrace, I think that maybe the exception to the rule(I know my fees are a lot less than the Vail, CO Marriott's).
> 
> I certainly don't see many threads on the Marriot board with tales of double digit MF increases. Even at places like OceanWatch at MB.



Right!

Marriott StreamSide is its own special situation, as previously stated. Some things are unavoidable. And, no matter what, some will find fault with a developer.

Timos statements are quite true, as far as they go. Branded resorts will have fees that are higher (sometimes much higher) than if independently managed. But, how much is "value added" is in the eye of the beholder.

No one enjoys higher fees. But, most view them in the context of the overall ownership experience. And, the degree to which they trust the manager and HOA to act responsibly. 

The Marriott board has an owner satisfaction poll similar to the one here on the Starwood board.
According to this TUG poll, 88% of Marriott owners are very satisfied with their ownership. 
Quite remarkable is the most highly satisfied represent the largest percentage, by far. 
Enough said.


----------

