# [Cost cutting emails sent out by Starwood Resorts - MERGED]



## SDKath (Aug 31, 2009)

Just received via email:

Dear Mission Hills Villa Owner,

We, your Board of Directors, are writing to inform you of an emerging problem we have, and actions we are taking to resolve it. We are also asking for your assistance. 

Our villas operate financially as a non-profit organization. All funds received are used only for the benefit of the Owners. The current financial crisis is now being felt by our association. There is a noticeable reduction of annual dues being paid to our association. We have always experienced a slight problem in this area, but in 2009, non-payment has created a noticeable cash shortfall. 

We have taken and are taking several steps to recover lost funds. This includes notification letters to the delinquent Owners, followed by property liens where necessary and foreclosure as a last step. Some of our Owners have responded favorably to our requests; however, a measurable financial shortfall still exists. 

Other steps we are now taking include a review and "scrubbing" of our operating expenditures in order to achieve cost savings—where practical—while maintaining the quality of our villas. We are working closely with Starwood in this regard in seeking solutions. 

There is one additional step where we would ask each of you to help. The annual maintenance fees for the villas will be mailed early this year, in October instead of December. If you are able and willing to make the annual payment as soon as your bill is received, it would be most appreciated. If enough of our Villa Owners are able to do this, it will help us with our cash flow through the difficult months we face while the recovery process continues. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration and help.


Your Board of Directors


----------



## clsmit (Aug 31, 2009)

*SBP Email to Owners on Costcutting (with veiled threat)*

I got SD Kath's note for WMH and this one for SBP (and one for SBP Palmetto) emphasis mine:

Dear Fellow Broadway Plantation Owner,

As you watch the news, read the papers, and conduct everyday business, it is very apparent the impact the current recession, credit crisis, and high unemployment are having on the economy—even homeowner associations are feeling the pinch. Broadway Plantation, like all businesses today, has not been exempt from the troubled economy.

The purpose of this communication is to make you, as an Owner, aware that some of your fellow Owners are struggling to pay their annual maintenance fees. While we always experience a small percentage of delinquency and even defaults, the current economy has made it worse. As a result, your Association’s operating cash flow has been negatively impacted.

To proactively address this challenge, working closely with the Management Team, the Board of Directors held a meeting to structure a plan of action to minimize any cash flow shortfall. We considered a number of options to reduce expenses, some of which will result in changes to services you typically enjoy at the resort.

With the dual goal of reducing costs and minimizing the impact on your vacation experience, we have decided to implement the following changes immediately: 

Staffing Levels - All hourly positions will be placed on a reduced work week with focused service levels on the check-in and check-out days—Friday, Saturday and Sunday. 
Placemats and Napkins - The cloth table placemats and napkins will be discontinued, however, paper towels will continue to be supplied. 
Other Items: 
Activities guide/site map will be reduced from six pages to two pages. 
Size of liquid dish soap will be reduced. 
Trash liners will be supplied only in the kitchen trash can. 
Rollaway bed fee of $5 per day beginning with reservations made on or after September 1, 2009: 
Revenue from the above will directly benefit the Association 
The Management Team and your Board of Directors will continue the full and thorough review of the maintenance fee budget with the goal to reduce expenses while maintaining your vacation experience. 

We expect the above initiatives to carry on throughout the 2010 budget year. As we continue to respond to the changing economic conditions, you may rest assured we will communicate any significant changes that may impact your vacation experience. _To ensure the quality and integrity of your Sheraton vacation experience, we will review the ongoing need for each of these measures as economic conditions improve._ (This sentence was in the Plantation email only, not the Palmetto email. The rest was the same.)

As always, your feedback is important and we ask that you communicate any comments or suggestions you may have with the Management Team while you are visiting the resort or directly with the Board of Directors at boardrelations@starwoodvo.com. 

*We ask that you be mindful not to share your displeasure, should you have any, regarding service level changes by rating the resort low on your comment card. Giving the resort a reduced or low rating for these changes will only result in affecting your trading power to other resorts in the exchange network. *

Thank you in advance for your understanding. As your representative, the Board of Directors takes its responsibility very seriously. Our goal is to serve your interest as Owners while maintaining Broadway Plantation as a jewel that you are proud to own.

Sincerely,

Broadway Plantation Owners’ Association, Inc. 
Board of Directors


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 31, 2009)

I also received this email.  So people aren't paying their fees and we have to worry about losing our Premiere status with II because there are no cloth placemats?   

Maybe they are trying to say that our status is already gone.   What is the real purpose of this email?


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 31, 2009)

To warn you that they are going to raise MF's!


----------



## James1975NY (Aug 31, 2009)

SDKath said:


> Just received via email:
> 
> Dear Mission Hills Villa Owner,
> 
> ...



WOW! I wonder what their delinquency percentage is.....


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 31, 2009)

Holy Cow Batman!!!

I really hope this is not for all of the resorts.


----------



## Westin5Star (Aug 31, 2009)

I have a solution-
SVOs management fees should be based partially on the MFs they are able to collect. 

They mention in the email that the association is nonprofit. We know that Starwood is for profit. It is time our nonprofit BODs reduce the excessive fees paid to the for profit SVO for managing our properties. 

Problem solved and we don't even have to reduce the amount of dishsoap that we receive!


----------



## clsmit (Aug 31, 2009)

*Another idea to get more revenue*

When a property rents as a hotel night via Starwood the homeowners association should get some of that income. Don't think they do now. (LisaRex is the expert on this one.)


----------



## jarta (Aug 31, 2009)

With an association, the budget is put in place with an assumption that the owners will pay the assessment (as they have a duty to do).

Harborside this year included in the 2009 MF an amount for loss of collection of the 2008 MFs.

With the budget in place, the association must pay bills as they come due.  If a substantial portion of the MF are not paid, expenses must be cut.  Of course, if the money is not paid by deadbeats or maybe just people in financial trouble, those who do pay will eventually have to pay more.

The problem with timeshare delinquencies is the small amount at issue mitigates against chasing the delinquent owner.  It takes filing fees and attorney fees to file a suit to foreclose a lien against a resident of Oregon who does not pay MF for a timeshare in Florida.  But, since the Oregon resident has no other property in Florida, how does an association ever collect on any Florida judgment.  For that reason, I don't think many foreclosures are filed.  About all that can be done is to forbid a reservation until the delinquency is paid.  But, that does not get the money.

And, if the delinquent declares bankruptcy, the lien against the person is extinguished.

Of course, the association has a lien against the timeshare that it can enforce against the escrow when the property is sold and closed through a title company.  Starwood seems to be enforcing that lien by not giving estoppel letters unless the sale is closed through a reliable title company which will honor the association's lien for delinquent MF.

I had a conversation this March at Kierland with that association's president who was looking for advice on how to efficiently collect the yearly MF.  He was worried about getting the money if owners stopped paying.  I think Kierland may be in a better position than those older resorts like Broadway Plantation or Mission Hills or SDO.      ...   eom


----------



## Captron (Sep 1, 2009)

*SBP Service cuts - email*

Here is what I received by email tonight. Thoughts??? 

 	Dear Fellow Broadway Plantation Owner,

As you watch the news, read the papers, and conduct everyday business, it is very apparent the impact the current recession, credit crisis, and high unemployment are having on the economy—even homeowner associations are feeling the pinch. Broadway Plantation, like all businesses today, has not been exempt from the troubled economy.

The purpose of this communication is to make you, as an Owner, aware that some of your fellow Owners are struggling to pay their annual maintenance fees. While we always experience a small percentage of delinquency and even defaults, the current economy has made it worse. As a result, your Association’s operating cash flow has been negatively impacted.

To proactively address this challenge, working closely with the Management Team, the Board of Directors held a meeting to structure a plan of action to minimize any cash flow shortfall. We considered a number of options to reduce expenses, some of which will result in changes to services you typically enjoy at the resort.

With the dual goal of reducing costs and minimizing the impact on your vacation experience, we have decided to implement the following changes immediately: 
•	Staffing Levels - All hourly positions will be placed on a reduced work week with focused service levels on the check-in and check-out days—Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
•	Placemats and Napkins - The cloth table placemats and napkins will be discontinued, however, paper towels will continue to be supplied. 
•	Other Items: 
o	Activities guide/site map will be reduced from six pages to two pages.
o	Size of liquid dish soap will be reduced. 
o	Trash liners will be supplied only in the kitchen trash can. 
•	Rollaway bed fee of $5 per day beginning with reservations made on or after September 1, 2009: 
o	Revenue from the above will directly benefit the Association
The Management Team and your Board of Directors will continue the full and thorough review of the maintenance fee budget with the goal to reduce expenses while maintaining your vacation experience. 

We expect the above initiatives to carry on throughout the 2010 budget year. As we continue to respond to the changing economic conditions, you may rest assured we will communicate any significant changes that may impact your vacation experience. To ensure the quality and integrity of your Sheraton vacation experience, we will review the ongoing need for each of these measures as economic conditions improve.

As always, your feedback is important and we ask that you communicate any comments or suggestions you may have with the Management Team while you are visiting the resort or directly with the Board of Directors at boardrelations@starwoodvo.com. 

We ask that you be mindful not to share your displeasure, should you have any, regarding service level changes by rating the resort low on your comment card. Giving the resort a reduced or low rating for these changes will only result in affecting your trading power to other resorts in the exchange network. 

Thank you in advance for your understanding. As your representative, the Board of Directors takes its responsibility very seriously. Our goal is to serve your interest as Owners while maintaining Broadway Plantation as a jewel that you are proud to own.

Sincerely,

Broadway Plantation Owners’ Association, Inc. 
Board of Directors


----------



## Troopers (Sep 1, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> To warn you that they are going to raise MF's!



Yup!  And I wouldn't expect anyone here on TUG to be suprised.


----------



## Captron (Sep 1, 2009)

What about renting out the units being held for accounts in arrears and forwarding *any* income to the association. At VERY LEAST they should cover the MF!!! These are extra weeks available for rental ONLY because of the delinquencies so this only makes sense. 

OR

Since the association is the holder of these extra weeks because of non payment, they could let Starwood pay them for access to use it as a rental for an amount (exceeding the MF - preferably by at least 25%)!


----------



## tomandrobin (Sep 1, 2009)

My brother in law got an email last night for his SBP weeks, same as above.


----------



## Cathyb (Sep 1, 2009)

*Westin Mission Hills-interesting/uneasy email from Board*

Received an 'uncomfortable' email from our Board of Directors for Westin Mission Hills apparently a result of the declining market and rise in delinquencies.  

1.  Wants owners to pay their annual maintenance fees in October instead of December due to a 'noticable cash shortfall' in non-payments.

2.  Scrubbing of operating expenditures  -- wonder what that means!

Have any other Starwood property owners received something similar?


----------



## Politico (Sep 1, 2009)

See this thread


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 1, 2009)

Yes, as in the other thread, we received a letter from Starwood for Sheraton Broadway Plantation.  

What percentage of people could be delinquent?  If it's 15%, I hope they don't increase our fees by 30%.   

I would like the resorts to be a bit more frugal, but I am thinking more about cutting the top management positions.  You know, the people who make bad decisions to the detriment of the owners.


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 1, 2009)

Captron said:


> What about renting out the units being held for accounts in arrears and forwarding *any* income to the association. At VERY LEAST they should cover the MF!!! These are extra weeks available for rental ONLY because of the delinquencies so this only makes sense.
> 
> OR
> 
> Since the association is the holder of these extra weeks because of non payment, they could let Starwood pay them for access to use it as a rental for an amount (exceeding the MF - preferably by at least 25%)!



The problem with this suggestion is that rental income does not go to the HOA.  In Starwood's convoluted world, your suggestion would hurt the HOA (which would still have the arrears showing on the books) but would benefit Starwood who would pocket the income from the rentals.  Also, the rental would increase the operating costs vs. just letting the unit sit empty.  HOA's, if they were working for the benefit of the owner, could and should demand that Starwood at least compensate them for rentals - but that is never going to happen.  We will see a decrease in amenities and a stripping of our timeshares to bare bones long before Starwood adjusts the contracts.


----------



## Captron (Sep 1, 2009)

calgarygary said:


> The problem with this suggestion is that rental income does not go to the HOA.  In Starwood's convoluted world, your suggestion would hurt the HOA (which would still have the arrears showing on the books) but would benefit Starwood who would pocket the income from the rentals.  Also, the rental would increase the operating costs vs. just letting the unit sit empty.  HOA's, if they were working for the benefit of the owner, could and should demand that Starwood at least compensate them for rentals - but that is never going to happen.  We will see a decrease in amenities and a stripping of our timeshares to bare bones long before Starwood adjusts the contracts.



That is what I meant. That under these EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES that they allow rentals with the proceeds going to the association.

Maybe the associations should band together and hire someone or contract with someone to market these delinquent weeks for rental to allow for some cost recovery. (This also keeps these open weeks out of Starwoods hands which may convince them to flex a little on the rental compensation for the association)

[edit: yes I know the contracts likely don't allow this, but extreme circumstances need extreme action, if the banks can "restructure" mortgages etc. who knows??? This is certainly better than  severe cuts in service while Starwood INCREASES their profits AT OUR COST by having even more access to rentals while we are threatened with yet more MF increases.] 

Just a thought....


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 1, 2009)

Captron said:


> That is what I meant. That under these EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES that they allow rentals with the proceeds going to the association.
> 
> Maybe the associations should band together and hire someone or contract with someone to market these delinquent weeks for rental to allow for some cost recovery. (This also keeps these open weeks out of Starwoods hands which may convince them to flex a little on the rental compensation for the association)
> 
> ...



It's a great thought except for one huge stumbling block - in every Starwood resort, the HOA is controlled by Starwood.  Last year, the Bella (@ Vistana Villages) income statement showed a whopping $374 of misc. income (probably found in the couches!) while Starwood pulled $5,000,000 out of Bella using various lines - mgt. fees, owner services, master association dues, etc.  

This whole issue of cutbacks *could be acceptable* if we knew Starwood wasn't sucking the HOA dry.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 1, 2009)

*HUH? They have no right to rent the weeks*



calgarygary said:


> The problem with this suggestion is that rental income does not go to the HOA.  In Starwood's convoluted world, your suggestion would hurt the HOA (which would still have the arrears showing on the books) but would benefit Starwood who would pocket the income from the rentals.  Also, the rental would increase the operating costs vs. just letting the unit sit empty.  HOA's, if they were working for the benefit of the owner, could and should demand that Starwood at least compensate them for rentals - but that is never going to happen.  We will see a decrease in amenities and a stripping of our timeshares to bare bones long before Starwood adjusts the contracts.



Starwood should NOT have any right to rent the delinquent weeks EXCEPT to benefit the Association. If they do (assumedly through the contract) it is extremely unfair and reason enough to question why they are managing the resorts.  The fees are due to the Association, the lien is the Associations and every effort to collect and/or foreclose in a timely manner (under 1 year in Fl) should be done to protect the resort and the owners. If it isn't then management is not doing their job and owners are being ripped off big time. Unfortunately that is all too common when developers hang around to do ongoing management - a big reason why I try to avoid ownership at such resorts. The owners need an independent management group or self management to be sure its the owners not some developer - that is the top priority. This does not sound good...


----------



## ecwinch (Sep 1, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I also received this email.  So people aren't paying their fees and we have to worry about losing our Premiere status with II because there are no cloth placemats?
> 
> Maybe they are trying to say that our status is already gone.   What is the real purpose of this email?



I am not a SVO owner, but it sounds to me like an HOA Board that is proactively trying to manage a cash-flow problem instead of just hitting the "raise m/f" or "lets have a special assessment" button and then putting things back on auto-pilot. 

I think they should be applauded.  

And while all the other suggestions (rentals, SVO contract modification, etc) are great long term solutions to the underlying problem, I doubt that they would be productive solutions for the more pressing and immediate cash-flow problem.

JMO.


----------



## paluamalia (Sep 1, 2009)

*Pro active*

I agree with Eric....we had to do this at our small condo association, lots of bills come due at the end of the year and we ask the Board of Dir. to pay upfront and request that the others pay as they can.

It helps the cash flow and ultimately helps the owners...


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 1, 2009)

*BIG problems and usually slow response equals SA or worse*



paluamalia said:


> I agree with Eric....we had to do this at our small condo association, lots of bills come due at the end of the year and we ask the Board of Dir. to pay upfront and request that the others pay as they can.
> 
> It helps the cash flow and ultimately helps the owners...



It also means your resort will end the year with a deficit - and bad debt on the books for 2010. You are living off 2010 fees collected in 2009. A recipe for problems.   You had better hope they properly funded for bad debt as well as higher fees/lower expenses or its a quick slide into financial disaster.  This is nothing to ignore or give them a pass on. Every owner needs to keep after the Board and Management to get this under control immediately.


----------



## ecwinch (Sep 1, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> It also means your resort will end the year with a deficit - and bad debt on the books for 2010. You are living off 2010 fees collected in 2009. A recipe for problems.   *You had better hope they properly funded for bad debt as well as higher fees/lower expenses or its a quick slide into financial disaster.*  This is nothing to ignore or give them a pass on. Every owner needs to keep after the Board and Management to get this under control immediately.



I never understand those who immediately suspect incompetence. For I think it would be impossible for anyone to accurately project bad debt this year given the unprecedented change the economy. It is easy to monday morning quarterback, but if you were in there shoes, how much would you have increased bad debt? Would you use a 10%, 50%, 100% increase? Or more? With no historical data, how would you handle it?

So it is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. They could easily have set a higher target for bad debt expense and endured complaints on how much m/f are increasing in this dismal economy. Which makes more owners walk away on their obligations. Creating the snowball effect.

Sure owners should be more involved. But the resort has a problem now.


----------



## jarta (Sep 1, 2009)

timeos2,   ...   "Every owner needs to keep after the Board and Management to get this under control immediately."

Yes.  But, it's not easy.  The way you get nonpayment of assessments under control is to budget for losses in collection as an expense.  Of course, unless you cut costs, the reduction in available funds means that the annual MF for everyone will go up.

Collection of timeshare MF is not easy.  You cannot evict people.  You can only suspend the right to reserve until the MF are current.  Plus, even if you get a judgment, how do you efficiently enforce a $1-2K judgment against someone who has no assets where the TS is and lives 500-1,500 miles away?   ...   eom


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 1, 2009)

*It's no surprise*



ecwinch said:


> I never understand those who immediately suspect incompetence. For I think it would be impossible for anyone to accurately project bad debt this year given the unprecedented change the economy. It is easy to monday morning quarterback, but if you were in there shoes, how much would you have increased bad debt? Would you use a 10%, 50%, 100% increase? Or more? With no historical data, how would you handle it?
> 
> So it is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. They could easily have set a higher target for bad debt expense and endured complaints on how much m/f are increasing in this dismal economy. Which makes more owners walk away on their obligations. Creating the snowball effect.
> 
> Sure owners should be more involved. But the resort has a problem now.



No historical data? What is the average NEW delinquency rate for the past 5 years? How much this year? ADD that to 2010 estimated bad debt at a minimum. This is what a competent management does for its tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's called management & budgeting. It isn't a new idea for 2010 - we struggled with incompetent developer management that rang up a $2.5 million dollar deficit by ignoring collections way back in 2001 that ended at less than 50% collection rate. With independent management that saved us over $500,000 a YEAR in fees alone,  proper budgets and collections we turned a profit every year since 2002 and erased the deficit by 2004 - we're over $1 million in the black today. With 98% collections in 2008. For 2009 it looks like 96% so for 2010 we're budgeting a realistic 94%. It's not rocket science. We don't give breaks to any owner - if they owe they7 pay or they lose the ownership all within one billing cycle. 

It's called competent management. The owners deserve it.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 1, 2009)

*It's the Board that needs to answer*



jarta said:


> timeos2,   ...   "Every owner needs to keep after the Board and Management to get this under control immediately."
> 
> Yes.  But, it's not easy.  The way you get nonpayment of assessments under control is to budget for losses in collection as an expense.  Of course, unless you cut costs, the reduction in available funds means that the annual MF for everyone will go up.
> 
> Collection of timeshare MF is not easy.  You cannot evict people.  You can only suspend the right to reserve until the MF are current.  Plus, even if you get a judgment, how do you efficiently enforce a $1-2K judgment against someone who has no assets where the TS is and lives 500-1,500 miles away?   ...   eom



No it's not easy. But your management should be working every account on a strict timeline - sending out collection notices, foreclosing ASAP and RENTING THE DELINQUENT TIME FOR THE ASSOCIATION as it belongs to them! 

If it was easy any developer management could do it. From what I've seen not one can. I can give you a 7 year overview of a resort who was technically run into bankruptcy by the developer who ""Was doing all they could' that not only turned it around with a real managememt but got a $3.5 LOAN when needed for new roofs that failed 25 years early (poor construction - developer bankrupt so guess who pays!) unheard of in the timeshare world of 2006/7 based on our solid financial standings just 5 years later. 

Lay the fault where it belongs. The foot of the Board and the Management they have you under.


----------



## jarta (Sep 1, 2009)

timeos2,   ...   "Lay the fault where it belongs. The foot of the Board and the Management they have you under."

Yes, the buck stops at the association board and the management company.  But, I'm not sure you have any idea what the last 5 year delinquency rate was compared to what is happening this year.  I know I don't.  But, I expect it is much higher than the 5 year average.

Asking for an early payment from those who own at the timeshare cannot hurt.  And, it is not necessarily a ploy to use next year's MF to pay this year's expenses.

Maybe, just maybe, the associations are cutting expenses to balance this year's budget (that's exactly what they have said) and begging for the early payments so that they can be invested and make money to help defray next year's expenses.

Renting delinquent weeks with the proceeds going to the association is a good idea.  Do you know it's not happening?  Remember, you cannot rent easily without demand for weeks.   ...   eom


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 1, 2009)

I am confident that the increase in bad debt is a small portion of the fees that Starwood is sucking out of the resorts.  Bad debt is not the issue, it is Starwood taking excessive fees while reducing standards.  It appears that in 2008, Starwood registered apx. 250 liens in the Bella development.  That number could triple this year and if Starwood settled for 10% less operating income out of Bella, or re-imbursed the HOA for rental income, I am confident that the bad debt would have a 0 net impact on the HOA.

Maybe if the HOA was pro-active, they would not have waited until Sept. of last year to put liens on those units that were in default for 2008 mf.  To date this year, not one single action has been started in Orange County regarding the Bella development for units that are in default.  Does that mean no unit is in default, of course not.  Do you think Starwood would be so slow in this process if these fees were impacting their bottom line?  This is just another example of how a developer controlled board is for the benefit of the developer and not those owners who will be left holding the bag.

Every single HOA is controlled by Starwood - that is a fact that can not be disputed.  What I don't know for certain, is the amount Starwood pulls out of other HOA's, here are the numbers for Vistana Villages Bella development:

Admin & General (management? as there are separate housekeeping,security, etc. lines) $1,603,092.
Management Fees (possibly double charging for above) $1,225,146
Owner Services apx. $683,000
Master Association Dues $1,351,410

This accounts for 40% of the expenses of operating Bella - I do not think cutting back on the dish soap would have the same impact as reducing some of the above.


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 1, 2009)

jarta said:


> timeos2,   ...   "Lay the fault where it belongs. The foot of the Board and the Management they have you under."
> 
> *Yes, the buck stops at the association board and the management company.  But, I'm not sure you have any idea what the last 5 year delinquency rate was compared to what is happening this year.  I know I don't.  But, I expect it is much higher than the 5 year average.*
> 
> ...



This is the infurating part to me.  I too expect that there will be a substantive increase in defaults.  Unfortunately, OC records would indicate that at my resort, everything is fine.  I would not at all be surprised to find a records search at other resorts would provide similar results.  Obviously, if there is not one single action at Bella by Sept. 1, someone is not on top of the situation.

Jarta, of course you know that the association is not getting income from rentals.  Those dollars must be accounted for and as I stated earlier this year in another thread, and earlier in this thread, the total misc. revenue for Bella at Vistana Villages was $374.  Where is the income from *wood giving special rates to travel agency partners?  Where is the income from skyauction?  Where is the income from direct rentals at Starwood.com?  I know where it is......it is in Fritz's bonus!


----------



## jarta (Sep 1, 2009)

gary,   ...   If I (living in Chicago) decide or have circumstances decide for me to walk away from my Bella timeshare in Orlando, how does a foreclosure of the lien for 2009 MF affect me?  Really, what can the Bella association do to me to collect any money?  Do you think I really care about a judgment pending in Orange County, Florida for a measly $700?  Will I rush out and pay it because I get a call from a bill collector?  Or, will I pay it whenever I feel like it?

That's the problem with timeshare ownership.  There is no easy, quick fix for an association to collect delinquent MF.

Starwood has income and age requirements before it will sell someone a timeshare.  However, if you buy a resale timeshare on eBay for $1 (plus $300 closing costs), what stops you from taking a hike when things go south?    ...   eom


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 1, 2009)

jarta said:


> gary,   ...   If I (living in Chicago) decide or have circumstances decide for me to walk away from my Bella timeshare in Orlando, how does a foreclosure of the lien for 2009 MF affect me?  Really, what can the Bella association do to me to collect any money?  Do you think I really care about a judgment pending in Orange County, Florida for a measly $700?  Will I rush out and pay it because I get a call from a bill collector?  Or, will I pay it whenever I feel like it?
> 
> That's the problem with timeshare ownership.  There is no easy, quick fix for an association to collect delinquent MF.
> 
> Starwood has income and age requirements before it will sell someone a timeshare.  However, if you buy a resale timeshare on eBay for $1 (plus $300 closing costs), what stops you from taking a hike when things go south?    ...   eom



jarta, there is nothing that should you choose not to pay, and are willing to live with those consequences, that will compell you to pay.  However, to suggest that a board is doing the necessary steps to control their expenses by reducing soaps sizes and requesting early payment of mf (which impacts cash flow but has only the smallest of impact on expenses) while not being diligent in taking every reasonable step in collecting (not just budgeting for)outstanding mf is disingenuous.


----------



## jarta (Sep 1, 2009)

gary,   ...   "Those dollars must be accounted for and as I stated earlier this year in another thread, and earlier in this thread, the total misc. revenue for Bella at Vistana Villages was $374."

Rental income would not be found in miscellaneous income anyway.  It would be elsewhere.  Misc. income should be a very small amount for items that are not worth accounting for separately or under another designation anywhere else.

As for Bella, maybe the delinquency problem is not that bad this year (at least we owners can hope it isn't).   ...   eom


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 1, 2009)

jarta said:


> gary,   ...   "Those dollars must be accounted for and as I stated earlier this year in another thread, and earlier in this thread, the total misc. revenue for Bella at Vistana Villages was $374."
> 
> Rental income would not be found in miscellaneous income anyway.  *It would be elsewhere.*  Misc. income should be a very small amount for items that are not worth accounting for separately or under another designation anywhere else.
> 
> As for Bella, maybe the delinquency problem is not that bad this year (at least we owners can hope it isn't).   ...   eom



Of course it shouldn't be in misc revenue.  There is no rental income line on the budget of any of your resorts is there?  That is the point, there is no rental income going to the HOA's yet we all know that the HOA's have expenses associated with the rentals.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 1, 2009)

*Hit on credit hurts. Going after account works. You're already paying*



jarta said:


> gary,   ...   If I (living in Chicago) decide or have circumstances decide for me to walk away from my Bella timeshare in Orlando, how does a foreclosure of the lien for 2009 MF affect me?  Really, what can the Bella association do to me to collect any money?  Do you think I really care about a judgment pending in Orange County, Florida for a measly $700?  Will I rush out and pay it because I get a call from a bill collector?  Or, will I pay it whenever I feel like it?
> 
> That's the problem with timeshare ownership.  There is no easy, quick fix for an association to collect delinquent MF.
> 
> Starwood has income and age requirements before it will sell someone a timeshare.  However, if you buy a resale timeshare on eBay for $1 (plus $300 closing costs), what stops you from taking a hike when things go south?    ...   eom



Making excuses for why you can't collect is a bad management move. Does it work IF you really try? Yes. Incredibly the success rate for the two collection firms our resort now uses is better than 60% - even in this horrible economy. And once it goes to foreclosure even MORE choose to pay up rather than show a foreclosure on their records. Or we may get a deed back. But in any case before one year of fees are lost there is a plan in place to turn the week around to paying status. No excuses. If management does the job there is no ongoing problem and no need to dip into 2010 payments in 2009 "just to get by" Believe me, we heard that crock one year in November. Next in October. And by the time we booted them we were in the hole by mid-summer. That is the wheel of misfortune using unearned income to fund real current bills gets you. it's a credit card type debt thats tough to overcome once it starts.  

So let an owner "take a hike" We'll find them and they will take care of their responsibility - and without $1 million (!!!) in management fees. What a ripoff of the Starwood owners that level of fee is even if they were doing the job. This s a terrible situation. The gravy train should be over for this so called management.  And remember if you plan to stay an owner YOU"LL be paying for the deadbeats that they aren't holding responsible as they should.


----------



## jarta (Sep 1, 2009)

timeos2,   ...   "Incredibly the success rate for the two collection firms our resort now uses is better than 60% - even in this horrible economy."

And, they do this for free?  Getting 60% of the money might be nice if that is a net figure.  Is it?

Usually a collection agency charges 25% to 33% of the amount collected.  If the fee is 1/3, the amount of money generated goes down to under 50%.  That means by compromising the MF now the board at your resort is walking away from 1/2 the money it would get from a closing down the line by not compromising the MF.

Still, maybe your resort can walk away from that money.  A bird in the hand may be worth 2 in the bush.  It's an individual decision for your board to make.  Since I do not know all the specifics, I cannot criticize.   ...   eom


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 1, 2009)

*No cost to the Association*



jarta said:


> timeos2,   ...   "Incredibly the success rate for the two collection firms our resort now uses is better than 60% - even in this horrible economy."
> 
> And, they do this for free?  Getting 60% of the money might be nice if that is a net figure.  Is it?
> 
> ...



No, the agreement is that the resort is reimbursed 100% of the fee & interest due - the only money the collection agencies make (and it isn't cheap) are tacked on to the bill. All moneys collected go to the resort until the original fee and the interest is paid in full. Then the collections fees are paid by the debtor. We do not feel it is the responsibilty of paying owners to also pay for those that don't follow the rules. Whatever costs they create they pay. The account is not free of the lien until the full amount is paid for the original amount, the interest due and the collection/attorney fees. We walk away from nothing.  Plus we give them (the collection folk) only 90 days. Then it goes to a secondary group - same rules - for 30-45 days. If by roughly June 1 it remains unpaid then it goes to foreclosure. And the collection folk are not paid for those weeks so they really want to get those fees paid.  

And we have it set up that we pay nothing for that pricey foreclosure process as well. We automatically "sell" each week to the people handling the foreclosures - they pay the costs and end up with the ownership - which saves us having to find a buyer. How well does it work? As I said in 2008 we collected all but 2% of the fees due and have only 7 weeks in the name of the Association that year (all sold to owners by auction).  

It can be done and good management does it.


----------



## clsmit (Sep 1, 2009)

I find it interesting that only WMH and SBP have this issue enough to send emails to the owners. My perception is that Starwood at SBP sells a lot of smaller units (EOY 1br, perhaps financed) rather than 2BR LOs. (I don't know about WMH.) 

This would lead me to believe that the issue is not just MFs but the underlying property as well. If the owner can't pay the mortgage on the timeshare he/she certainly can't pay the MFs. I suspect Starwood has a lot of properties that are in default at SBP, so until the economy turns around and they get resold they are on the hook for the MFs. So it's expected that service would be cut since the revenue stream isn't going to get any better any time soon.

If I were a Wall Street analyst covering HOT (which I'm not, and I don't know any) I'd ask about this on the next quarterly call.


----------



## jarta (Sep 1, 2009)

timeos2,   ...   Well, I guess you do have to pay the collection agencies their fee.  So, they collect 100% on 60% of the delinquencies - and then you force the owner to also pay their fee at a  substantial percentage.  If it works, I guess it works.  But what if someone ignores you?

And, whoever does the foreclosure for you gets the deed for their costs - and, presumably, the one year of MF that you are reimbursed for.

It seems to me that you are collecting your MF each year but inevitably destroying the value of the timeshare weeks by virtually giving them away to the company that handles the foreclosures.

I guess it depends on how long local law gives the delinquent owner to redeem from the foreclosure.  It varies from state to state, but in your state it must not be very long at all.

Well, to each his own.  If it works for your resort, go for it.      ...   eom


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 2, 2009)

*The Timeshare Deadbeats Raise The Costs Paid By Responsible Timeshare Owners.*




timeos2 said:


> We do not feel it is the responsibilty of paying owners to also pay for those that don't follow the rules. Whatever costs they create they pay.


Click here for some strong feelings on the subject. 

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


----------



## ecwinch (Sep 2, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> No historical data? What is the average NEW delinquency rate for the past 5 years? How much this year? ADD that to 2010 estimated bad debt at a minimum. This is what a competent management does for its tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's called management & budgeting.



John,

Do you feel the economy has remained the same for the past 5 years? If not, then how would historical data for the past five years help you accurately predict the default rate in today's economic environment. 

Also to help frame your other observations, are you speaking with specificity in regard to this resort and the SVO mgt contract for this resort? 

Thanks


----------



## jarta (Sep 2, 2009)

It appears that SBP may have an easy time foreclosing timeshare interests due to non-payment of fees.

In South Carollina (where SBP is) there is a specific statute giving an association *not less than 30 days from the notice* of intent to foreclose to proceed under SECTION 27-32-305 and the following sections to quickly foreclose a lien for unpaid assessments in a non-judicial auction proceeding.  Here's what the statute is all about.

"Short title. 

This article may be cited as the "Timeshare Lien Foreclosure Act". 

SECTION 27-32-305. Purpose. 

The purposes of this article are to: 

(1) recognize that timeshare estates are interests in real property used for vacation experience rather than for homestead purposes and that there are numerous timeshare estates in South Carolina; 

(2) *recognize that the economic health and efficient operation of the vacation ownership industry are in part dependent upon the availability of an efficient and economical process for foreclosure*; 

(3) *recognize the need to assist vacation ownership resort owners' associations by simplifying and expediting the process of foreclosure of assessment liens and mortgage liens*; 

(4) reduce court congestion and cost to taxpayers by establishing streamlined procedures for foreclosure of assessment liens and mortgage liens against timeshare estates; 

(5) establish those streamlined procedures by giving statutory recognition to the right of persons to privately contract for a power of sale as their remedy in lieu of a judicial foreclosure of liens on timeshare estates while specifically limiting the application of such nonjudicial foreclosure procedures to timeshare estates only."

It's pretty Draconian, but there is no reason the board at Sheraton Broadway Plantation should not be taking advantage of this South Carolina statute and the following sections.  The buck stops with the SBP association board.  Obviously, timeos2's resort is using a state statute quite similar to this one in South Carollina.  So, my apologies to timeos2.

But, what if SBP is already taking advantage of the statute and there is still a shortfall?

California (WMH) may have a different requirement that includes no foreclosure of assessment liens until they reach a certain dollar amount, limit foreclosures to court proceedings (thus establishing delay) or provide for a period of redemption from the sale.      ...   eom


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 2, 2009)

*Protect the cash low and everything else works*



jarta said:


> It's pretty Draconian, but there is no reason the board at Sheraton Broadway Plantation should not be taking advantage of this South Carolina statute and the following sections.  The buck stops with the SBP association board.  Obviously, timeos2's resort is using a state statute quite similar to this one in South Carollina.  So, my apologies to timeos2.
> 
> But, what if SBP is already taking advantage of the statute and there is still a shortfall?  ...   eom



Thanks for posting that - it is clear SC understands that the very lifeblood of any condo/timeshare are the fees. It does seem draconian but having experienced both the laid back and aggressive methods I have to strongly advocate the latter. More importantly despite the illogical approach (pressing those who have issues paying harder rather than trying to accommodate them)  the end result does turn out better by recycling the time to paying owners. Its a win win that benefits everyone (even the original owner ends up out of the loop thus a weight off them as well).  

Addressing one other note you had we do recognize the fact that we are selling off weeks to the company handling foreclosures at a discount BUT we're keeping those weeks off the open market - so we're not depressing potential resale prices - and assuring stable annual fees. In the long run this is of greater benefit than a few hundred or an extra thousand in resale price all the while avoiding the $1000 +/- to actually pay for the foreclosure (money we'd have to front) and then needing to market the recovered time. We are confident of the ability of that group to handle the ongoing fees and of course they have the right to sell off the time if they desire.  Again we're looking primarily at the continuous collection of fees - on time and in full - as the major goal. Having accomplished that over the past 5 years and the resulting solid balance sheet has made believers out of our BOD.


----------



## Denise L (Sep 2, 2009)

*Bella Florida (Vistana Villages)*

Just got the same email letter from Vistana Villages. It reads/looks quite similar to the Sheraton Broadway Plantation letter, if not identical.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 2, 2009)

*Foreclosed Timeshare Weeks.*




timeos2 said:


> Addressing one other note you had we do recognize the fact that we are selling off weeks to the company handling foreclosures at a discount BUT we're keeping those weeks off the open market - so we're not depressing potential resale prices - and assuring stable annual fees.


So what does the company handling the foreclosures do with'm after they acquire the foreclosed weeks at a discount ? 

As a practical matter, the most important benefit for the regular walking-around timeshare owners is getting those weeks into the hands of enthusiastic new owners who will be reliably paying the annual fees on time every year for years to come.   The advantages of that far outweigh any discounts involved in getting those foreclosed weeks resold. 

In fact, the owners are better off having the HOA-BOD gave away the weeks to new owners freebies -- i.e., for _Zero Dollars & Zero Cents_ -- than having those weeks linger in non-fee-paying status for even 1 annual fee cycle. 

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


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 2, 2009)

Denise L said:


> Just got the same email letter from Vistana Villages. It reads/looks quite similar to the Sheraton Broadway Plantation letter, if not identical.



I too received the letter, and I am certain that it will find its way to every phase of every development.  I submitted a response to the HOA and will post if there is anything (which I doubt) concrete in their answer.  Maybe the day where we will have to supply our initial stock of tp is just around the corner.

I did find it very interesting to see this line:  "As your representative, the Board of Directors takes its responsibilities very seriously."  My board of directors?  I wonder why then that the email to contact my BOD of my HOA is exactly the same as SBP.  Of course I am probably reading too much into this and Starwood doesn't really mean to imply that to contact the BOD of every HOA, one must write Starwood.

Mods - you may want to re-title this thread to just *Uh oh*


----------



## djp (Sep 2, 2009)

I just received the same email from Sheraton Mountain Vista. I wonder if all the resorts will be getting it in the next few weeks. As long as the association is being aggressive in collecting, then I guess I understand it. However as you can use your week unless you pay your fees there should be unused inventory that could be rented out to help cover these costs. And if they cant rent them out, then in essence we are paying for those that are not, then we owners could have the option of paying their fees for them and getting their week for the year. Plus if Starwood would foreclose on those that have not paid, they should have no problem selling them cheaply and getting someone to pay the fees. As long as they are thinking like this and being proactive and aggressive, then I can live with no cloth napkins.


----------



## Catazog (Sep 2, 2009)

*SMV letter*

I also received a similar letter from SMV this morning. We own at WKORV but have not received a similar email from them (yet).


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 2, 2009)

djp said:


> I just received the same email from Sheraton Mountain Vista. I wonder if all the resorts will be getting it in the next few weeks. As long as the association is being aggressive in collecting, then I guess I understand it.


Check your county records to see if they are being aggressive.  I checked for Vistana Villages (Bella) and not one single court action has been started this year - hardly being aggressive in collecting. 





> However as you can use your week unless you pay your fees there should be unused inventory that could be rented out to help cover these costs. And if they cant rent them out, then in essence we are paying for those that are not, then we owners could have the option of paying their fees for them and getting their week for the year.


 Check your budgets.  As far as I can tell, not one single penny of rental income is reported in Bella's budget.





> Plus if Starwood would foreclose on those that have not paid, they should have no problem selling them cheaply and getting someone to pay the fees. As long as they are thinking like this and being proactive and aggressive, then I can live with no cloth napkins.


They do foreclose, but do not sell cheaply, just at developer pricing again.  I am also wondering why if the Bella Florida Condominium Inc. forecloses on a free and clear unit for failure to pay mf, that unit somehow returns to Starwood for resale and not stay in the HOA for resale.  Shouldn't the HOA be competing with Starwood for on property sales and the resulting income show up on our budgets and not Starwood's?


----------



## James1975NY (Sep 2, 2009)

jarta said:


> gary,   ...   "Those dollars must be accounted for and as I stated earlier this year in another thread, and earlier in this thread, the total misc. revenue for Bella at Vistana Villages was $374."
> 
> Rental income would not be found in miscellaneous income anyway.  It would be elsewhere.  Misc. income should be a very small amount for items that are not worth accounting for separately or under another designation anywhere else.
> 
> As for Bella, maybe the delinquency problem is not that bad this year (at least we owners can hope it isn't).   ...   eom



It would surprise me to see a high delinquincy rate at properties that offer mandatory SVN. Not to say that there may not be an increase, it is more apparent that the voluntary resorts would struggle the most because they are not as popular on the resale market. Mandatory resorts will sell relatively well and therefore a lot easier to get an able paying owner on the deed for ownership.


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 2, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> It would surprise me to see a high delinquincy rate at properties that offer mandatory SVN. Not to say that there may not be an increase, it is more apparent that the voluntary resorts would struggle the most because they are not as popular on the resale market. Mandatory resorts will sell relatively well and therefore a lot easier to get an able paying owner on the deed for ownership.



James, I didn't add them but there appeared to be apx. 250 liens against Bella owners alone filed during 2008.  I suspect that once the HOA gets around to chasing 2009 delinquencies, that the number will double or triple.  A quick look showed that the vast majority (if not all) of those liens were non payment of mf.  We at tug understand the ease with which one should be able to sell a mandatory resort but that is not necessarily true of the majority of owners.  It is quite possible that many of these folks have been burnt by upfront fee companies and now believe their ts to be worthless.  Maybe there is a business out there (I don't have the necessary capital) in reviewing county records and making lowball offers to these folks - it would be a huge step up from upfront fee companies.


----------



## gregb (Sep 2, 2009)

calgarygary said:


> ... of course you know that the association is not getting income from rentals.  Those dollars must be accounted for and as I stated earlier this year in another thread, and earlier in this thread, the total misc. revenue for Bella at Vistana Villages was $374.  Where is the income from *wood giving special rates to travel agency partners?  Where is the income from skyauction?  Where is the income from direct rentals at Starwood.com?  I know where it is......it is in Fritz's bonus!



The question is, how does *wood get the weeks it rents out?  If it gets a rental week from an owner turning it in for StarPoints, then the owner has already paid the MF for the unit.    If *wood owns the unit, then *wood should be paying the MF.  If the HOA has given *wood a week due to non-payment of MF, then I would expect that *wood would return to the HOA a part of the rent, just like they would if *wood rented it out for the owner.  *wood would of course keep a part of the rental income (50%?) for their handling the rental.  In this case, the MF would not be covered by *wood, but the rental fee should offset that.  The question, as I see it, is how is this rental income reported by the HOA?  calgarygary says he believes that 100% of that rental income is kept by *wood.  How can we verify this?

Greg


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 2, 2009)

gregb said:


> The question, as I see it, is how is this rental income reported by the HOA?  calgarygary says he believes that 100% of that rental income is kept by *wood.  How can we verify this?



This is exactly the right line of questioning to pursue. Follow the money and I suspect we'll find the answer to a number of our questions.


----------



## pathways25 (Sep 2, 2009)

calgarygary said:


> They do foreclose, but do not sell cheaply, just at developer pricing again.  I am also wondering why if the Bella Florida Condominium Inc. forecloses on a free and clear unit for failure to pay mf, that unit somehow returns to Starwood for resale and not stay in the HOA for resale.  Shouldn't the HOA be competing with Starwood for on property sales and the resulting income show up on our budgets and not Starwood's?



I believe what happens is Starwood buys the unit at auction by bidding the exact amount of the lien.  I imagine the HOA gets the proceeds of the auction and Starwood gets the unit back to resell at full list price.  I've seen a number of trustee deeds filed where Starwood was the only bidder and they bid the amount of the lien.


----------



## gregb (Sep 2, 2009)

Does anyone on TUG have a relationship with one of the Resort Managers?  If so, I think a discussion with one of them may shed some light on how rental income is fed back into the HOA.  When we were at WKORVN last October, we met the manager (I forget his name, Greg something) and he was saying that part of his profits were paid back to the HOA.  But at the time I did not know enough to ask intelligent questions.  We are going back in February and I hope to talk to him again then.  

Greg


----------



## Joshadelic (Sep 2, 2009)

I just got the exact same email, but for my SVV Bella Phase 2br LO.  Cutting costs, possible SA, etc, etc...


----------



## Gypsie (Sep 2, 2009)

*Include SMV*



clsmit said:


> I find it interesting that only WMH and SBP have this issue enough to send emails to the owners. My perception is that Starwood at SBP sells a lot of smaller units (EOY 1br, perhaps financed) rather than 2BR LOs. (I don't know about WMH.)



I also received an email for Sheraton Mountain Vista.  It wouldn't surprise me if all of the resorts receive the same or similar email.


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 2, 2009)

jeromechen said:


> I believe what happens is Starwood buys the unit at auction by bidding the exact amount of the lien.  I imagine the HOA gets the proceeds of the auction and Starwood gets the unit back to resell at full list price.  I've seen a number of trustee deeds filed where Starwood was the only bidder and they bid the amount of the lien.



Interesting. Perhaps we ought to attend one of those auctions... do you know where they're held?


----------



## Twinkstarr (Sep 2, 2009)

Ken555 said:


> Interesting. Perhaps we ought to attend one of those auctions... do you know where they're held?



Usually at the county courthouse, I know that's where the county I live in does them. There's a thread on the Marriott board about HHI foreclosure auctions, sometimes Marriott doesn't bid. 

Googled the county of the resort and I'm sure the county will have information on when and where the auctions are(that's how I found out about how our county works).


----------



## alexadeparis (Sep 2, 2009)

I got the same letter tonight via email on my unit at the Sheraton PGA in Port St Lucie, FL.


----------



## clsmit (Sep 2, 2009)

The friend who got us into Starwood (he's still our friend   ) got one from Amelia (Vistana Villages) today. It is the same as the SBP one, not the WMH one. 

Nothing yet from WLR, Harborside, WKV.


----------



## iluvwdw (Sep 3, 2009)

clsmit said:


> The friend who got us into Starwood (he's still our friend   ) got one from Amelia (Vistana Villages) today. It is the same as the SBP one, not the WMH one.
> 
> Nothing yet from WLR, Harborside, WKV.



I got the same one for my VV (Bella) unit.


----------



## tropical1 (Sep 3, 2009)

We also received one for Vistana Villages Key West (and WMH).


----------



## gravitar (Sep 3, 2009)

Someone who knows Florida law can confirm this but I believe that if a unit is foreclosed on the new owner must begin to pay the fees. If the association takes it back, I believe that we, the owners, would get stuck with the fees, if Starwood takes it back, then they would.


Anyone care to comment?


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 3, 2009)

*They take from all sides and give nothing*



gravitar said:


> Someone who knows Florida law can confirm this but I believe that if a unit is foreclosed on the new owner must begin to pay the fees. If the association takes it back, I believe that we, the owners, would get stuck with the fees, if Starwood takes it back, then they would.
> 
> 
> Anyone care to comment?



Yes to all. So you can see why Starwood (and most other developers) are reluctant to foreclose on units even if they hold the delinquent mortgage. If they do they have to pick up the fees. Again you can see how having the developer be the management is detrimental to individual owners but can serve to unjustly enrich the developer. It sure appears to be a strong case here.


----------



## bward (Sep 3, 2009)

*Vistana Villages Owners Get The Letter*

Dear Fellow Sheraton Vistana Villages Owner,

As you watch the news, read the papers, and conduct everyday business, it is very apparent the impact the current recession, credit crisis, and high unemployment are having on the economy—even homeowner associations are feeling the pinch. Sheraton Vistana Villages, like all businesses today, has not been exempt from the troubled economy.

The purpose of this communication is to make you, as an Owner, aware that some of your fellow Owners are struggling to pay their annual maintenance fees. While we always experience a small percentage of delinquency and even defaults, the current economy has made it worse. As a result, your association's operating cash flow has been negatively impacted.

The Management Team and your Board of Directors met recently to consider three options to address the cash flow shortfall. These options include: 1) a Special Assessment, 2) various cost-saving initiatives, and 3) a combination of a Special Assessment and cost-saving initiatives.

Your Board does not believe that Owners wish to receive a Special Assessment and, while a Special Assessment cannot be entirely dismissed, the Management Team and Board will retain this option as a last choice solution. Your Board has decided to achieve as much progress as possible by immediately implementing the following cost-saving initiatives:

    * Staffing Levels - All hourly positions will be placed on a reduced work week with focused service levels on the check-in and check-out days—Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
    * Mid-week Housekeeping Service - The mid-week cleaning will be changed to a "limited tidy service" which will include trash removal, towel replenishment and supply (soap, tissue, etc.) replenishment.
    * Placemats and Napkins - The cloth table placemats and napkins will be discontinued, however, paper towels will continue to be supplied.
    * Other Items:
          o Activities guide/site map will be reduced from six pages to two pages.
          o Size of liquid dish soap will be reduced.
          o Trash liners will be supplied only in the kitchen trash can.
    * Rollaway bed fee of $5 per day beginning with the reservations made on or after September 1, 2009:
          o Revenue from this item will directly benefit the Association.

The Management Team and your Board of Directors will continue the full and thorough review of the maintenance fee budget with the goal to reduce resort expenses while maintaining your resort vacation experience.

We expect the above initiatives to carry on throughout the 2010 budget year. As we continue to respond to the changing economic conditions, you may rest assured we will communicate any significant changes that may impact your vacation experience.

As always, your feedback is important and we ask that you communicate any comments or suggestions you may have with the Management Team while you are visiting the resort or directly with your Board of Directors at boardrelations@starwoodvo.com.

We ask that you be mindful not to share your displeasure, should you have any, regarding service level changes by rating the resort low on your comment card. Giving the resort a reduced or low rating for these changes will only result in affecting your trading power to other resorts in the exchange network.

Thank you in advance for your understanding. As your representative, the Board of Directors takes its responsibilities very seriously. Our goal is to serve your interest as Owners while maintaining Sheraton Vistana Villages as a jewel that you are proud to own.

Sincerely,

BELLA FLORIDA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Board of Directors


----------



## bward (Sep 3, 2009)

*A Possible Solution?*

If uncollected maintenance fees are a problem, and no one is buying timeshares, why not offer these troubled timeshares to current owners for cost of unpaid maintenance fees?

Just a suggestion.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 3, 2009)

bward said:


> If uncollected maintenance fees are a problem, and no one is buying timeshares, why not offer these troubled timeshares to current owners for cost of unpaid maintenance fees?
> 
> Just a suggestion.



They are still actively selling, so this isn't even a consideration, but I think it is a great idea.  

I think these resorts CAN'T sell and that is the real problem here.  They have to keep the fees low to sell, because it makes their sales pitch easier.  Starwood is probably hurting in this economy, and it will be US who will pay, and not in cloth napkins/ placemats.


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 3, 2009)

bward said:


> If uncollected maintenance fees are a problem, and no one is buying timeshares, why not offer these troubled timeshares to current owners for cost of unpaid maintenance fees?
> 
> Just a suggestion.



A possible solution would be a stronger approach in collecting the outstanding fees.  As I mentioned in the Uh oh thread, not one single legal action has been started in 2009 against delinquent owners of Bella.  The HOA should not be waiting this late into the year to begin the legal process.


----------



## Joshadelic (Sep 3, 2009)

Just repo the weeks from them and pay the maintenance with the proceeds from re-selling their week at full retail to the next one-legger (I mean customer).  Sort of like how they do it at those buy-here, pay-here car lots.  I'm sure management is familiar with that process.  Most of them probably have similar experiences listed on their resume...none of which have to do with outstanding customer relations and communications.

Starwood VO is either becoming or already is a degenerate organization.  The only thing that will turn it around at this point is a completely new management team and philosophy.  I keep my fingers crossed that it will happen soon.


----------



## bward (Sep 3, 2009)

*Vistana Villages Special Assessment?*

The original Vistana Villages letter that we received and I posted today mentions that a Special Assessment of some kind is NOT off the table. The letter states the board would try other things first, but that door is very definitely open. 

Wouldn't that be a kick in the teeth?

I read the other two letters in the uh-oh thread and I didn't see mention of a possibility of a special assessment, or did I miss that?

If I get hit up (or shaken down) for a special assessment to cover other unpaid maintenance fees, I would hope I'd get something to show for it. 

Maybe free drinks? Free Starwood towels? Hey, I never even got the free VV luggage tags!

I could use some more Star Options. If Starwood is willing to let me take over someone else's unit for the cost of unpaid MF's, I'll be all over it. 

bward


----------



## LisaRex (Sep 3, 2009)

They could, and should, offer up the delinquent weeks to current owners for the cost of MFs.


----------



## pathways25 (Sep 3, 2009)

LisaRex said:


> They could, and should, offer up the delinquent weeks to current owners for the cost of MFs.



The HOA (or any lienholder for that matter) cannot simply seize people's property.  There is due process involved and that process is to foreclose on the property which carries the lien.  Once the property makes it to auction, anyone can buy it for the high bid though it'll probably have to be higher than the total liens against the property as that is how much Starwood will bid at the auction.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 3, 2009)

*Simple. Its legal and must be done immediately*



jeromechen said:


> The HOA (or any lienholder for that matter) cannot simply seize people's property.  There is due process involved and that process is to foreclose on the property which carries the lien.  Once the property makes it to auction, anyone can buy it for the high bid though it'll probably have to be higher than the total liens against the property as that is how much Starwood will bid at the auction.



The Association can & should be renting the delinquent time as it is allowed for in Fl timeshare law. They do NOT have to foreclose to do so and they are not acting in the proper interest of owners if they are not taking the steps needed to do so ASAP when a week goes delinquent on fees. Basic Management 101.


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 3, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> The Association can & should be renting the delinquent time as it is allowed for in Fl timeshare law. They do NOT have to foreclose to do so and they are not acting in the proper interest of owners if they are not taking the steps needed to do so ASAP when a week goes delinquent on fees. Basic Management 101.



Assuming this is law, then Starwood is potentially negligent in their duties to the HOA. Is there a lawyer here who might comment on this issue?


----------



## tlpnet (Sep 3, 2009)

Has everyone that has been receiving these notices received them by email only?  I own in 3 locations where owners have reported receipt, yet I have received nothing.

-tim


----------



## Denise L (Sep 3, 2009)

tlpnet said:


> Has everyone that has been receiving these notices received them by email only?  I own in 3 locations where owners have reported receipt, yet I have received nothing.
> 
> -tim



Yes, email only so far. Glad that they are saving postage  .


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 3, 2009)

*The H. O. A. - B. O. D. People Didn't See This Coming Years Ago ?  Sheesh !*

So these timeshare HOA-BODs simply went along with all that slop in the system for years & years, blithely hoping things would somehow turn out OK anyway ? 

Shux, despite the fact that I have never been on any timeshare or condo HOA-BOD, even I know that the Number One Responsibility of the HOA-BOD is collections -- that, plus prompt & aggressive follow-up action against the deadbeats.   

Preventing financial trouble is ever so much more doable than trying to get out of it after trouble hits. 

Tolerating slop in the system means the responsible, fee-paying owners keep on getting saddled with more & more rising costs caused by the deadbeats' unpaid timeshare bills.  

Meanwhile, instead of steadily improving as it should, the timeshare resort starts sliding downhill.  The farther it slips, the harder it is to preserve people's pride of ownership.  Eventually owner loyalty erodes so much that a critical mass of responsible owners catches on & bails out.  Actions speak louder than words.  

The only way workable way to manage a timeshare condominium resort is by running a financially tight ship.  No other way is practical or responsible.  Nothing else is fair to the regular walking-around, timeshare-vacationing, fee-paying owners. 

_Full Disclosure*:*_  I came _this close_ to becoming a timeshare HOA-BOD member 1 time, before getting soundly thrashed in the voting & proxy-counting.  But that's another story.  So it goes. 

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


----------



## jarta (Sep 3, 2009)

timeos2,   ...   "The Association can & should be renting the delinquent time as it is allowed for in Fl timeshare law. They do NOT have to foreclose to do so and they are not acting in the proper interest of owners if they are not taking the steps needed to do so ASAP when a week goes delinquent on fees."

Generally, you can't rent out what you don't own without permission from the owner and giving the owner a credit for the rent collected (less fees and setoffs).  And, even in a foreclosure you cannot rent until you have received an order for possession.

Here's the Florida statute on liens for unpaid timeshare assessments.  I don't see any authority to lease prior to foreclosure of the lien.  But, I'm not a timeshare expert:

"721.16  Liens for overdue assessments; liens for labor performed on, or materials furnished to, a timeshare unit.-- 

(1)  The managing entity has a lien on a timeshare interest for any assessment levied against that timeshare interest from the date such assessment becomes due. The managing entity also has a lien on a timeshare interest of any purchaser for the cost of any maintenance, repairs, or replacement resulting from an act of such purchaser or purchaser's guest that results in damage to the timeshare property or facilities made available to the purchasers. 

(2)  The managing entity may bring an action in its name to foreclose a lien under subsection (1) in the manner a mortgage of real property is foreclosed and may also bring an action to recover a money judgment for the unpaid assessments without waiving any claim of lien. 

(3)  The lien is effective from the date of recording a claim of lien in the public records of the county or counties in which the accommodations and facilities constituting the timeshare plan are located. The claim of lien shall state the name of the timeshare plan and identify the timeshare interest for which the lien is effective, state the name of the purchaser, state the assessment amount due, and state the due dates. Notwithstanding any provision of s. 718.116(5)(a) or s. 719.108(4) to the contrary, the lien is effective until satisfied or until 5 years have expired after the date the claim of lien is recorded unless, within that time, an action to enforce the lien is commenced pursuant to subsection (2). A claim of lien for assessments may include only assessments which are due when the claim is recorded. A claim of lien shall be signed and acknowledged by an officer or agent of the managing entity. Upon full payment, the person making the payment is entitled to receive a satisfaction of the lien. 

(4)  A judgment in any action or suit brought under this section shall include costs and reasonable attorney's fees for the prevailing party. 

(5)  Labor performed on a timeshare unit, or materials furnished to a timeshare unit, shall not be the basis for the filing of a lien pursuant to part I of chapter 713, the Construction Lien Law, against the timeshare unit of any timeshare-period owner not expressly consenting to or requesting the labor or materials. 

(6)  This section shall not apply to personal property timeshare plans. 

History.--s. 1, ch. 81-172; s. 53, ch. 85-62; s. 4, ch. 88-403; s. 27, ch. 90-109; s. 26, ch. 90-151; s. 23, ch. 2000-302; s. 15, ch. 2004-279."

Perhaps, the right to lease prior to foreclosure is in another section of the statute.  I have looked, but can't find any, including the 2009 amendments that set up an accelerated system, but one very different than South Carolina's.  Or, maybe it's in the declaration for the resort.  But, if you have the section you are relying on, I can post it.      ...   eom


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 3, 2009)

jarta said:


> Perhaps, the right to lease prior to foreclosure is in another section of the statute.  I have looked, but can't find any, including the 2009 amendments that set up an accelerated system, but one very different than South Carolina's.  Or, maybe it's in the declaration for the resort.  But, if you have the section you are relying on, I can post it.      ...   eom



721.13
(f)1.  Provided that the managing entity has properly and timely given notice to a delinquent purchaser pursuant to paragraph (b) and to any affiliated exchange program pursuant to paragraph (c), the managing entity may give further notice to the delinquent purchaser that it may rent the delinquent purchaser's timeshare period, or any use rights appurtenant thereto, and will apply the proceeds of such rental, net of any rental commissions, cleaning charges, travel agent commissions, or any other commercially reasonable charges reasonably and usually incurred by the managing entity in securing rentals, to the delinquent purchaser's account. Such further notice of intent to rent must be given at least 30 days prior to the first day of the purchaser's use period, and must be delivered to the purchaser in the manner required for notices under paragraph (b). A managing entity may make a reasonable determination regarding the priority of rentals of timeshare periods to be rented pursuant to this paragraph and, in the event that the delinquent purchaser of a timeshare period rented pursuant to this paragraph cannot be specifically determined due to the structure of the timeshare plan, may allocate such net rental proceeds by the managing entity in any reasonable manner.

2.  The notice of intent to rent, which may be included in the notice required by paragraph (b), must state in conspicuous type that:

a.  The managing entity's efforts to secure a rental will not commence on a date earlier than 10 days after the date of the notice of intent to rent.

b.  Unless the purchaser satisfies the delinquency in full, or unless the purchaser produces satisfactory evidence that the delinquency does not exist pursuant to paragraph (b), the purchaser will be bound by the terms of any rental contract entered into by the managing entity with respect to the purchaser's timeshare period or appurtenant use rights.

c.  The purchaser will remain liable for any difference between the amount of the delinquency and the net amount produced by the rental contract and applied against the delinquency pursuant to this paragraph, and the managing entity shall not be required to provide any further notice to the purchaser regarding any residual delinquency pursuant to this paragraph.

3.  In securing a rental pursuant to this paragraph, the managing entity shall not be required to obtain the highest nightly rental rate available, nor any particular rental rate, and the managing entity shall not be required to rent the entire timeshare period; however, the managing entity must use reasonable efforts to secure a rental that is commensurate with other rentals of similar timeshare periods or use rights generally secured at that time. Alternatively, the managing entity may rent such units at a bulk rate that is below the rate described above but not less than $200 per week, which amount may be prorated for daily rentals.

(g)  A managing entity shall have breached its fiduciary duty described in subsection (2) in the event it enforces the denial of use pursuant to paragraph (b) against any one purchaser or group of purchasers without similarly enforcing it against all purchasers, including all developers and owners of the underlying fee or underlying personal property; however, a managing entity shall not be required to solicit rentals pursuant to paragraph (f) for every delinquent purchaser. A managing entity shall also have breached its fiduciary duty in the event an error in the books and records of the timeshare plan results in a denial of use pursuant to this subsection of any purchaser who is not, in fact, delinquent. In addition to any remedies otherwise available to purchasers of the timeshare plan arising from such breaches of fiduciary duty, such breach shall also constitute a violation of this chapter. In addition, any purchaser receiving a notice of delinquency pursuant to paragraph (b), or any third party claiming under such purchaser pursuant to paragraph (b), may immediately bring an action for injunctive or declaratory relief against the managing entity seeking to have the notice invalidated on the grounds that the purchaser is not, in fact, delinquent, that the managing entity failed to follow the procedures prescribed by this section, or on any other available grounds. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to recover his or her reasonable attorney's fees from the losing party. 

END QUOTED STATUTE

Not only clearly says they CAN rent but that they are not doing their fudiciary duty if they DON'T!


----------



## jarta (Sep 3, 2009)

timeos2,   ...   Thank you.   As I said, I'm not an expert.

That's pretty good stuff and every timeshare resort in Florida should be sending that notice of rental along with the notice of delinquency.  I know if I got one, if I had any money at all, I'd pay up pronto!

Whether the market will bear all the rentals that could be generated in this economy is problematic.  But, the boards should be using that statute and at least be trying to rent as many of the units as possible.  (I wonder if Starwood has told the Florida boards about this provision that would put the associations in direct competition with Starwood in the rental market?  lol!)  Again, thank you for some great information.      ...   eom


----------



## mjt63 (Sep 3, 2009)

*Sheraton Vistana Villages Owners*

Sorry, my original post appeared twice.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 3, 2009)

*Renting Out Delinquent Timeshare Weeks.*




jarta said:


> Whether the market will bear all the rentals that could be generated in this economy is problematic.


If the HOA-BOD offers the delinquent-week rentals at rack rates, they get complaints because (a) many owners feel they should be able to rent extra weeks for peanuts & (b) if there are no takers at rack rates, the weeks go to waste & no money comes in for those weeks.  

If the HOA-BOD offers the delinquent-week rentals at cut rates, owners complain that people are renting the units for less than the owners are paying in annual fees for comparable units. 

It's not only a no-win situation for the HOA-BOD, is pretty much a guaranteed-lose situation. 

About the best the HOA-BOD can do is bundle up a bunch of delinquent weeks & wholesale those to some 3rd party company at a discount, cash up front.  How much the company turns round & rents'm out for then is _mox nix_ to the resort, although some owners will still gripe if they can't rent extra weeks for peanuts & others will complain if anybody gets to rent a week for less than an owner pays in annual fees. 

So it goes. 

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


----------



## mjt63 (Sep 3, 2009)

*This is my email..*

I should have but this in originally. I never expected so many people to get the same BS in other resorts. Seems like a nice "standard" email to owners.
How nice...


Dear Fellow Sheraton Vistana Villages Owner,

As you watch the news, read the papers, and conduct everyday business, it is very apparent the impact the current recession, credit crisis, and high unemployment are having on the economy—even homeowner associations are feeling the pinch. Sheraton Vistana Villages, like all businesses today, has not been exempt from the troubled economy. 

The purpose of this communication is to make you, as an Owner, aware that some of your fellow Owners are struggling to pay their annual maintenance fees. While we always experience a small percentage of delinquency and even defaults, the current economy has made it worse. As a result, your association's operating cash flow has been negatively impacted. 

The Management Team and your Board of Directors met recently to consider three options to address the cash flow shortfall. These options include: 1) a Special Assessment, 2) various cost-saving initiatives, and 3) a combination of a Special Assessment and cost-saving initiatives. 

Your Board does not believe that Owners wish to receive a Special Assessment and, while a Special Assessment cannot be entirely dismissed, the Management Team and Board will retain this option as a last choice solution. Your Board has decided to achieve as much progress as possible by immediately implementing the following cost-saving initiatives:

Staffing Levels - All hourly positions will be placed on a reduced work week with focused service levels on the check-in and check-out days—Friday, Saturday and Sunday. 
Mid-week Housekeeping Service - The mid-week cleaning will be changed to a "limited tidy service" which will include trash removal, towel replenishment and supply (soap, tissue, etc.) replenishment. 
Placemats and Napkins - The cloth table placemats and napkins will be discontinued, however, paper towels will continue to be supplied. 
Other Items: 
Activities guide/site map will be reduced from six pages to two pages. 
Size of liquid dish soap will be reduced. 
Trash liners will be supplied only in the kitchen trash can. 
Rollaway bed fee of $5 per day beginning with the reservations made on or after September 1, 2009: 
Revenue from this item will directly benefit the Association. 
The Management Team and your Board of Directors will continue the full and thorough review of the maintenance fee budget with the goal to reduce resort expenses while maintaining your resort vacation experience. 

We expect the above initiatives to carry on throughout the 2010 budget year. As we continue to respond to the changing economic conditions, you may rest assured we will communicate any significant changes that may impact your vacation experience.

As always, your feedback is important and we ask that you communicate any comments or suggestions you may have with the Management Team while you are visiting the resort or directly with your Board of Directors at boardrelations@starwoodvo.com. 

We ask that you be mindful not to share your displeasure, should you have any, regarding service level changes by rating the resort low on your comment card. Giving the resort a reduced or low rating for these changes will only result in affecting your trading power to other resorts in the exchange network. 

Thank you in advance for your understanding. As your representative, the Board of Directors takes its responsibilities very seriously. Our goal is to serve your interest as Owners while maintaining Sheraton Vistana Villages as a jewel that you are proud to own. 

Sincerely, 

BELLA FLORIDA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., 
Board of Directors


----------



## Troopers (Sep 3, 2009)

mjt63 said:


> Did you all get the ridiculious email about the "hardships" owners are having, not paying their yearly fee's ?
> 
> Here's one of the quotes with ideas.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately in this economy, it's going to get ugly for all timeshare systems.  Don't think that other systems are immune.

Btw, welcome to TUG!


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 3, 2009)

*Ugly Is As Ugly Does.*




Troopers said:


> Unfortunately in this economy, it's going to get ugly for all timeshare systems.


And lots uglier for the timeshares with slop in the system than for the ones that have been running tight ships all along. 

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


----------



## Troopers (Sep 4, 2009)

AwayWeGo said:


> And lots uglier for the timeshares with slop in the system than for the ones that have been running tight ships all along.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



True, but I'll bet there's not many systems (timeshares, residential HOAs, country clubs, etc) or any entities with budgets that anticipated shortfalls of this magnitude.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 4, 2009)

Ken555 said:


> Assuming this is law, then Starwood is potentially negligent in their duties to the HOA. Is there a lawyer here who might comment on this issue?



I agree that Starwood should be covering the fees with an active rental program.  

Maybe that is why we are getting a bum deal through II with exchanges from this point forward; perhaps Starwood wants to rent the more expensive/ high season weeks.  The question is, who is going to monitor where that money goes?


----------



## jarta (Sep 4, 2009)

rickandcindy,   ...   "The question is, who is going to monitor where that money goes?   "

Each association board, whose members have a fiduciary duty to all owners (backed up by D&O errors and omissions insurance), and the association's auditors.  And, any owner can get a copy of the annual audit.      ...   eom


----------



## Fredm (Sep 4, 2009)

Troopers said:


> True, but I'll bet there's not many systems (timeshares, residential HOAs, country clubs, etc) or any entities with budgets that anticipated shortfalls of this magnitude.



This is the nub of the matter. It's the economy.

Every timeshare resort has some small percentage of non-performing shares.
Owners who are delinquent in payment of fees are denied use. What is done with denied use, and how any revenue derived from it is distributed  is the issue.

Talk of foreclosing on an delinquent owner's share because of a 9 month arrears is not viable. Nor should the matter be viewed so simplistically.
~60% of all direct sales are financed. Today, there are many who are relatively current on loan payments, but have not paid their maintenance fee.
What do you propose doing with these? Assume their loan? 
These owners face a difficult choice as it is. Make their loan payments, or lose their equity. Where difficult economic choices must be made, the non-essentials are first to go. 
I make no judgment about responsibility. Just stating the fact of the matter. The facts are what the HOA must contend with.

Most in such a bind decide to sell, only to find that they are very much upside down. Some walk away. In a perverted way this is a blessing to the HOA. The share will be foreclosed, and taken back by Starwood. End of problem for the HOA.

Then there are those non-performing owners without a loan standing between a sale decision. A few are pragmatic, and will sell at whatever price, or give it away. But, many if not most try to sell at a price that pays their delinquent obligation with something left over for themselves. These sellers "make the market" price in the current economy. Yet, I have not heard one voice here suggest that the HOA should get into playing the market by buying these shares, thereby reimbursing itself the delinquent fees. At least they now possess a legal interest in a salable asset which can be converted into a performing share. Not as a profit motive. Simply as a way of minimizing non performing shares. 

I am not suggesting that this be done. Indeed, it is radical. But, it does beg the entire question of using the resort itself as a resale vehicle for its owners. It is a very small and logical step from the notion of the HOA itself buying the shares. Yet, how many here would scream bloody murder if resales were offered by the resort at severe discount? The benefit of which is to minimize the effect of non-performing shares. 

These are hard issues. Not the least of which is the independent latitude of Starwood HOA's  to even decide them. 

No one enjoys being handed an unexpected bill. I am not suggesting it is good news. It is negative no matter how one views it.
However, the HOA's are addressing the issue before them, and have telegraphed several cost containment measures. While a special assessment of unknown amount is among the remedies possible, a five dollar cot fee is the only hard dollar cost being implemented. Given the economy and dislocations caused by it, this is hardly shocking.

Reason to be concerned? Sure. 
But, expecting to be insulated from the economic impact in a shared community of interest, or desiring to squeeze blood from a rock, is not realistic or constructive.

I have been flamed on this board in the past for making what to me were obvious observations. 
To wit:
 - Excessively high maintenance fees destroy equity. The primary cause being a disproportionate amount (by any industry measure) going to the operations manager directly or indirectly. 

 -  Promoting the illegal business practices associated with very low priced timeshare sales creates a market at the lowest denominator, to the benefit of no one except the thief. 

These are the very conditions which exasperate the non-performance problem. They only become of general concern in a sustained recessionary environment, when everyone gets a bill because of it.


----------



## Troopers (Sep 4, 2009)

"But, expecting to be insulated from the economic impact in a shared community of interest, or desiring to squeeze blood from a rock, is not realistic or constructive."   I couldn't agree more.

Nice to hear from you Fred!


----------



## Fredm (Sep 4, 2009)

Troopers said:


> "But, expecting to be insulated from the economic impact in a shared community of interest, or desiring to squeeze blood from a rock, is not realistic or constructive."   I couldn't agree more.
> 
> Nice to hear from you Fred!



Thanks, Troopers.


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 4, 2009)

Fred, speaking for myself, I do not expect to be insulated from the realities of this or future economies.  Buying into a timeshare one should expect the peaks and valleys of economic times to directly impact upon the operating costs and operations of the resort in question.  

My issue goes directly to the Starwood controlled HOA's and how they are not representing the home owners.  If we had transparency, then possibly my concerns would be alleviated.  I'm sure that if there was transparency, I wouldn't question why the hotel divisions of Starwood have an operating income of 10.7% of revenues while vacation ownership is managing to contribute 13.4% of their revenues during the first quarter of 2009.     However, my greater concern is how the HOA can stand by while 40% of mf goes into Starwood coffers.  As nodge has linked many times over, Fritz is only too happy to prop up the Starwood income statement on the back of SVO - and this at a time when new sales are down dramatically.

I do disagree with you regarding the need for an agressive approach to delinquent accounts.  In reviewing the county records for my resort, the minority of liens result in foreclosures.  It would appear that the court action is the necessary jolt that some owners need to motivate them to make the mf payment.  As this appears to be the case in the majority of cases, then I believe that the HOA is not perfoming its due diligence by not pursuing all avenues of collection in a timely manner.

I am certainly not up in arms regarding the HOA reducing soap sizes or eliminating garbage bags in the washrooms  or charging a nominal fee for cots.  I am upset that these measures are being taken at a time that we are not seeing Starwood sharing in the pain of the HOA's.


----------



## Troopers (Sep 4, 2009)

calgarygary said:


> My issue goes directly to the Starwood controlled HOA's and how they are not representing the home owners.  If we had transparency, then possibly my concerns would be alleviated.  I'm sure that if there was transparency, I wouldn't question why the hotel divisions of Starwood have an operating income of 10.7% of revenues while vacation ownership is managing to contribute 13.4% of their revenues during the first quarter of 2009.     However, my greater concern is how the HOA can stand by while 40% of mf goes into Starwood coffers.  As nodge has linked many times over, Fritz is only too happy to prop up the Starwood income statement on the back of SVO - and this at a time when new sales are down dramatically.



This got me thinking (random thoughts coming)…

What if the HOA consisted of Tuggers?  I suppose the HOA could decide to divorce itself from Starwood entirely resulting in WKORV being renamed to T(UG)KORV?  I wouldn’t want that to happen.

Does anyone know the legal relationship between Starwood and the HOA?  What’s preventing Starwood from dropping a resort?

Maybe we need Starwood just as much as Starwood needs us.


----------



## Westin5Star (Sep 4, 2009)

Troopers said:


> This got me thinking (random thoughts coming)…
> 
> What if the HOA consisted of Tuggers?  I suppose the HOA could decide to divorce itself from Starwood entirely resulting in WKORV being renamed to T(UG)KORV?  I wouldn’t want that to happen.
> 
> ...



We don't need Starwood.  We should dump them and offer for someone like Hyatt to rebrand and bid on the management of the property.  Hyatt would almost certainly do a better job for much less money based on what I have read about the two programs.  More importantly, we could then mandate that the board not be made up of Hyatt or Starwood folks and we could get the transparency that so many of us are seeking.

I just got back from 2 weeks in Kauai.  I spent most of it at WPORV and a couple days at the Hyatt Poipu.  While I thought the Westin had made some improvements from last year, the Hyatt is so much better at food, service, landscaping, cleaning, and just about everything else that I could notice!  Trust me, we do not need Starwood!


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 4, 2009)

tlpnet said:


> Has everyone that has been receiving these notices received them by email only?  I own in 3 locations where owners have reported receipt, yet I have received nothing.
> 
> -tim



You're not alone. I haven't received any emails.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 4, 2009)

*Go Brandless.*




Westin5Star said:


> We don't need Starwood.  We should dump them and offer for someone like Hyatt to rebrand and bid on the management of the property.


Shux, a good resort is a good resort regardless of extra-cost branding that is more sizzle than steak. 

Vote StarWood out. 

Vote in an independent, owner-controlled HOA-BOD.  

Hire, under contract, a top-quality independent management company (e.g., VRI, the only 1 I'm familiar with), & see to it that every timeshare dollar collected & spent returns value to the regular, walking around timeshare owners rather than boosting the bottom line of some timeshare company. 

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


----------



## Fredm (Sep 4, 2009)

calgarygary said:


> Fred, speaking for myself, I do not expect to be insulated from the realities of this or future economies.  Buying into a timeshare one should expect the peaks and valleys of economic times to directly impact upon the operating costs and operations of the resort in question.
> 
> My issue goes directly to the Starwood controlled HOA's and how they are not representing the home owners.  If we had transparency, then possibly my concerns would be alleviated.  I'm sure that if there was transparency, I wouldn't question why the hotel divisions of Starwood have an operating income of 10.7% of revenues while vacation ownership is managing to contribute 13.4% of their revenues during the first quarter of 2009.     However, my greater concern is how the HOA can stand by while 40% of mf goes into Starwood coffers.  As nodge has linked many times over, Fritz is only too happy to prop up the Starwood income statement on the back of SVO - and this at a time when new sales are down dramatically.
> 
> ...



CalgeryGary,

I do not see that we are in disagreement. 

I am in complete agreement that the nature of the Starwood structured HOA is beneficial to Starwood, without due regard to the owners cost. 
This extends to the lack of voice permitted in the decision making process.  

A primary responsibility of the BOD is to minimize the delinquent account by any and all reasonable means at its disposal. Placing a lien on title for the amount owed is certainly among the prudent measures. 
The question is when does it become reasonable to do so? And, has the HOA done so in these time frames ?  To the later, I do not know.
To the former, I suggest that 9 months within the current use-year is not reasonable. Why? because the owner has been denied the use. Further ,the use has been confiscated for other utility, to the benefit of someone. 

The  issue then becomes who benefits from the confiscated use?
Without, I may add, having to pay the fees to be lien'd against the owner.
This goes back to how is the benefit of the use distributed.

I am not blindly defending the owner here. But, thus far nothing translates into a remedy of practical value to the HOA.  Placing a lien may be necessary at some point. But it costs money. The real and substantive motivation to pay the maintenance fee is the use, not removing a lien on a property they may be upside down on already.  If unable to afford to pay to use what they have paid dearly to acquire, a lien won't prompt performance. Nor is a lien intended to. A lien MAY afford the HOA a means of reimbursement at sale, if it is not foreclosed on by a superior position.

I share your frustration. I do. Its a lousy situation when there are no answers that can be easily applied to resolve the problem. The HOA BOD is addressing collections in a manner they deem appropriate. If they are somehow subordinating the interests of the general ownership to some other agenda, THAT is a breach of their fiduciary responsibility. I cannot make that claim.

I do think it relevant to recognize the lack of owner control inherent in a Starwood Vacation Ownership interest. But, it's part of the whole ball of wax. 

I would not like being reminded that the alternative is to sell your interest and get out. But, when all the shouting is done, that is the issue you have control over. 
Fair has nothing to do with this. It is how the system is structured. Some simply shrug and declare it the price of ownership. Others are offended by having to make the choice.


----------



## James1975NY (Sep 4, 2009)

Troopers said:


> This got me thinking (random thoughts coming)…
> 
> What if the HOA consisted of Tuggers?  I suppose the HOA could decide to divorce itself from Starwood entirely resulting in WKORV being renamed to T(UG)KORV?  I wouldn’t want that to happen.
> 
> ...



First, I am not exactly sure of the legal relationship between Starwood and the HOA. That may be best answered by the Board. I would agree that the HOA can drop Starwood as the management company but I do not believe that this would be beneficial to the owners of the property. The Westin brand alone is a strong component.

Part of the management fees, will pay for cost centers such as your owner servicing group, inventory management, property staff etc. I saw a comment earlier about 40% of the fees going to "Starwood coffers". I am sure there was some cinicism there but I still believe that the budget and what is spent on salaries can be justified quite well. Are there cost saving solutions and ways to decrease spending? Sure, but at what expense to quality and service. Best way to put it is this...."you pay for what you get"

Indeed, I would stand by the statement that the HOA needs Starwood as much as Starwood needs the HOA....may not be 50/50 but the balance would be very close and I am not sure which way it would go if not 50/50.

Not sure this helped Troopers but the best feedback I can give here. My time with Starwood was owner services, some inventory management, and planning.


----------



## WINSLOW (Sep 4, 2009)

We received ours today for Vistana Resort Fountains II by mail.  Says same as everyone elses. 

 I don't care about placemats & napkins, coffe/tea (bring our own anyway), tidy service (they didn't really do more than that anyway), but checking in I hope it dosn't take any longer than it already does.

Still waiting for info to be sent from SVN on the new II trade rules, haven't gotten that yet.  Has anyone?


----------



## Twinkstarr (Sep 4, 2009)

WINSLOW said:


> Still waiting for info to be sent from SVN on the new II trade rules, haven't gotten that yet.  Has anyone?



Nothing yet on the new II rules. By the time we probably get the new directories most of us will have traded our 2010 weeks and have figured it out on our own.


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 4, 2009)

Fred, I think the area where we may be in disagreement is in the implementation of a lien and its timeframe.  I am only basing my arguement on the resort where I own and in particular, the Bella development of Vistana Villages.  The searches that I have done indicate that the HOA is particularly slow in recording liens (imop).  As I mentioned earlier, very few of the liens seem to escalate to foreclosures so I believe that this significant step provides the desired results.  As the owner is responsible for collection costs under both our agreement and Fl. law, I hope that the HOA is not bearing any of those costs.  I see nothing unreasonable about escalating the collection process if the owner is delinquent 3 months.

James, there are separate lines in our income statement for many of the areas you mentioned: ie, owner services, housekeeping, security, etc.  Based on my income statement, it would appear that 40% of our mf is going to management salaries (excluding those that would fall into other lines) and Starwood.  I believe that this is excessive and an accountable HOA would better control these lines.

I am not in the group that is prepared to sell my ts nor do I fall in the group that think Starwood offers a poor product.  I know I have bought into a quality resort, I just want a responsive HOA that works for both the developer (representing only their unsold units) and the homeowners.


----------



## Troopers (Sep 4, 2009)

AwayWeGo said:


> Shux, a good resort is a good resort regardless of extra-cost branding that is more sizzle than steak.
> 
> Vote StarWood out.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but I completely disagree.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 4, 2009)

calgarygary said:


> > my greater concern is how the HOA can stand by while 40% of mf goes into Starwood coffers.  As nodge has linked many times over, Fritz is only too happy to prop up the Starwood income statement on the back of SVO - and this at a time when new sales are down dramatically.



Gary.

I share your concern here as well. My post included the following:

*I have been flamed on this board in the past for making what to me were obvious observations.
To wit:
- Excessively high maintenance fees destroy equity. The primary cause being a disproportionate amount (by any industry measure) going to the operations manager directly or indirectly.
*

To answer the question of how the HOA can stand by and allow it to happen is not a mystery. The Governing Documents, specifically the Management Agreement permits it. So, nothing is amiss from that perspective. No BOD action is called for under the Agreement.

Want to do something about it?
Management can be changed. 
Using the WMH Management Agreement as a reference point, the following must be done: 
2.3 (a) (ii):
- Without cause, upon 90 days prior Notice to the Manager authorized by vote or written consent of a Majority of Owners.

Sounds so reasonable and democratic, doesn't it?

Of course, the Westin brand is removed from the resort with the successful vote of the Majority of Owners.

50% plus 1 is no small feat. But, it can be done. Not 50% plus 1 of those voting, but of all owners on the roster.

As a younger man, I was ticked at the leadership of the small community in which I and my family lived.  Blogs and email did not yet exist. Letters to the Editor of the local papers were a venting outlet, but not effective.  
So, I ran for public office, took on the Mayor, and won by 48 votes. The cost in time and personal finances was heavy. The compensation was lots of work and no pay. And, the satisfaction that I was able to make a small difference.
On the whole, a thankless endeavor prone to create negative feelings among those with whom I disagreed.

I mention this only to convey that I truly understand fighting for a cause believed in.
 If anyone with a stake in the outcome has that much burning desire to change the status-quo, it can be done. I salute them. Truly.  

On this issue my view is nor quite so passionate. It's a timeshare. Timesharing is supposed to be fun. A crusade bound to have thousands of owners upset if the vote is successful, is not fun. I would sell it and find a toy that satisfies.


----------



## Troopers (Sep 4, 2009)

Westin5Star said:


> We don't need Starwood.  We should dump them and offer for someone like Hyatt to rebrand and bid on the management of the property.  Hyatt would almost certainly do a better job for much less money based on what I have read about the two programs.  More importantly, we could then mandate that the board not be made up of Hyatt or Starwood folks and we could get the transparency that so many of us are seeking.
> 
> I just got back from 2 weeks in Kauai.  I spent most of it at WPORV and a couple days at the Hyatt Poipu.  While I thought the Westin had made some improvements from last year, the Hyatt is so much better at food, service, landscaping, cleaning, and just about everything else that I could notice!  Trust me, we do not need Starwood!



We may not need Starwood, but we do need some big hotel hospitality chain.  For me, Hyatt's doesn't do it for me...just to save maybe a couple hundred of bucks a year and transparency.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 4, 2009)

*Why Not Go Independent & Brandless ?*




Troopers said:


> We may not need Starwood, but we do need some big hotel hospitality chain.


I'd be interested in learning the rationale for that. 

From everything I can figure, all the big hotel hospitality chain affiliation adds is a dash of prestige plus a heaping portion of expense. 

Obviously others see it differently & I would be interested to know the thinking behind that view. 

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


----------



## Troopers (Sep 4, 2009)

AwayWeGo said:


> Shux, a good resort is a good resort regardless of extra-cost branding that is more sizzle than steak.



I'm no marketing/advertising guru but a product associated with a brand brings something to the table.  Nike and others pays Tiger and Jordan millions of dollars for some reason.




AwayWeGo said:


> I'd be interested in learning the rationale for that.
> 
> From everything I can figure, all the big hotel hospitality chain affiliation adds is a dash of prestige plus a heaping portion of expense.
> 
> ...



That "dash of prestige" that a hotel hospitality chain brings is much more than hype.  If management was controlled by a top notch independent company, what's gained?  Maybe a savings in a few hundred bucks and transparency.  Maybe better service.  Maybe daily cleaning.  And probably better value.

What's loss?  Owner pride.  Resale value.  Trading value/power.  Benefits associated with the SPG/hotels.  A few hundred bucks and no transparency gets you that.


Well, I'm off to the airport to Hawaii.  As former SF Giants 2B Jeff Kent said, "enjoy the game more".


----------



## Joshadelic (Sep 4, 2009)

Does anyone know what happens to a timeshare company if they are sold to another timeshare company?  For instance, if Starwood were sold some company like Hyatt, Hilton or Disney, what would the options be for Starwood owners.  Would we HAVE TO accept ownership under the new shingle, or would there be offers to buy out previous owners?  I've never known what happens in that situation.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 4, 2009)

*Mox Nix.  (Mostly.)*




Joshadelic said:


> Does anyone know what happens to a timeshare company if they are sold to another timeshare company?  For instance, if Starwood were sold some company like Hyatt, Hilton or Disney, what would the options be for Starwood owners.  Would we HAVE TO accept ownership under the new shingle, or would there be offers to buy out previous owners?  I've never known what happens in that situation.


When Diamond bought out SunTerra, Club SunTerra became 1 version of T*.*H*.*E*.* Club & (from what I hear) kept chugging along pretty much as before. 

We are resale owners at 2 timeshares that were SunTerra when we bought in but were rebranded Diamond after the buyout.  We never joined SunTerra's club, & now we continue on in the same vein as non-members of T*.*H*.*E*.* Club. 

Both our Diamond-affiliated timeshares are managed independently under the authority of owner-controlled HOA-BODs, so the whole SunTerra-Diamond switchover is mostly _mox nix_ except to owners who also belong to the club -- & that, too, might be _mox nix_ as well if all that changed was the name. 

The thing to keep in mind is that the timeshare company doesn't own the timeshare.  The individual unit-week owners collectively own the timeshare.  Because of that, the identity of the timeshare company that takes over as _Developer Of Record_ at a particular timeshare resort might not mean all that much, specially at longer-established timeshares that are out from under the management control of the timeshare company. 

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


----------



## Westin5Star (Sep 5, 2009)

Troopers said:


> We may not need Starwood, but we do need some big hotel hospitality chain.  For me, Hyatt's doesn't do it for me...just to save maybe a couple hundred of bucks a year and transparency.



Maybe Hyatt is not the best solution but my point was someone else could do it much better for much less.  I pay about $9,000 per year in MF but I really don't care about the cost as much as I do the quality and service.    For the cost that we are paying in MF, we should be able to get Ritz-style quality and service.  The problem with Starwood is that we are paying for much more than we are getting!

I am concerned with online reservations, better quality food, and would prefer daily cleaning included with my weeks while Starwood is rationing dishsoap.  I knew most of this going in to my purchases but I am hoped (am hoping) for improvements.  I guess Starwood and I are just not on the same page.


My other option (which we used before TSing and still use outside of TSing) is to book larger suites at nice resorts and pay $10k or so per week.  I guess that I am just wishing for a high quality TS company that doesn't skimp on quality or service and has great locations!


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 5, 2009)

We just changed management companies for our resort in Colorado, and the board did it without a vote of owners, as sanctioned by the governing documents.  

Who is on the board at the Starwood resorts?  Ahhh....the developer, most likely.  No way is any change going to happen, unless Starwood washes its hands of the resorts.


----------



## timbuktu (Sep 5, 2009)

*Same letter re Sheraton Vistana Falls section*

I got the same letter as "CAPTRON" who owns SBP got.
Mine came by snail mail and was for Sheraton Vistana Resort, Falls


----------



## Captron (Sep 5, 2009)

Josh,

History:
Remember that many of these resorts were changed over when Starwood bought Vistana (the company NOT the resorts). SBP used to fly under the  Embassy flag and was managed by Vistana. SVR used to be just "Vistana Resort" as it was Vistana (the companies) first and, historically anyway, flagship resort. The Point at Poipu on Kauai was part of the Embassy group but was bought by someone else and has recently changed to a different management group again. To complicate things further, it was ANOTHER company that contracted with Embassy (Suites) to use their name (to aid sales) and to get owners access to the Embassy SPG equivalent. (This ended up being MORE worthless than SPG Gold) It was when this developing company declared bankruptcy that the resorts were sold off and the contract to use the Embassy name disapeared. Vistana bought SBP that they had been managing anyway and Poipu was picked up by someone else.

My real point:
The only way the "resort" is sold is if the developing company is sold and there is further sales and development to be done. Once complete the resorts are in possession of the owners and the BOD contracts with a management company to look after day to day operations. (aka clean the toilets and take out the trash etc. - I LOVE that line!!!)

Remember that the whole link in our group of resorts is Starwood as a developer and then management company. Without them we become a bunch of independent resorts and to exchange we then rely on II/RCI et al. [refer to recent II deal and RCI class action lawsuit] There would be no staroptions or internal exchanges, nor new resorts in our group. 

It is kind of like pick your poison but there are SEVERE implications of firing Starwood as a management company. (even if you could somehow get the Starwood controlled BOD to do it!!! - see the problem here???)


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 5, 2009)

Captron said:


> It is kind of like pick your poison but there are SEVERE implications of firing Starwood as a management company. (even if you could somehow get the Starwood controlled BOD to do it!!! - see the problem here???)



My opinion is to do everything possible to retain Starwood as the management firm for our resorts. But... there needs to be more accountability and proactive steps taken to benefit the owners. 

In the last week or so here, it's been claimed that Starwood is not pursuing those owners not paying their MFs in a timely manner. Starwood is now asking us to pay 2010 MFs early to help with cash flow. I haven't yet seen Starwood offer to reduce their fees to coincide with all these problems...and I doubt I will. 

I know as a past condo HOA President and Board member we evaluated several management firms when we thought we weren't getting the service we needed and were being charged too much. It would be a huge gesture toward the owners if "our" Boards renegotiate our contract with Starwood - or at least, get a reduction for the next year. Many companies are reducing their fees to their customers this year in attempt to keep their clientele. 

Starwood doesn't have the need to reduce fees since they outright control our Boards, and that's a major issue that some of the posts are referring to. In my opinion, that's the most important issue. It's the lack of (seemingly) objective oversight which leads us to surmise that our interests are not represented. If Starwood and our Boards actually communicated effectively with us, offered to cut their fees in line with the current economic reality, allowed the HOAs to earn some offset income when Starwood rents a unit to pay for wear and tear... then we'd probably be very pleased with their leadership. Until that happens, we're going to continue discussing these issues, complaining about Starwood's apparent greed, and wonder amongst ourselves how high MFs will be for 2010 and 2011.


----------



## jarta (Sep 5, 2009)

Ken555,   ...   "it's been claimed that Starwood is not pursuing those owners not paying their MFs in a timely manner."

I have heard the claim.  I have no idea whether it is true.  (I tend to doubt it.)  But, from reading their posts, the TUG members who are making the claim have no evidence that what they are saying is true.  

However, this place is an Internet BB.  Anyone can post anything to support whatever agenda they might have.  There is nobody who questions obviously unsupported statements of fact.  The fact that a claim is made (and repeated and repeated) becomes all the proof that's needed.  So, because it is an Internet BB --- sometimes you just have to smile.      ...   eom


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 5, 2009)

jarta said:


> The fact that a claim is made (and repeated and repeated) becomes all the proof that's needed.  So, because it is an Internet BB --- sometimes you just have to smile.      ...   eom



I agree completely - that's why I used the word "claimed". 

We really don't know who posts here. Nevertheless, my post is, I believe, still valid even without this one item independently confirmed.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 6, 2009)

Joshadelic said:


> Does anyone know what happens to a timeshare company if they are sold to another timeshare company?  For instance, if Starwood were sold some company like Hyatt, Hilton or Disney, what would the options be for Starwood owners.  Would we HAVE TO accept ownership under the new shingle, or would there be offers to buy out previous owners?  I've never known what happens in that situation.



Short answer is owners have to accept the new company.

The timeshare owners own the real estate. 
What the new company is buying is the management of the resorts,  expanded presence in the marketplace, and any unsold inventory that might exist.

The owners can follow the procedures defined in the governing documents to change the management company at any time.


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 6, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Short answer is owners have to accept the new company.
> 
> The timeshare owners own the real estate.
> What the new company is buying is the management of the resorts,  expanded presence in the marketplace, and any unsold inventory that might exist.
> ...


Do they really own the dirt the buildings are standing on?  Could it be a lease?


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 6, 2009)

jarta said:


> Ken555,   ...   "it's been claimed that Starwood is not pursuing those owners not paying their MFs in a timely manner."
> 
> I have heard the claim.  I have no idea whether it is true.  (I tend to doubt it.)  But, from reading their posts, the TUG members who are making the claim have no evidence that what they are saying is true.
> 
> However, this place is an Internet BB.  Anyone can post anything to support whatever agenda they might have.  There is nobody who questions obviously unsupported statements of fact.  The fact that a claim is made (and repeated and repeated) becomes all the proof that's needed.  So, because it is an Internet BB --- sometimes you just have to smile.      ...   eom



You tend to doubt it??  Please take a moment to review county records of the starwood resorts where you own.  I reviewed them for where I own and do not feel that waiting 9 months to begin legal proceedings is prompt.  County records search is the evidence Jarta so please do not imply that I am not posting facts!

I think your anecdotal discussions of your experience with HOA's and comparing that with the Starwood controlled HOA's is more representative of the above statement where "anyone can post anything to support whatever agenda they might have."


----------



## Fredm (Sep 6, 2009)

iconnections said:


> Do they really own the dirt the buildings are standing on?  Could it be a lease?



If ownership is "fee simple", yes, owners own the dirt as tenants in common.

Of course, timeshares sold as leaseholds or RTU are are different story.


----------



## jarta (Sep 6, 2009)

gary,   ...   "I reviewed them for where I own and do not feel that waiting 9 months to begin legal proceedings is prompt."

I just checked the myfloridacounty.com records for Orange County.

For year a search for Bella Florida Condominium Association turns up the following 2008-2009 documents (only 100 records display at once):

September - 100+ liens
October - 100+ satisfactions
November - 8 satisfactions
December - 6 satisfactions
January - 14 satisfactions
February - 9 satisfactions
March - 100+ satisfactions
April - 6 satisfactions
May - 57 satisfactions
June - 3 satisfactions 
July - 1-6 - 100+ liens and 1 satisfaction
July - 7-9 - 62 liens and 2 satisfactions
August - 28 satisfactions

Starwood annual MF were due on my WKV on January 8 and February 26 at Harborside.  I didn't buy at Bella until last month (probably because the liens went out in July).  But, it probably came due around January 1.

It's not 9 months.  It's 6 months.  And, it actually looks like the filing of the liens each year generates quite a bit of income at Bella because the units are worth more than a single year's MF.  But, I guess you wouldn't be satisfied until the lien is filed sometime in February.  Reminder letters wouldn't cut it for you.

Nevertheless, whenever deadbeats delay payment, the shortfall is felt by all the members who pay.      ...   eom


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 6, 2009)

jarta said:


> gary,   ...   "I reviewed them for where I own and do not feel that waiting 9 months to begin legal proceedings is prompt."
> 
> I just checked the myfloridacounty.com records for Orange County.
> 
> ...



Jarta, in the search I did, the Sept. 2008 liens were showing ( I did not see the July 2009 liens) and thus the 9 month comment.  I did indicate that there were very few further actions necessary thus I agree, and commented earlier, that the filing of the lien provided the desired action.  If Starwood is now accelerating legal procedures over what I had seen and reported, I stand corrected.  However, as I stated earlier 





> I see nothing unreasonable about escalating the collection process if the owner is delinquent 3 months.



I know you want to twist the statements to suit your agenda, but at no time did I indicate that the HOA should begin proceedings in Feb.


----------



## jarta (Sep 7, 2009)

gary,   ...   From your previous posts on various threads, there is nothing Starwood could do at any resort that would satisfy you - except maybe ask you to join a board at one of the resorts.

This whole thread started because Starwood, on behalf of the boards of the associations, sent or emailed a letter for several resorts saying that there were 2009 delinquent accounts and a noticeable reduction in revenue, stating what steps had and would be taken and what services would be reduced (relatively minor cuts for now) and asking all owners to chip in and pay a little quicker for 2010.  That there are such revenue problems comes as a big surprise given this lousy economy?

Generally, that type of communication from a resort's board would be applauded by owners as being responsible.  Here it was twisted into a hysteria-fed attack on Starwood (and the board members at the resorts) for not collecting delinquent assessments based upon supposition, not facts, to back up the attack.

Yet, when I post the facts about what has happened over the last year which refute the suppositions, you don't dispute any of them.  You accuse me of twisting them to fit an agenda.  And, you state you "did not see" the July, 2009 liens filed concerning Bella.  

I guess you can't see if you don't look.  Certainly you realize that on the Florida web site where you find the liens, you enter time period parameters to do the searches.  If you had looked at July, 2009 you would have seen the liens and noticed that Starwood filed them 2 months earlier than the 2008 Bella liens.  If you would have looked at last month, August, you would have seen 28 satisfactions of liens.  

In October of 2008, the month after the 2008 liens were filed, there were a lot more satisfactions of liens filed by the association (100+).  So, maybe Starwood saw that trend at Bella and other resorts and sent out the letters.  By moving up the date the Bella liens were filed by 2 months for 2009, getting a lesser 2009 response last month and acting upon that lesser response to notify owners this month, Starwood and the Bella board are criticized by you for being asleep at the switch.  Go figure.

Sometimes you just have to smile.      ...   eom


----------



## silkey21 (Sep 7, 2009)

Captron said:


> That is what I meant. That under these EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES that they allow rentals with the proceeds going to the association.
> 
> Maybe the associations should band together and hire someone or contract with someone to market these delinquent weeks for rental to allow for some cost recovery. (This also keeps these open weeks out of Starwoods hands which may convince them to flex a little on the rental compensation for the association)
> 
> ...




what i do not understand is this: if people do not pay the maintanance and we the other owners are paying for their share then why are we not getting a piece of their ownership or atleast their points and or usuage ie if 10% of the people do not pay and I am going to pay their share why am I not entilted to 10% of their points ?. They will say no we try to rent the extra nights but if that is the case we are losing 50% of the money because it goes into Starwood's pocket.


----------



## jarta (Sep 7, 2009)

silkey,   ...   "we are losing 50% of the money because it goes into Starwood's pocket."

That, like the allegation that Starwood is not acting to collect 2009 delinquent assessments at Bella, is just not true.  

I have often heard 40% from gary.  Now it escalates to 50%.  Neither is true.

gary gets to 40% by adding in the entire payment to the Master Association governing SVV as a direct payment by Bella only to Starwood.  It's a mistake.  And, it's only his biggest mistake to get to 40%.

But, here's how it works with any Master Association.

The Master Association at SVV operates and maintains all of the outlot property.  The outlots are that portion of the SVV property not encumbered by the various subsidiary condominium associations (Bella, etc.)  The subsidiary condominium associations merely encumber an envelope around their various buildings.  Those subsidiary associations pay for their own direct expenses and also pay a percentage of the expenses of the Master Association.  The expenses of the Master Association are not all payments to Starwood.  Security for SVV must be provided, roads must be maintained, landscaping must be tended to and replaced as necessary, pools must be maintained, outdoor lights and fountains and other outbuildings must be maintained by the Master Association.

True, Starwood also charges a management fee for managing the Master Association.  However, that fee is quite small in relation to the actual direct expenses of the Master Association.  The money paid to the Master Association does not all flow directly into Starwood's pocket.

Starwood certainly makes money from managing the associations at SVV, including the Master Association.  Maybe, too much money.  However, making an uninformed claim that 40-50% of the MF paid by owners goes directly into Starwood's pocket is just irresponsible.       ...   eom


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 7, 2009)

*Its a basic question of process and results*



jarta said:


> This whole thread started because Starwood, on behalf of the boards of the associations, sent or emailed a letter for several resorts saying that there were 2009 delinquent accounts and a noticeable reduction in revenue, stating what steps had and would be taken and what services would be reduced (relatively minor cuts for now) and asking all owners to chip in and pay a little quicker for 2010.  That there are such revenue problems comes as a big surprise given this lousy economy?



If it were just a simple request to "chip in" and pay a little early to get over a hump then it would not be very serious. But in reality it is an attempt to gloss over an extremely problematic cash shortfall for year end 2009 that will put fiscal year 2010 in a double hole - the automatic shortfall that delinquencies represent as they did in 2009 but worse - along with income budgeted for 2010 that will be committed to 2009 expenses.   

If it was say $100,000 short for 2009 now 2010 starts on day one with a $200,000 hole! You can see how this can quickly become unmaintainable and result in the need to raise emergency cash to avoid shutdown. I speak as a Board member of another Orlando resort who saw this exact scenario play out in 2001 so I know how it can "suddenly" occur and force action such as a special assessment simply to get the balance sheet back to black. When you spend future money you are really taking a big risk and had better have in place some process to improve income - quickly - or bad things are about to happen. Simply doing whatever got you to that point is not a viable option.


----------



## jarta (Sep 7, 2009)

timeos2,   ...   You are assuming that the 2010 money which Starwood proposes be paid in October, 2009 will not be invested and the investment proceeds used to pay the 2010 expenses when 2010 collections lag.  That may, or may not be, a valid assumption.

However, your warning is valid.  If the early 2010 payments are used for 2009 expenses, it merely further depletes the 2010 pool of money and deepens problems that will probably occur in 2010.

Where I come from, expected budget shortfalls for an association cannot legally be covered by raiding the reserve fund or using the upcoming year's assessments to pay any shortfall.  The remedy is to cut costs during the fiscal year or impose a special assessment at or close to year end to fill the budget shortfall in revenue.

(That's a little unfair since, if a yearly profit or surplus occurs, to keep the non-taxable status of the not-for-profit association, the yearly profit or surplus is dumped into the reserve fund at year end.  And, legal or not, I can't say that the reserve fund is never raided for one-time, emergency or small expenses over budget when a yearly surplus has been the norm.)

But, there is no doubt that the entire revenue stream can get out of whack quite quickly if it is not watched closely.      ...   eom


----------



## silkey21 (Sep 7, 2009)

jarta said:


> silkey,   ...   "we are losing 50% of the money because it goes into Starwood's pocket."
> 
> That, like the allegation that Starwood is not acting to collect 2009 delinquent assessments at Bella, is just not true.
> 
> ...



"I have no idea what you are talking about". All I said was if people are not paying for their timeshares why aren't the other owners entilted to the extra portion that they paid. To answer that question I said Starwood would say they try rent out the property but if they rent out the property on these timeshares there is no fee that Starwood takes ? or the is no additional fees that the association needs to have such as advertising and other fees.


----------



## jarta (Sep 7, 2009)

If the assessment is paid late.  The money arrives - with costs and late fees - but late.

If the assessment is never paid by the owner and the lien is foreclosed, the association gets its money from the proceeds of the foreclosure sale.  If the association is the only bidder and bids in the assessment and accumulated costs, it gets the property free and clear.

As you can see by the satisfactions of liens that have been filed right after the liens are filed, in most instances the filing of the lien has made the Bella owner cough up what is owed to the association on his/her own or by selling the property where the money due the association is paid from the closing.

So, in past years, the problem was mainly a lag in collection, not an overall loss of income.  That's a revenue timing problem.  This year might be different.  

In 2008 over 100 satisfactions of liens were filed the month after the liens were filed.  This year the Bella association filed the liens 2 months earlier than 2008 (in July) and merely 28 satisfactions of liens were filed the next month (in August).

Why haven't the units been rented during the months the owners have been delinquent?  I really don't know the answer.  But, I assume it has to do with owners making late payments after receiving a reminder letter, bookkeeping problems and more owners being delinquent during the floating shoulder seasons.  Even though late, the payment of MF - once made - would entitle the owner to use the week by reserving a week later in the year.  Since Bella is a mandatory resort, the delinquency paves the way to reserve anywhere in the SVN system that is available.  Also, during the summer, when the kids are out of school, I would assume that reservations at timeshares in Orlando run close to 100% and delinquent owners in summer season are rare.  Now that the kids are back in school, who knows?

But, as I said, I really do not know the answer to that question.  I am only speculating.

If I may ask, if you didn't mean 50% of the MF, where do you get the 50% of money going directly into Starwood's pocket?  What money are you talking about?  The Florida statute posted earlier in this thread by timeos2 says that the rental money (reasonable rent set by the association) for a delinquent assessment unit goes to the association first (plus late fees and the cost of renting) and the balance or overage, if any, goes to the account of the delinquent owner.      ...   eom


----------



## silkey21 (Sep 7, 2009)

jarta said:


> If the assessment is paid late.  The money arrives - with costs and late fees - but late.
> 
> If the assessment is never paid by the owner and the lien is foreclosed, the association gets its money from the proceeds of the foreclosure sale.  If the association is the only bidder and bids in the assessment and accumulated costs, it gets the property free and clear.
> 
> ...



I was referring to if someone does not pay rent and the association rents out the unit -do they put it in the "rental program " in which owners who want to rent their timeshare, Starwood rents the units at market rates and keeps 50% of the rental fee. So if the association gives the extra units (people that did not pay MF) to Starwood then they would take 50% of the fee.

Also if fees are do Jan. 1st then why not give a three months notice and by March 31, 2009 the association has the option of renting the unit and or forclosing this way there will be time to rent out the units. Also if someone forcloses why doesn't the association get to notify owners perhaps this way the units will get transfereed to paying owners.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 7, 2009)

*It's the owners money and time - not Starwoods*



jarta said:


> Why haven't the units been rented during the months the owners have been delinquent?  I really don't know the answer.  But, I assume it has to do with owners making late payments after receiving a reminder letter, bookkeeping problems and more owners being delinquent during the floating shoulder seasons.  Even though late, the payment of MF - once made - would entitle the owner to use the week by reserving a week later in the year.  Since Bella is a mandatory resort, the delinquency paves the way to reserve anywhere in the SVN system that is available.  Also, during the summer, when the kids are out of school, I would assume that reservations at timeshares in Orlando run close to 100% and delinquent owners in summer season are rare.  Now that the kids are back in school, who knows?



No - that isn't correct. The Association has the right (and as we already saw the obligation under the law) to rent the delinquent time if possible and the owner has ZERO right to that time or any other until 100% of the fees are paid current. If that means they have nothing available when they make that final payment then its too bad - the Association does NOT have to give them anything and they will have learned an expensive lesson not to pay late. Once an owner goes delinquent most rights are suspended until they get things fixed and they may never get that use time back. The benefit of any rental or other money collected belongs to the Association as a whole - not any individual owner - to reduce the overall costs of bad debt. There is nothing to "give" (as in free use or direct account credit) to the majority of owners who end up eating those extra costs as it must - by law - go to the highest available renter.  They do get indirect benefit by the reduction in bad debt for the dollars collected in rent that get past the Starwood fees and into the Association coffers.  

Again letting things slide creates all sorts f problems. Inrented time. Unhappy owners both paid & delinquent - it is an example of bad management in textbook form.   



jarta said:


> If I may ask, if you didn't mean 50% of the MF, where do you get the 50% of money going directly into Starwood's pocket?  What money are you talking about?  The Florida statute posted earlier in this thread by timeos2 says that the rental money (reasonable rent set by the association) for a delinquent assessment unit goes to the association first (plus late fees and the cost of renting) and the balance or overage, if any, goes to the account of the delinquent owner.      ...   eom


[/B]

But fees may be subtracted so if the rates being charged are too high (and 40% is VERY high) then the amount going off to the Association and, if any, to the owner as credit are lower than they should be. It again gets back to how much is being charged for services that are available at much lower cost if not done through a developer based company. Value for the dollar isn't there even if it is legal & documented. That the services seem to be less than well managed despite the extremely high rates makes it even worse. It does appear that the resort is viewed as a cash machine for management rather than the tightly run operation for owners it should be. Wasted money isn't required to have a top resort while quality management is always a necessity. Signs in this case say money is being left on the table and management lax to put it kindly.


----------



## silkey21 (Sep 7, 2009)

> I had a conversation this March at Kierland with that association's president who was looking for advice on how to efficiently collect the yearly MF.  He was worried about getting the money if owners stopped paying.  I think Kierland may be in a better position than those older resorts like Broadway Plantation or Mission Hills or SDO.      ...   eom



Maybe Starwood should charge monthly MF fees like Wyndham.
Also if everyone is undergoing such hardship why doesn't Starwood Management cut some of their fees as well or why can't the association reneogiate the management fee.


----------



## silkey21 (Sep 7, 2009)

AwayWeGo said:


> So these timeshare HOA-BODs simply went along with all that slop in the system for years & years, blithely hoping things would somehow turn out OK anyway ?
> 
> Shux, despite the fact that I have never been on any timeshare or condo HOA-BOD, even I know that the Number One Responsibility of the HOA-BOD is collections -- that, plus prompt & aggressive follow-up action against the deadbeats.
> 
> ...



Here is the problems with Timeshare.

#1. the developer and the association and the mgmt. people are all the same and their is no interest in the owners.

Developer wants to sell the properties they do not care who they sell it to as long as they get their money. They are selling Sheraton Vistana Villages for $25k for a two bedroom that equals to over a million a unit over the year unheard of in Orlando for a condo. MF fees are over $1k a week which includes tax and SVO fee so that means $800 or so a week or around $3.2 a month that is crazy, in Miami Beach in a very luxury building the MF is $1k a month. The Association is just a front for the developer and MGMT company.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 7, 2009)

*That Depends On The Timeshare -- Not All Are Like That, Even In Orlando.*




silkey21 said:


> The Association is just a front for the developer and MGMT company.


At both of our Orlando timeshares, the homeowner associations are owner-controlled & the timeshare company is no longer in the driver's seat. 

Not only that, the timeshare company's management company was thrown out by the independent, owner-controlled homeowner association.  For several years now, those 2 timeshares -- both of them, right there side by side in just about the best timeshare location in Orlando -- have been operated, under contract, by an independent resort management company with no ties to the timeshare company. 

The timeshare company is still around & still selling timeshare weeks or trust-shares or club memberships, or some such.  But they're no longer selling weeks at those timeshares -- because there are hardly any left to sell. 

Even so, the timeshare company as the official Developer Of Record still has representation on the 2 timeshare homeowner association Boards Of Directors.  On both boards, however, the timeshare company is in a minority position on the board -- i.e., just 1 member on a 3-member board at 1 timeshare & just 1 member on a 7-member board on the other timeshare. 

Under Florida timeshare law, when a certain fraction of timeshare intervals at a resort have been sold, a tipping point is reached when the majority of owners can vote out the timeshare company as resort manager & vote in a Board Of Directors majority independent of the timeshare company.  

If the timeshare company holds on to control of the resort when it no longer owns most of the unit-weeks at that resort, somebody needs to wake up the owners & wise them up to the fact that they can take over control themselves via their own independent Board Of Directors, if they only trouble themselves to step up & do so. 

Some timeshare companies might not give up control without a fight.  Others might keep on calling the shots no matter what -- a bad situation from the perspective of the regular, walking-around timeshare owners. 

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


----------



## jarta (Sep 7, 2009)

TUG saved me quite a lot of money getting to Starwood 5 Star Elite.  Thank you all for lots of useful information.  I have learned a lot here about timesharing.  Almost all of it good; some, however, mostly about human nature, quite disturbing.

The constant negativity about Starwood on this web site is overwhelming.  Funny, some of us enjoy being part of and vacationing within the Starwood timeshare system.  I think it is the best, most flexible timeshare system on the market.  I have no connection to Starwood other than happily owning a lot of weeks at SVN properties.  Starwood fits my needs - not everyone's.  Honestly, I understand and agree Starwood is not perfect, but I don't understand the relentless carping here about Starwood management.

So, who needs the aggravation of looking in here and seeing nothing but negativity about the way Starwood manages its timeshare properties?  Talk among yourselves.  Keep trying to take over management of Starwood and being sullen because your suggestions, for the most part, are ignored.  And, I really mean this, enjoy your timeshare weeks wherever they are!      ...   eom


----------



## silkey21 (Sep 7, 2009)

jarta said:


> TUG saved me quite a lot of money getting to Starwood 5 Star Elite.  Thank you all for lots of useful information.  I have learned a lot here about timesharing.  Almost all of it good; some, however, mostly about human nature, quite disturbing.
> 
> The constant negativity about Starwood on this web site is overwhelming.  Funny, some of us enjoy being part of and vacationing within the Starwood timeshare system.  I think it is the best, most flexible timeshare system on the market.  I have no connection to Starwood other than happily owning a lot of weeks at SVN properties.  Starwood fits my needs - not everyone's.  Honestly, I understand and agree Starwood is not perfect, but I don't understand the relentless carping here about Starwood management.
> 
> So, who needs the aggravation of looking in here and seeing nothing but negativity about the way Starwood manages its timeshare properties?  Talk among yourselves.  Keep trying to take over management of Starwood and being sullen because your suggestions, for the most part, are ignored.  And, I really mean this, enjoy your timeshare weeks wherever they are!      ...   eom



I think you are missing the point, I own 4 weeks at Starwood and one week at Celebrity Resorts and I would have never been able to go to the quality places that I have been able to go for the MF that I have been paying. Now I only go to timeshares when I travel. That said the writing seems to be on the wall - I own at Celebrity where the the MF use to be $300 now it is almost $800 all because of people that were not paying MF. The quality will be going down the activities will not be what they use to be. The MF will be going much higher and I hope that Starwood does not turn into a no name Timeshare.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 7, 2009)

*Hanks Resort or Starwood? Who cares if its nice and cost effective?*



jarta said:


> The constant negativity about Starwood on this web site is overwhelming.  Funny, some of us enjoy being part of and vacationing within the Starwood timeshare system.  I think it is the best, most flexible timeshare system on the market.  I have no connection to Starwood other than happily owning a lot of weeks at SVN properties.  Starwood fits my needs - not everyone's.  Honestly, I understand and agree Starwood is not perfect, but I don't understand the relentless carping here about Starwood management.



You are confusing the operation of an exchange system - which is all an internal system of trades between resorts is - and the physical operation of a resort. One company can be very good at one or both or neither. There is absolutely no requirement that company X both run the resort(s) and operate the exchange system. In fact many of the best exchangers seem to have little or no involvement in actual resort operations. They focus on doing exchange the best it can be and make money doing it. 

You also seem to think that a name such as Starwood or Holiday Inn automatically carries better trade power. Not so. Each resort has to live or die by it's own ranking no matter what name is tacked on. Even Wyndham resorts lost Gold Crown for example despite being managed and owned by Wyndham - who is the same corporate company as RCI. The owners/guests make that call and its the quality of the resort experience - not the name - that gets them a good or bad score. 

It is unfortunate that too many owners blindly follow the desires of the developers rather than finding out for themselves and for their resort who best to handle each part of the timeshare ownership experience. It results in fees out of line with performance and then they are surprised when costs rise, values for resale and trade fall even though "I own brand YYY".  Better to have a Board that watches for the owners and makes sure the maximum value is obtained for them - not the corporate bottom line.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 7, 2009)

jarta said:


> So, who needs the aggravation of looking in here and seeing nothing but negativity about the way Starwood manages its timeshare properties?



I don't know - you've posted here 295 times, and almost from the beginning, we haven't met your standard of satisfaction with Starwood.  What keeps you coming back?  You tell us!


----------



## gregb (Sep 8, 2009)

Here is how I expect rental of an delinquent owner's time should work.

I expect the HOA would do the rental through the *wood rental program.  If I am not mistaken, *wood keeps 50% of the rental revenue as it's service fee.  (I think that may be the 50% that CalGaryGary was talking about.)  The other 50% of the rent revenue would go to the HOA.  

If the 50% of the rental revenue that goes to the HOA exceeds the MF and any lien fees due the HOA, then any excess would go to the delinquent owner.  If the rental revenue does not cover the MF and HOA fees, then I expect the HOA still has a lien on the delinquent owner for the remaining balance.  The following year, I believe the owner would have to pay the shortfall from the previous year, plus the current year's MF, before they could use their TS.  

Greg


----------



## Henry M. (Sep 9, 2009)

*WKORV Letter*

Not quite related to delinquent MF, but at least an early communication from the HOA about an impending significant tax increase (almost 3X 2008 numbers):

Dear Owner: 

Your Board of Directors and the Starwood Management Team would like to update you on two important issues. As many of you may remember, your Board included a short note with the 2009 maintenance fee statements explaining the effect of increased utility expenses and Hawaii taxes on our maintenance fees. 

Despite our efforts and arguments to the contrary, Maui County has determined it will begin to assess the vacation units at the resort separately using residential condominium valuations. As a result of this change, the 2009/2010 real property taxes for our resort will increase by approximately $4,124,162 (from 2008/2009 real property taxes of $2,261,819 to 2009/2010 real property taxes of $6,385,981). Your Board has authorized the expenditure of funds necessary for the Starwood Management Team to appeal both the valuation methodology and millage rate of this proposed assessment increase. Your Board and Management Team are fully engaged in the effort to mitigate the effect of this proposed increase and have submitted tax protests to Maui County. In addition, the Starwood Management Team is working with the American Resort Development Association, Resort Owners Coalition (ARDA-ROC) toward a coordinated Owner response, as Maui County's actions will impact other resorts. We plan to communicate with you in the near future on specific actions you can take to ensure Maui County representatives understand the negative consequences their decisions will have on individual Owners, such as yourself. During the course of the tax appeal, the tax assessments we remit to Maui County will remain in a claims litigation account which neither the association nor Maui County may access until the conflict is resolved. Unfortunately, this will require the Board to consider securing a loan, levying a special assessment and/or increasing the 2010 assessments to cover these tax payments. 

To illustrate the impact of the unanticipated tax changes, the below chart details estimated increases in your Vacation Owners Association's 2010 assessments to cover the higher tax amounts. These amounts are broken down by unit type and whether ownership is on an annual or bi-annual basis. The first group of figures represents the funds necessary to cover the unanticipated increase in the real property taxes due in 2009. In addition to covering the 2009 shortfall, the second group of figures represents the funds 
necessary to cover that portion of the 2010 taxes which exceeds what was budgeted for in 2009. As you can see, the unanticipated increase for 2009 is less than the increase for 2010. This is because the tax year for Maui County commences on July 1, and thus the increase only impacts half of 2009. 

Ocean Resort Villas Vacation Owners Association - Real Property Tax 
Estimated Amount to Recover in 2010 for 2009 Real Property Tax Shortfall: 

Annual 
2-Bedroom Lockoff - $125.28 
2-Bedroom Lockoff Deluxe - $172.63 
1-Bedroom - $105.70 

Bi-Annual 
2-Bedroom Lockoff - $62.64 
2-Bedroom Lockoff Deluxe - $86.31 
1-Bedroom - $52.85 

Estimated 2010 Real Property Tax Increase Over 2009 Budget: 

Annual	
2-Bedroom Lockoff - $263.57 
2-Bedroom Lockoff Deluxe - $363.18 
1-Bedroom - $222.38 

Bi-Annual 
2-Bedroom Lockoff - $131.78 
2-Bedroom Lockoff Deluxe - $181.59 
1-Bedroom - $111.19 

On a more positive note, we are happy to report that we have been successful in implementing several strategies for effecting energy utilization reductions. This, coupled with your efforts to conserve energy usage while vacationing at our resort and a 2009 reduction in energy rates, has resulted in a significant cost savings to the Association of approximately $1,772,634. 

We thank you for the opportunity to serve and will update you as these events continue to unfold. Should you have any questions, our Association Management team is available to assist you at 800-729-8246. 

Sincerely, 

Ocean Resort Master Association Board of Directors 

Johnathan Ho, President 
Gerald Bodzy, Vice President 
Craig McFarland, Treasurer 
Bruce McNish, Secretary 
Teri Castleberry, Director


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 9, 2009)

So what are your property taxes?  Are they about $1,000 for an annual week?   Am I reading this correctly?  You said they have tripled, then this says the amount is the shortfall.


----------



## nodge (Sep 9, 2009)

emuyshondt said:


> Ocean Resort Master Association Board of Directors
> 
> Johnathan Ho, President
> Gerald Bodzy, Vice President
> ...



Wow.  An SVO HOB that actually identified who they are!

If we crank-up the google machine, do you think we can find out if any of them have day jobs that involve spinning in their chairs in Orlando "working" in SVO's top management with titles like Vice President of Finance, VP of "Resort Operations", and Director of Residential Projects?

Does anyone have time to update Wikipedia with this new info?

-nodge


----------



## l2trade (Sep 9, 2009)

SVO HOB is supposed to be made up of owners, especially once the property is sold out.  If that is not the case as you suggest, I would hope knowledgeable owners (without such conflicts of interest) will run.  

We should be respectful to our fellow owners who make the sacrifice to be on the board.  Attend the annual board meetings and if the HOA is not doing a good job, please run yourself and/or vote them out.  I attended a meeting for SDO some time back and watched uncomfortably as some attendees directed their anger at the board.  Most of these complaints were really about Starwood sales tactics and/or SVN.  I want our HOA board to understand our complaints and represent all of us to Starwood.  I want them to be prudent with our money and property.  It will be really difficult for that to happen if nobody good wants to run.


----------



## Henry M. (Sep 9, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> So what are your property taxes?  Are they about $1,000 for an annual week?   Am I reading this correctly?  You said they have tripled, then this says the amount is the shortfall.



They say:

As a result of this change, the 2009/2010 real property taxes for our resort will increase by approximately $4,124,162 (from 2008/2009 real property taxes of $2,261,819 to 2009/2010 real property taxes of $6,385,981).

I think there are on the order of 1,000 units at WKORV but I don't know if those are lock-offs or total rooms (i.e. 500 lock-offs). If you assume 500 lock-offs, this means the taxes would be the order of $245/lock-off week.


----------



## LisaRex (Sep 9, 2009)

l2trade said:


> SVO HOB is supposed to be made up of owners, especially once the property is sold out.  If that is not the case as you suggest, I would hope knowledgeable owners (without such conflicts of interest) will run.



"Regular" folks have tried to run but were told that they had to pass an interview with the existing board.  Of course, they did not pass the interview.  SVN also controls the member lists and will not release them so that regular folks can campaign for the position.  

If SVO won't put your name on the ballot, and if they refuse to allow individuals to communicate with their fellow members, how is a homeowner to run for the board? 

When I received my ballot this year they didn't even list names of the people running, let alone their occupations and qualifications.  They simply stated that I could either vote for the entire board or just for the people who appeared in person.  That's it. No process to even write in a name. 

This communication was the first time we've ever seen where it lists an actual name and title so that we could even contact an individual with a concern.   As you can imagine, the conflict of interest with SVO controlling the HOA board is a continuing source of contention here on Tug.  

I don't know whether the HOA runs a tight ship or not.  It's difficult to remain open-minded when you feel that there's not just a veil of secrecy but a deliberate campaign to keep owners completely in the dark.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 9, 2009)

LisaRex said:


> "Regular" folks have tried to run but were told that they had to pass an interview with the existing board.  Of course, they did not pass the interview.  SVN also controls the member lists and will not release them so that regular folks can campaign for the position.



yikes!  i didn't know that folks were being excluded.  i am now looking at last year's proxy and we were asked to pick 2 out of 3 names.  i thought this was due to owner apathy.


----------



## nodge (Sep 9, 2009)

emuyshondt said:


> Ocean Resort Master Association Board of Directors
> 
> Johnathan Ho, President
> Gerald Bodzy, Vice President
> ...



Can anyone work their magic to determine if any of these 5 members of the WKORV/WKORVN "home OWNERS" board actually own at WKORV or WKORVN?

This link to Hawaii deed recordals suggests that Bodzy and McFarland are owners and the rest are not, but I may just be entering the info wrong or they may hold ownership under another name/entity.  

Soooo . . . . let's do the math.  Of the 5 members comprising the WKORV/N homeowners board, only 2 of those members are actually owners, who also happen to be the only two members who are NOT SVO executives.  Hmmmm. I'm guessing that it only takes a majority vote to get things done on this board.  If so, these two "owners"/"non-SVO execs" have about as much voting power as the potted plants in the room during the meetings.  Another way to say it is that a controlling majority of members of this "homeowners" board are in fact non-owners who all work for the same company, that just happens to derive millions upon million of dollars in revenue through "management" and other contracts entered into by this board on behalf of the homeowners.

Does anyone have a draft update for Wikipedia yet?

-nodge


----------



## LisaRex (Sep 9, 2009)

Nodge, I searched my name under your link and nothing showed up.


----------



## nodge (Sep 9, 2009)

LisaRex said:


> Nodge, I searched my name under your link and nothing showed up.



Hi LisaRex!

Did you change the "Search Type" to "Grantee" before entering your name in the text fields?

-nodge


----------



## LisaRex (Sep 9, 2009)

nodge said:


> Hi LisaRex!  Did you change the "Search Type" to "Grantee" before entering your name in the text fields?



Not until now and, sure enough, I show up!


----------



## Troopers (Sep 9, 2009)

Westin5Star said:


> Maybe Hyatt is not the best solution but my point was someone else could do it much better for much less.  I pay about $9,000 per year in MF but I really don't care about the cost as much as I do the quality and service.    For the cost that we are paying in MF, we should be able to get Ritz-style quality and service.  The problem with Starwood is that we are paying for much more than we are getting!
> 
> I am concerned with online reservations, better quality food, and would prefer daily cleaning included with my weeks while Starwood is rationing dishsoap.  I knew most of this going in to my purchases but I am hoped (am hoping) for improvements.  I guess Starwood and I are just not on the same page.
> 
> ...




I get what you're saying and I'm with you.  I also don't really care about cost (to some extent) as I do about service/quality.  I have a pretty nice pad at home and want something just as nice, if not nicer, when I'm vacationing.  The problem is....I don't think someone else could do better for less.  Marriott, Hyatt or Hilton do it for less dollars but I don't think they are as consistently good as Starwood is (specifically Westins).  Ritz, 4 Seasons or Mandarin can definitely do it much better but also for much more dollars...they will be far above your $9k for 5 wks (?).  I will say that my opinion is based on my experience with the hotel arms of these companies.

I too would appreciate online ressies....not that it matters, has a TS company successfully implemented online ressies?  I hear Marriott's is a joke.  DVC is not real time so it's useless.  I'm a definitely a food snob so I want better food too!


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 10, 2009)

How upsetting to be away from TUG for a few days and find that I have been accused of lying.  Let me clear the record.  I completed an advanced search (which allows for more than 100 results) and posted the results in post 29.  An intelligent reader, as I firmly believe TUGers are, would recognize that I would not have deliberately misled and then invited folks to check on their own.  My search did not show actions in 2009 and I stated in post 122 that I stood corrected.  

Regarding the condescending attitude in “Certainly you realize that on the Florida web site where you find the liens, you enter time period parameters to do the searches.” Certainly you could have also noticed that you are capable of requesting more than the default 100 results and would have seen my claim regarding apx. 250 liens to be accurate.  I have no explanation as to why my results did not show actions in 2009 but under no circumstances did I intend to mislead tuggers.

Apparently, a desire to hold a HOA accountable and Starwood responsible for their actions infuriates some and for some reason, that is misconstrued to be total unhappiness with SVO.  That is not the case for me.  Maybe it is for some but I believe that if you stop caring – that is the time to leave not when you are doing your best to make a system better.  Yes I am absolutely frustrated with Starwood.  When I travelled frequently, Westin was my chain of choice.  However, I predicted and can see the disturbing changes to the Starwood brands after they brought in Fritz.  To my knowledge, they are the only major hotel system with a CEO that has no background in the hospitality industry.  Maybe some will assume that my posts at TUG are my only communication/actions to improve the system but they would be wrong.

Addressing the financial reporting, basic accounting principles require accurate reporting.  As I have never received a statement from my HOA displaying rental income (which would have to be reported as a separate line from mf) my statement that the HOA’s have not collected rental income stands.  If however, the HOA’s are receiving this income but not accurately reporting same, then we need to obtain a new accounting firm.  I have not claimed Starwood received 50% of our mf.  I have stated, and posted the amounts, that apx. 40% of our mf goes to management and Starwood.  gregb, just to set the record straight, post 29: “This accounts for 40% of the expenses of operating Bella - I do not think cutting back on the dish soap would have the same impact as reducing some of the above.” Jarta, I believe that the amount is unwarranted but you may disagree.

Jarta, I have never thought of you as a Starwood employee but rather as a former HOA(non Starwood) board member, someone who connected too closely to my/our complaints of Starwood HOA’s.  However, this quote “Keep trying to take over management of Starwood and being sullen because your suggestions, for the most part, are ignored.” really has me re-evaluating whether my previous comment is accurate.  It really is too in line with management philosophy.

nodge as usual, your detective work indicates what we all know (well maybe all of us but a few) – Starwood controls the HOA’s.


----------



## Troopers (Sep 11, 2009)

calgarygary said:


> Apparently, a desire to hold a HOA accountable and Starwood responsible for their actions infuriates some and for some reason, that is misconstrued to be total unhappiness with SVO.  That is not the case for me.  Maybe it is for some but I believe that if you stop caring – that is the time to leave not when you are doing your best to make a system better.  Yes I am absolutely frustrated with Starwood.  When I travelled frequently, Westin was my chain of choice.  However, I predicted and can see the disturbing changes to the Starwood brands after they brought in Fritz.  To my knowledge, they are the only major hotel system with a CEO that has no background in the hospitality industry.  Maybe some will assume that my posts at TUG are my only communication/actions to improve the system but they would be wrong.



As I posted sometime ago, I applaud you and others for efforts to correct what's wrong.  My available time is directed towards items of greater importance (to me).  For me, it's ONLY a timeshare...that's all it is...and yes, I did pay hard earned thousand of dollars for it but, it's still a timeshare.

Believe me, I don't have any issue with your (or others) desire for what's rightfully ours.  My complaint is HOW the desire is conducted here on TUG.  The attacks are constant and relentless, and often times unwarranted and untrue.  We have a new sticky on how to complain to Starwood.  Our moderator's signature contains a statement with a fairly strong negative statement about Starwood.

IMHO.


----------



## nodge (Sep 11, 2009)

Troopers said:


> Believe me, I don't have any issue with your (or others) desire for what's rightfully ours.  My complaint is HOW the desire is conducted here on TUG.  The attacks are constant and relentless . . ..



Hi Troopers,

If you want to read good things about SVO you need only click here or here or here or here.  Make sure to check out the “Company News” folder on the front page of this month’s MSC.  Its current lead article is titled “Starwood Vacation Ownership Announces Plan for Third Maui Resort.”   Boy that’ll be great when that opens in the “fall 2011.”

I think we’ve got a chicken/egg thing going here on TUG with respect to SVO.  SVO does something bad or fails to tell us that it did something bad, and we all (or at least some of us) get mad when we find out about the actual bad act or the fact that SVO never told us about its bad act.  We (well at least some of us) then post the information about SVO’s bad act and its failure to tell us about its bad act to more-or-less warn people that everything that they read here, here, here and here isn’t necessarily so (and possibly even shame the numbnuts running the show at SVO into shaping up).  For example, WE reported here on TUG that the 3rd SVO Maui project (Titled NANEA by SVO, which is apparently an acronym for "Near A Noxious Excrement Aroma" because of its location across the street from west Maui's main sewage treatment plant), the very same new Maui project that SVO is currently touting as its lead article in the “company news” section of THIS MONTH’S MSC, was actually cancelled about a year ago.   

So, rather than discuss the “constant and relentless” bad acts SVO (aka “the chicken” or is it “the egg?”) did/does, and what can be done to prevent it from doing them in the future, some of us here focus on the messengers (aka “the egg” or are we “the chicken?” . . . I get so confused with my analogies sometimes) and ultimately conclude that we’re just too negative towards SVO.  

Believe me, many of us, including me, would love to report here on TUG information to suggest that SVO has actually done something good, or at least nice, for us owners.  Unfortunately, I’ve been waiting for years for any evidence of that.  So how about this novel idea SVO and fellow Tuggers . . . 

If SVO starts doing right by us owners, we’ll start reporting favorably about SVO’s FAVORABLE actions towards us.   

Otherwise, Google is only a mouse click away baby, and we (well at least some of us here) are not afraid to use it.

You on board with this plan Philyphan?

-nodge


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 11, 2009)

I want to subscribe to Nodge's Twitter updates on SVO.


----------



## Captron (Sep 12, 2009)

Just got the same message from Fountains II at SVR BY LETTER. (that is right USPS - hard copy) I am disappointed that this BOD also decided to include the veiled threat. :ignore::annoyed:  OH WELL.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 12, 2009)

Troopers said:


> Believe me, I don't have any issue with your (or others) desire for what's rightfully ours.  My complaint is HOW the desire is conducted here on TUG.  The attacks are constant and relentless, and often times unwarranted and untrue.  We have a new sticky on how to complain to Starwood.  Our moderator's signature contains a statement with a fairly strong negative statement about Starwood.
> 
> IMHO.



I really don't understand posts like this?  What is your _motivation_ for not wanting to read negative posts about Starwood?  Do the negative posts make you regret the money you've spent on Starwood TS's?  (Don't feel like the Lone Ranger!)  Do you need our validation of the TS choices you've made?  And if it bothers you so much, why keep reading?  Honestly, I don't get it...


----------



## Henry M. (Sep 12, 2009)

Denise:

I think the issue is that if you read this board, Starwood is portrayed as almost evil and always working against owners. While there are issues, reading here it would seem like they don't do anything right. Even when MAui raises their taxes it results in Starwood somehow not doing their job in fighting it, without any real data to show that. The overall tone is more negative than it really needs to be. 

While there are things that need to be improved, the overall Starwood program is actually pretty good, and I, for one, am generally happy with them. Anything they've done about streamlining II reservations or closing loopholes for getting benefits without buying from the developer isn't really all that awful for the average user.

It's not the valid complaints that are at issue, but rather the overall approach to portraying Starwood in such a poor light without any counterbalancing good comments that gets old after a while.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 12, 2009)

emuyshondt said:


> It's not the valid complaints that are at issue, but rather the overall approach to portraying Starwood in such a poor light without any counterbalancing good comments that gets old after a while.



When owners post reviews of the properties and their vacations, most of the responses are very positive.

But when you discuss Starwood management, *what good news is there? * Honestly, what was the last positive thing that came out of Starwood for owners?  If you know something, please post it so we can discuss it!  I'd love to hear something good about Starwood management!


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 12, 2009)

*Different Timeshare Comapny, Similar Refrain.  So It Goes.*




DeniseM said:


> When owners post reviews of the properties and their vacations, most of the responses are very positive.
> 
> But when you discuss Starwood management, *what good news is there? * Honestly, what was the last positive thing that came out of Starwood for owners?  If you know something, please post it so we can discuss it!  I'd love to hear something good about Starwood management!


For some reason I can't quite put my finger on, this reminds me of the oft-reported situation with WestGate -- nice timeshare resorts, not-so-nice timeshare company. 

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


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 12, 2009)

> emuyshondt
> 
> Anything they've done about streamlining II reservations or closing loopholes for getting benefits without buying from the developer isn't really all that awful for the average user.



I'm not really sure what you're above statement is referring to......Owners of Starwood who have not purchased from the developer are not getting any unwarranted benefits that I am aware of. The benefit of purchasing from Starwood is the StarOptions program, and we are not allowed to participate in that program. 

What "loopholes" are you talking about.......When non-SVN owners have reserved a week during their season, and deposited it into II, they were exercising their deeded right to do exactly that, not taking advantage of a "loophole." The fact that Starwood has controlled what weeks have been deposited into II for SVN owners may be unfortunate for those owners, but has no baring on the rights of non-SVN owners.

If there were in fact benefits, and loopholes for non-SVN owners, I must have missed them.


----------



## barndweller (Sep 12, 2009)

emuyshondt said 





> I think the issue is that if you read this board, Starwood is portrayed as almost evil and always working against owners. While there are issues, reading here it would seem like they don't do anything right.



I think you are interpreting the complaints voiced here wrong. Most owners of Sheraton and Westin developed resorts are very happy with the developments. Members of the Starwood network are almost unanimously happy with the perks afforded them as members. Reviews of Starwood managed resorts are glowing for the most part.

What I read here is an extreme dissatisfaction with Starwood as a management company. I own at a resort that was not developed by Sheraton but has a management contract, Villas of Cave Creek. My MF have risen by leaps & bounds. So far I am happy with the staffing, the condition and the continued upkeep at my resort. But I am not pleased to learn that Starwood rents unreserved units at my sold out resort and keeps all the proceeds. I am not happy that Starwood can deposit any week they choose when I deposit my use time at II for exchange. As an owner, I do not remember ever voting to allow them to do this. My HOA never mentioned it in any board meeting minutes. How did they (Starwood) gain this ability without any input from me as an owner at my resort? 

It is the management of our resorts we are complaining about not the Starwood Developements or the resorts themselves. This is a big issue at many resorts. Celebrity is a sleezy management company that sucks the money off the top and leaves the owners in a position where all they can do is hire attorneys and file suit. We simply want to nip this in the bud before Starwood turns into another Celebrity.


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 12, 2009)

I know I posted a primarily positive review of HRA after visiting there last year.  After staying at VV in 2002, and long before I owned, I encouraged many people on the disboards to stay at the resort as our experience for the most part was great.

However, Starwood lurkers, I know you are out there, - how does it feel to have a company such as Starwood being compared to Westgate & Celebrity. 

Maybe I will be proven to be wrong with my concerns.  Maybe Starwood will give the transparency to the HOA & budgets and we will come to realize that rental income was mistakenly put into mf, that mgt. fees are reasonable, that Starwood does not control the HOA's.  To tell you the truth, I hope that I was wrong.  But any company that thinks the way to control costs is to eliminate the plastic bag in washroom garbage cans (have we thought about what goes into those cans?) is moving towards an experience that may not be comparable to what we have come to expect and those Westgate/Celebrity management comparisons may not be far off the mark.


----------



## Henry M. (Sep 13, 2009)

ArtsieAng said:


> I'm not really sure what you're above statement is referring to......



The loopholes are regarding requalifications and otherwise achieving the lowest cost of entry into the system. They are not bad things and its fine that people use them, but Starwood shouldn't be faulted when they decide to implement a new policy that perhaps prevents someone from using a prior loophole. 

The II issue isn't a loophole. It appears Starwood and II are trying to streamline the reservation process. Any change will result in some people losing an advantage while others may gain one. I don't think it is necessarily all bad as others have argued in other threads. There is a rationale behind it. In any case, it is not clear whether that was something started by Starwood, by II or a combination of both and it is not "evil Starwood" sticking it to owners again.

I'm not a Starwood apologist and there are things that could be done better. I don't like the maintenance fee increases either and it would be good to have more owner representation on the boards - although that could be a double edged sword if some of the people here got on it  There is no way I'd want my resorts to leave the Starwood system or to fire Starwood as the management company. I'd rather work with them to fix the issues that are wrong. I just don't think taking a hammer to their head is really going to put them in a mood to cooperate. Yes, /s

The issue with TUG is that even when someone tries to say something nice, there is a vocal group here that does its best to shine the worst possible light on Starwood management. I enjoy nodge's funny posts and posts where real facts are included. I think it is good to find out that taxes are increasing or that a property is having a special assessment. It would also be good to point out specific abuses or negligence by an individual board members when there are facts to substantiate them. The problem is when a witch-hunt is started without hard facts to drive the discussion. Many here seem to have a predisposition to take any item and attribute ill intentions to it without understanding all the background behind a decision.

Yes, Starwood is hired help when it comes to managing the resorts, but hired help should still be treated with respect and should not be denigrated at every opportunity.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 13, 2009)

> emuyshondt
> 
> The problem is when a witch-hunt is started without hard facts to drive the discussion. Many here seem to have a predisposition to take any item and attribute ill intentions to it without understanding all the background behind a decision.





> The issue with TUG is that even when someone tries to say something nice, there is a vocal group here that does its best to shine the worst possible light on Starwood management.



I can only speak for myself, but I can honestly say that I can't remember ever saying anything negative about Starwood before the implementation of the this new system. I read through the various threads, and often do not post. 

True, we may not have all the facts, but we certainly have enough hard facts to be quite concerned, and disillusioned. You need only to look at your II account to confirm that. Also, many of us have spoken to Starwood management, and have had our worst fears confirmed.

Obviously, not every Starwood owner is being equally effected by the change. Perhaps some feel the change is to their advantage, so they don't mind Starwood over-stepping their authority. If that is the case, I would tend to disagree with them, because giving up your deeded rights could set a president for Starwood to make changes without consent, any time they wish. Just because the changes they make today do not hurt you, that doesn't mean that the changes they make tomorrow will not.


----------



## Troopers (Sep 14, 2009)

nodge said:


> Hi Troopers,
> 
> If you want to read good things about SVO you need only click here or here or here or here.  Make sure to check out the “Company News” folder on the front page of this month’s MSC.  Its current lead article is titled “Starwood Vacation Ownership Announces Plan for Third Maui Resort.”   Boy that’ll be great when that opens in the “fall 2011.”
> 
> ...



Nodge,

I’m not looking to read nice things about SVO.  I’m looking for fair and objective comments, both the good and the bad.

I don’t there’s a chicken/egg thing going on here.

There’s no question that SVO has done some legitimate “bad acts”, maybe a half a dozen or so…certainly not “constant and relentless” number of “bad acts”.  I suppose you might consider trivial topics like oranges, luggage tags, advertisement of 3rd SVO Maui project and the like deserving of similar press.  I don’t.

It’s not my intention to shoot the messengers (my apologizes if it came across that way)…my issue is with HOW the message is being portrayed.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for SVO to do something favorable.


----------



## Troopers (Sep 14, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> I really don't understand posts like this?  What is your _motivation_ for not wanting to read negative posts about Starwood?  Do the negative posts make you regret the money you've spent on Starwood TS's?  (Don't feel like the Lone Ranger!)  Do you need our validation of the TS choices you've made?  And if it bothers you so much, why keep reading?  Honestly, I don't get it...



What’s makes you think that I don’t want to read negative posts about Starwood?  That’s just not true.  I don’t have any regrets nor do I need your validation.

Sigh…I don’t know how to say it differently…my issue is with HOW some Tuggers conclude (by default) that SVO is the evil empire.

Can I ask you what your motivation is on the how to complain sticky?  Why not bury it within the Owner Resources like all the other useful information?  Also, what’s the point of your signature line?  I see that the other boards and moderators lack this.

As to why I keep reading…see here.  And it still remains true today.  However, if there was a similar site with as much knowledge as TUG, I’d leave.  

I’m glad you still own your SW weeks because if you sold them all, I suppose we might have a new moderator.


----------



## vistana101 (Sep 14, 2009)

*vistana villages*

I got an email from vv and I am not happy at all.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 14, 2009)

Troopers said:


> What’s makes you think that I don’t want to read negative posts about Starwood?  That’s just not true.  I don’t have any regrets nor do I need your validation.
> 
> Sigh…I don’t know how to say it differently…my issue is with HOW some Tuggers conclude (by default) that SVO is the evil empire.



I think Starwood sets themselves up for this perception by* intentionally keeping owners in the dark*.  If they make changes that owners perceive as negative AND fail to communicate with owners about it - what else are we to think?  If they feel we are getting the wrong message, or not getting the message, then WHY don't they set the record straight???



> Can I ask you what your motivation is on the how to complain sticky?



Sure - another Tugger has been in contact with Starwood Management and *a Starwood Director asked him to provide the info. to us.* The TUG member asked me to make it a sticky, and I was glad to do it.  (BTW - That info. is in the sticky.)



> Why not bury it within the Owner Resources like all the other useful information?



It is a sticky, because it is brand new info. - eventually, it will move to Owner Resources - when it's not such a hot topic.



> Also, what’s the point of your signature line?  I see that the other boards and moderators lack this.



I didn't write it - Tugger, Pit, did but I like the quote - it sums up how I feel about Starwood's heavy handed management stye.  Moderators are bound by the same rules that members are - we are free to express our opinions as long as we don't violate the TUG rules. You apparently haven't seen Moderator Timeos2's Sig line or his posts about II and Westgate.  



> *Timeos2
> 
> "Wastegate Resorts - When you want to deal with the worst, we're the best!"
> 
> And don't forget their friends at II - "Where Quality is a slogan"*





> As to why I keep reading…see here.  And it still remains true today.  However, if there was a similar site with as much knowledge as TUG, I’d leave.
> 
> I’m glad you still own your SW weeks because if you sold them all, I suppose we might have a new moderator.



Brian is always on the lookout for volunteers if you are interested!


----------



## Captron (Sep 15, 2009)

I got the letter from the Cascades BOD last night and it did include the "veiled threat" comment. I think that is all of them now for me, two by email and two by snail mail.


----------



## tborr123 (Sep 24, 2009)

*Westin Mission Hills Letter*

Got a letter from the Board of WMH, saying that owners have been slow in paying MFs, resulting in a cash flow problem, and asking owners to pay MFs early (October) for next year. Only thing is, I don't own at WMH. My TS is at Kierland (in process of selling) and WKORV. I assume this was an error in mailing by *wood corporate.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 25, 2009)

Yeah - a bunch of resorts sent out that letter.  Great that they don't know where you own!   

You should go to www.mystarcentral.com and check your Acct. just to be sure...


----------



## LisaRex (Sep 25, 2009)

I got the WMH letter, too, and I don't own there.  

Oops!


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 25, 2009)

Glad to see they're keeping postage costs to a minimum in these troubled times.


----------

