# Elvis themed casino takes step forward



## cluemeister (Mar 26, 2008)

According to vegastodayandtomorrow.com, the developers of the Elvis themed resort that is planned on the strip (in front of Polo Towers) filed some papers today to start their planning process.

In addition to the question "will it ever be built?", I am wondering if the deeded height restrictions of the Hawaiian Marketplace property will result in a lower building height that preserves Polo Towers views?  Or will these restrictions be removed?  

I would like to see the height restriction on that property in writing, on a deed somewhere.  Anyone ever seen it?  Doug, this means you.


----------



## ricoba (Mar 26, 2008)

I am not Doug, but my guess is that a "fantasy themed" casino, just won't happen.  The theme phase in Vegas has probably ended.  

Vegas now is trying to go more for the cosmopolitan/upscale/urban/chic design and crowd.  In a way Vegas is trying to become the new Sunset Strip.  In my opinion the days of pirates, lions and castles are probably over.


----------



## dhole (Mar 27, 2008)

*All the details of the Elvis Resort.*

All the details of the proposed Elvis themed resort including their strategy with respect to the height restrictions at the Hawaaian Marketplace can be found athttp://www.fxree.com/  If you read the 10-K document page 5 you will find that they intend to build at least 160 feet high in front of Polo and have a strategy that will NOT require the consent of the owners of Polo but can be made in a direct deal with the "developer" of Polo.  This kind of sounds like the deal that was made for Summer Bay by Harrah's which also did not require owner agreement.  They have no height restrictions in front of Chateau and only some minor restrictions with respect to roads and access.  This biggest challenge I see is the financing for this development as the 10-K states that they do not have the equity to fund this construction on their own to build this and will need outside investors.  With the number of projects in process in Vegas and some of them faltering (Cosmopolitan), I wonder when if ever this will actually happen.


----------



## Fern Modena (Mar 27, 2008)

I wouldn't bet the farm on it happening...

Fern


----------



## spatenfloot (Mar 27, 2008)

dhole said:


> This kind of sounds like the deal that was made for Summer Bay by Harrah's which also did not require owner agreement.



The Summer Bay exchange DID require owner agreement. A significant majority had to agree to exchange their deeds in order for it to happen.


----------



## cluemeister (Mar 27, 2008)

dhole said:


> If you read the 10-K document page 5 you will find that they intend to build at least 160 feet high in front of Polo and have a strategy that will NOT require the consent of the owners of Polo but can be made in a direct deal with the "developer" of Polo.



My unit's on the 18th floor.  I wonder if I'll be peeking out over the top of a gigantic hip swaying Elvis.


----------



## cluemeister (Mar 27, 2008)

*From the filing:*

There are several parcels referenced in the filing.  Parcel three is the parcel directly in front of Polo Towers, also known as the Hawaiian Marketplace.

"The Parcel 3 height restrictions permit unlimited construction up to 41 feet and prohibit all construction above 160 feet. Improvements between 41 feet and 80 feet are permitted upon the payment of an amount of up to $2 million to buy timeshare interests held in the west-facing units located on the 4 th to 8 th floors of the Polo Towers building, a building located immediately to the east of Parcel 3, whose west-facing (only) view corridor (the Las Vegas Boulevard side) may be obstructed. If we choose to build above 80 feet and up to a maximum of 160 feet, the purchase of timeshare interests would also be required, but without limitation as to the aggregate cost. In either case, the purchase price for a timeshare unit would be basically the cost to construct a similar timeshare unit in another building. In either case, the obligation to purchase arises only if a timeshare owner demands of the Polo Towers developer that it repurchase the interest because of the obstruction of the view caused by our improvements. The current plans provide for the height of the improvements affected by the limitation on Parcel 3 to reach up to 160 feet. Based on such plans, we will need to estimate the cost of the purchase obligation, but we have not yet done so.
     The height restrictions do not affect improvements constructed anywhere on the parcels other than Parcel 3, which is directly West of the Polo Towers building. *All these restrictions can be modified or terminated if agreed to by developers of the Polo Towers, without any required consent of the timeshare owners or any condominium or homeowners’ association. *Although some discussions regarding the lifting or modification of such restrictions have taken place, there is no assurance that they will be lifted or modified and, if so, at what cost."

That bolded sentence (emphasis mine) reads like the Cosmopolitan scenario playing out.  Sounds like they can build above 160 feet by paying Cloobeck money without compensating timeshare owners.  Anybody else read it differently?


----------



## dougp26364 (Mar 28, 2008)

Never mind. I wrote my responce before reading through the entire article. 

Still, Polo Towers is being marketed again with the buyout of Sunterra. I'll have to look at our original documents but, as I recall the view was guarenteed in writing. I can tell you what I was told but what you're told means squat. I'm also not certain I'd trust the filings of an company intent on getting financing for it's project. Sometimes the truth gets stretched just a bit.

Like Fern, I wouldn't bet the farm on this one. Many things are announced but few see the light of day. Recently Crown Las Vegas announced the cancellation of their big tower on the north end of Vegas (old Wet N Wild site).

And in the FWIW column, this is one more reason that there is value in putting Polo Towers units into the DRI points program. As of now my exchange value is set with the number of points given to our units. View or no view those THE Club points have the same value with I.I. no matter what happens. Only if DRI elects to somehow reduce the number of club points would I suffer a loss in exchange power. I converted as a way to protect our interests as much as could be done.


----------



## roadtriper (Mar 28, 2008)

*Elvis Has left the Building*

Not an owner at PT  but here is my .02  
A. the piece of Real Estate that the Hawiian Marketplace sits on is Valuable and being wasted by it's current use. 
B. somebody's going to develop it into something, but I agree the theemed thing has died. and no disrespect to the "King"  they have missed the "Elvis" thing by a couple of decades.  
C. if there is a clause that let's someone pay 2 Million bucks  to raise the hight restriction from 40 feet to 160 feet? Consider it done!  2 mil on the front side of a planned project in that neighborhood is chump change. 
D. I would think that the property would have the highest value to Polo Towers, not sure how it could work... but it would give PT a true "Strip" address ???     one only needs to look across the street to the Jockey Club, oh, wait... you can't see the jockey club anymore!  
again just my .02, hope I didn't step on anyone's Blue Suede Shoes  RT


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 28, 2008)

*I raise you 20 floors for your 10*

I would be VERY worried about what will go in that Hawaiian Marketplace space if there is any type of method to buy out the height restrictions.  While a giant Elvis may never occupy the space at some point someone is going to develop it and want to go up to minimize costs.  If the process exists to allow it you can bet it will be exercised. I doubt the owners would have any say as they seem to lack control at most timeshare developments still under developer management.  Agreements have a way of been reworked when required.  Money talks.  Views stand a good chance of going by the board in that case.


----------



## JeffW (Mar 28, 2008)

While the location does seem ideal (right on the Strip), isn't it (I'm referring just to the Hawaiian Marketplace) too small to build anything reasonable?   There's some parking underground (but that was supposed to be just for PT), access driving in from the strip is ridiculous, and I'm not even sure it has access to Harmon or Koval.  Plus, who is building small, boutique casinos?  Everything is Vegas is large, large, large.  Just because there is property on the Strip doesn't mean it's suitable for a casino.

Jeff


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 28, 2008)

JeffW said:


> While the location does seem ideal (right on the Strip), isn't it (I'm referring just to the Hawaiian Marketplace) too small to build anything reasonable?   There's some parking underground (but that was supposed to be just for PT), access driving in from the strip is ridiculous, and I'm not even sure it has access to Harmon or Koval.  Plus, who is building small, boutique casinos?  Everything is Vegas is large, large, large.  Just because there is property on the Strip doesn't mean it's suitable for a casino.
> 
> Jeff



The developers are looking to link the properties from the Harley Davidson and the Travel Lodge to the Walgreens. The Hawaiian Marketplace is in the middle thus the reason that they would want to include it. By itself it is way too small - combined with the other properties it could be a medium sized resort/casino. But they would want to build up I'm sure. It's too bad the Marketplace property isn't under Polo owners control but apparently it isn't. So it appears to be in play. Depending on anything built there staying at 2-4 stories may be wishful thinking.  As the poor Jockey Club shows when the big guys want to build up and around they will.  As I said money talks and existing properties don't generate it anywhere near as well new construction does.   Who do you think gets the edge?  Views don't hold much value in $$$  to the developer / city after the units are sold. It not a strong position to be in arguing that "my view is going away".


----------



## Mydogs2big (Mar 29, 2008)

Too bad for those that bought PT entirely for the city lights.

First they took away the city scape lounge and now it looks like there might not even be a strip view soon.

A million $$ view is seldom worth paying for.  I would think that there would be enough owners screaming FOUL that Mr Cloobeck would either want to play nice with the view owners or the city will punish the new builders with lots of issues in the building process along the way.

Of course I'm from Portland, where the tenants and beneficiaries are top priority and a landlord, Mgmt Co, or Developer had better show their good faith intentions before being approved to do anything.


----------



## dougp26364 (Mar 29, 2008)

One has to always keep in mind that, unless you're right on the piece of property that has the view, something will eventually be built in front of you blocking the view. Properties that are near beach front but not beach front find this out on a regular basis when a new high rise blocks their view. 

What upsets me is, when we purchased our unit back in 1998, DRI did actually own that piece of land and the small shopping center on it was called Polo Plaza. At the time I thought I was buying a piece of property that would never have it's view blocked and, it the timeshare were sold that way (including the view from the closed owners lounge). Shortly after buying our unit I found out that the land had been sold and PT's didn't have control. But, there was the height restrictions and the property access that was supposedly guarenteed. 

Now just because another developer might make a claim that the height restriction can be bought out doesn't necessarily make me believe that it's true. In Vegas, there's a LOT of things said that aren't exactly accurate. 

Having said that Polo Towers owners are going to eventually face some sort of decision when it comes to the land in front of them. Whether that decision is in the hands of the owners or Stephen Cloobeck I'm not 100% certain. I paid the membership fee for THE Club with hopes of protecting my investment as far as exchanging. PT's was initially purchased to use but, we found accomadations we like better. So PT's became expendable either to sell or to hold for exchange purposes. 

At the moment I'm not to worried but I do see a JC/Cosmopolitan situation heading PT's way somewhere in the future. I can see the attraction of being attached directly to a resort/casino like Westgate's Planet Hollywood is right now. But to retrofit PT's into a new resort casino vs the way Planet Hollywood has done it will present the same problems JC is having. 

Only time will tell. For now I'm about as positive as anyone could be that this deal won't get done. 

On a side note, DRI was contemplating building a new timeshare attached to the expansion of the Hard Rock casino. I wonder if the thought has crossed DRI's mind to offer the PT's owners and exchange of units into the new proprety giving up their rights at Polo Towers? By doing this DRI could regain full ownership of Polo Towers, sell off the land for a profit and still provide the owners with a brand new unit. Sort of ala Summer Bay Resorts. Now this I could see hitting the table at some point and having a favorable reaction. Unfortunately, many PT's owners have just paid for a large SA with the units being upgraded. Timing might not be perfect right now but, like I said I don't think Elvis is going to fly.


----------



## MAZxxx (Apr 13, 2008)

*Polo Towers Las Vegas - Any Others Owners Been Contacted?*

I am an owner in tower 1 of the Polo Tower Suites (my unit is 16th floor, centre front facing the strip) and I have recently received an e-mail from Diamond International saying they are interested in purchasing my ownership interest.  I was wondering if any other owners have received the same e-mail?

I realise that Diamond Resorts are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts so does anyone know the reason they are doing this?   I know that there is a lot planned for the land currently holding the Hawaiian Marketplace at the front and was thinking that it is probably linked to that in some way.

I don't know what type of offer they are going to make but I may decide to sell if the price is right.  I would greatly appreciate any information anyone might have, either on the repurchase offer from Diamond or any updates on the plans for the land fronting the towers.


----------



## cluemeister (Apr 13, 2008)

*Not me yet*

I'm on the 18th floor tower one facing the strip, and I have not received any email or any other communication from Polo Towers.


----------



## MAZxxx (Apr 13, 2008)

*Polo Towers Las Vegas - Repurchase Opportunity*

It does say on the e-mail that they are "seeking a limited number of intervals" and that "the opportunity is available for a limited amount of time" so I will post an update when I get a response from Diamond International.


----------



## MAZxxx (Apr 15, 2008)

*Any Other Offers To Polo Towers Owners?*

I've just been on the phone to Diamond following their 'offer to repurchase' e-mail and they have offered me $7000 plus closing costs to buy out my ownership interest in my 2 bedroom suite (week 40).  I'm not going to sell for this price as I think my centre strip view and high floor location is worth more than this to us.  

Can anyone advise me if this is a fair price or not?   I'm from the U.K. and not familiar with U.S. timeshare resales so any info you've got would be of help.

Also, has anyone else been made an offer?


----------

