# Point at Poipu Updates



## Fisch (Oct 10, 2012)

As requested.
Building Four is being worked on until end of the year.  When sitting at the pool you can only occasionally here some banging(My neighbors are louder at home while remodeling a room).  We can't hear anything in our room.  They have a posting of the expected noise level for that day in the lobby.  It has been on High most days.  Not a problem though.

Some other updates: From Manager Meeting with Jamie Shigeta.

All rooms now have HD Widescreen TV's with HD cable.  All rooms have FREE WiFi, they give you a separate log-in for each device you have. These two items where the biggest requests from owners.

Sheers and Drapes are currently being replaced, as are the washer/dryer and microwaves.
Faucets being replaced in Kitchens and bathrooms.
New chairs in living room replaced those ugly beat up ones.  
They will be replacing the dining room table and chairs.  All end tables to be replaced.
All Windows being replaced.
She also said there was an 8% default rate this year.  The Special Assessment planned for 10%. ( They have 3% default every year)

The resort looks fantastic.


----------



## daventrina (Oct 11, 2012)

Thanks for the update.
It's nice to know that our $$$ is a actually going where it is supposed to.


----------



## artringwald (Oct 11, 2012)

Fisch said:


> She also said there was an 8% default rate this year.  The Special Assessment planned for 10%. ( They have 3% default every year)



That's really good news.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 11, 2012)

I didn't take the time to do a thorough walk-around of the property when we were there in August, but I did look closely at several areas when I had a chance.

One thing, that I should have photographed just to show it, was some very obvious subsurface water damage on the side of Building 8 that faces Building 9.  The were huge rectangular stains that followed the seams in the finish, starting at the second level and going up from there.  It was pretty dramatic. It was not there in August of 2011. 

There were several other spots, all on buildings close to the ocean, where I looked for and observed bubbling of the sheathing.  I don't recall the locations, but I think one spot was on the wall on the opposite side of building 8, facing the pool.

I came away persuaded that there really was a problem, particularly after seeing that staining on building 8.


----------



## Dollie (Oct 11, 2012)

*Pictures*

For those of you who have a logon to the HOA website, there are some pictures of what is going on.  On the DiamondResortsHOA website for The Point at Poipu, select Water Intrusion Project.  Then under Photos select Steptember 2012 Pictures.


----------



## artringwald (Oct 11, 2012)

Dollie said:


> For those of you who have a logon to the HOA website, there are some pictures of what is going on.  On the DiamondResortsHOA website for The Point at Poipu, select Water Intrusion Project.  Then under Photos select Steptember 2012 Pictures.



Thanks for the tip. I would be nice if they emailed us when there were updates.


----------



## wilma (Oct 12, 2012)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I didn't take the time to do a thorough walk-around of the property when we were there in August, but I did look closely at several areas when I had a chance.
> 
> One thing, that I should have photographed just to show it, was some very obvious subsurface water damage on the side of Building 8 that faces Building 9.  The were huge rectangular stains that followed the seams in the finish, starting at the second level and going up from there.  It was pretty dramatic. It was not there in August of 2011.
> 
> ...



A $65 million problem? Few have suggested there wasn't a water intrusion problem, but $65 million???


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 12, 2012)

wilma said:


> A $65 million problem? Few have suggested there wasn't a water intrusion problem, but $65 million???



How much do you think it should have cost to fix the problems?

****

I'm not being facetious, either.  I've had a bit of time to think about the situation a bit. And this is what I've come to.

First, some people have alleged that this is just a subterfuge for DRI to get the resort refurbished to their standards on the owner's expense.  The problem with that line of thinking is that after the project is done the units won't be refurbished. All that will be done is that the structural elements and cladding will be upgraded.  If this is just a ploy by DRI to get the units refurbished, one would think that DRI would at least put forward a proposal that accomplished that objective. So that allegation fails the sniff test to me.

To me that seems to leave three general options:

1. The problem is largely just a cosmetic issue and the resort management and board have been totally duped about the situation.

2. There is a problem, but the board has totally overestimated the magnitude of the problem and is swatting a mosquito with a manhole cover.

3. The problem is as serious as has been presented by the board, and repairs of the magnitude undertaken are actually what are needed.

If you truly believe that #3 is correct, then at most you are quibbling about 10% to 15% of the project cost. Because if you are in option #3 then you've concurred with the magnitude of the project, so your concern would then be with how the project is being managed.  Which means that if there is mismanagement, perhaps that $65 million project might have been doable for $55 million.  

But if you think it should have been a $25 million fix, then fundamentally you are saying that the problem isn't nearly as serious as the board has concluded that it is.  And if that is your position, then I am very interested in knowing exactly why you think the problem is not as serious as the Board has made it out to be.  

So where do you fall among those three options? Do you think it's all a sham?  Do you think there are problems, but the board has gone off the deep end in response?  Or do you think the problems are of the magnitude indicated by the board?  

Personally, I like to work with facts and information, not hunches.  While for me there might be some visceral satisfaction in thinking that the Board is out to lunch, virtually all of the objective information I have seen supports the notion that there is a pretty significant problem.  I would dearly love to latch on to option #2, but frankly I see little to no evidence that would suggest that option #2 is reasonably accurate.  In the course of my 60+ years of life I've been burned quite a few times by wishful undercasting or underscoping of a problem.


----------



## daventrina (Oct 12, 2012)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> How much do you think it should have cost to fix the problems?


The thing that is really SAD is that if Sunterra was on the ball
the insurance/bond would have picked up the tab :annoyed:


----------



## Beefnot (Oct 12, 2012)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> How much do you think it should have cost to fix the problems?



I say $25 million is still very serious. To turn it around, what is the threshold above which you would be tempted to call bullsh$#? Obviously, it isn't $65 million. So is it $75 million? $100 million?

Also, do we know who the inspection company was, who the construction company is, how they were selected, or what ties, if any are there between the DRI and these entities?


----------



## Fisch (Oct 12, 2012)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fischproductions/8079163354/in/photostream

Photo from yesterday


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 12, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> I say $25 million is still very serious. To turn it around, what is the threshold above which you would be tempted to call bullsh$#? Obviously, it isn't $65 million. So is it $75 million? $100 million?
> 
> Also, do we know who the inspection company was, who the construction company is, how they were selected, or what ties, if any are there between the DRI and these entities?



Sure $25M is serious.  But what is your *factual* basis to say that is enough?  The board does have numbers and reports. Of course one can choose to disbelieve if one wishes, but then a rational person needs to ask why your the totally unsupported opinions of some should be given more credence.

I would like to believe those who say it the project is overblown, but so far I haven't seen a shred of solid information to support that position.  A lot of opinions and a lot of suppositions, might be's, seems to me's, etc. But pitifully little objective data.

As far as alleged ties - do you have information that there are ties?  What you are alleging is that the Board and management are crooks and should be sent to jail from criminal misconduct.  What is your evidence?  What is your information?


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 12, 2012)

daventrina said:


> The thing that is really SAD is that if Sunterra was on the ball
> the insurance/bond would have picked up the tab :annoyed:



Doubtful. This type of damage would likely have been due to faulty construction and that's not often covered by insurance. That liability would be with the original builder. If memory serves me correctly from past threads, the original builder is long since out of business/bankrupt and it's past the point where they could be sued anyway.


----------



## artringwald (Oct 12, 2012)

Dollie said:


> For those of you who have a logon to the HOA website, there are some pictures of what is going on.  On the DiamondResortsHOA website for The Point at Poipu, select Water Intrusion Project.  Then under Photos select Steptember 2012 Pictures.



The link to the pictures is accessible without having to log in:

https://www.diamondresorts.com/hoa/20120918/ThePointatPoipuWaterIntrusionProject.pdf


----------



## slip (Oct 12, 2012)

Steve

I don't have a dog in this fight but if you look at the pictures in the link that Art
posted, You see some inside work being done. Sometimes you have to remove
some of the interior finishes to get to the structural. So an argument can be
made they are getting some refurbishment.


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 12, 2012)

slip said:


> Steve
> 
> I don't have a dog in this fight but if you look at the pictures in the link that Art
> posted, You see some inside work being done. Sometimes you have to remove
> ...



I could be wrong but I believe P@P has had significant MF increases, as has many of the old Sunterra managed properties. These MF increases have paid for soft refurbishments across the system for the old Sunterra resorts. I doubt the SA for water intrusion covered a great deal of those improvements, although I would not argue that some may have been necessitated by the degree of work being done to repair the water intrusion. It may have been a necessary part of the job with the deconstruction of the affected sections of building.


----------



## Beefnot (Oct 12, 2012)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Sure $25M is serious.  But what is your *factual* basis to say that is enough?  The board does have numbers and reports. Of course one can choose to disbelieve if one wishes, but then a rational person needs to ask why your the totally unsupported opinions of some should be given more credence.
> 
> I would like to believe those who say it the project is overblown, but so far I haven't seen a shred of solid information to support that position.  A lot of opinions and a lot of suppositions, might be's, seems to me's, etc. But pitifully little objective data.
> 
> As far as alleged ties - do you have information that there are ties?  What you are alleging is that the Board and management are crooks and should be sent to jail from criminal misconduct.  What is your evidence?  What is your information?



I have no factual basis and I have no evidence.  I only have skepticism. If I was an owner, which I considered at one point (but had a better mind because of DRI's history of questionable business practices), I would not readily accept the facts as presented by a DRI controlled board.  Like that Bloomberg article I had posted a couple times in the older Poipu assessment threads.  I think this whole thing smells fishy--not necessarily the existence of a problem, but the magnitude of it, though I acknowledge it is entirely possible that it is actually clean as a whistle.  But If I had skin in the game, I would not have accepted it at face value.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 12, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> I have no factual basis and I have no evidence.  I only have skepticism. If I was an owner, which I considered at one point (but had a better mind because of DRI's history of questionable business practices), I would not readily accept the facts as presented by a DRI controlled board.  Like that Bloomberg article I had posted a couple times in the older Poipu assessment threads.  I think this whole thing smells fishy--not necessarily the existence of a problem, but the magnitude of it, though I acknowledge it is entirely possible that it is actually clean as a whistle.  But If I had skin in the game, I would not have accepted it at face value.



I don't accept it at full face value, but I don't believe it is as far off the mark as is alleged by many who are spouting unsupported opinions.

Speaking as an engineer, I have seen information from what appears to me to be a competently completed inspection performed by a qualified firm.  The inspection that was done to prepare the conclusions was very extensive.  This isn't a report that was prepared by a retired building inspector, walking around looking at the condition of the siding from the exterior and poking around in a few paces with a hammer and probe and wrecking bar. 

In addition to doing that type of basic inspection, portions of the exteriors were removed to perform physical inspections.  Infrared imaging sensitive to the presence of water behind the cladding was performed on the buildings.  I would be hard pressed to come up with a more thorough or complete way of completing the investigation without getting into a program of extensive removal of cladding for physical inspection.  In short the extent and level of the investigation was commensurate with the scale of the problem.  In fact it's likely that someone did that initial type of inspection and had the smarts to realize that they were looking at something significant.

So at this point I'm reasonably satisfied that the problem is as big as they say it is.  I think that believing the project is vastly overblown is just wishcasting.  It's certainly possible that there might be 10% to 15% in cost savings that might possibly be wrung out by a really competent project manager.

++++++

On the other hand, what would have been a disaster would have been to undertake the project while having vastly underestimated the magnitude of the problem.  That would have been a fiasco, with well-justified charges of mismanagement and incompetence flying around.  At that point you're back at the owners for a second assessment, buildings are out of service for longer periods than anticipated throwing reservation schedules into whack, change orders are being issued to the contractor without benefit of competitive bidding.

That, in short, is the route by which a $65 million project becomes a $130 million project.  That would  make the Point at Poipu restoration project into the "Big Dig Tunnel" project of the timeshare world.

+++++

At first I was pretty upset.  As time has gone on I've been able to start thinking about things more objectively.  And I imagine myself as a Board member - what would I have done differently if I had been sitting on the Board when all of this was coming out?

Well, the big thing is better communication with the owners.  After that it just gets into some details, which for all I know may have occurred anyway. I might have pushed harder to have a more wide open bid competition in which contractors are free to propose alternate methods of completing the project.  Of course, you would still need a very competent person skilled in building construction and maintenance in tropical marine environments on contract to evaluate the proposals.  Which would probably be the same person who recommended the current construction technique in the first (you're not dealing with a large talent pool when you get to something as specialized as this).

++++++

Am I certain that I'm not being ripped off.  Of course I'm not certain. I've seen little from the board to persuade me that they are aggressive in finding and implementing cost savings details in overall resort operations.  If I carry that over to a project such as this it leads me to believe that there probably is fat in the project that could be taken out - again that's the 10% to 15% number I've been throwing around.

But I've come to feel a lot more comfortable about the project.  For a project of this type the proper steps have generally been taken.  As I said, apart from communications with owners, I can't imagine that I would have done things much differently than what they have done.

And I appreciate that they did their investigative homework and got their arms around the problem before charging in.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 12, 2012)

slip said:


> Steve
> 
> I don't have a dog in this fight but if you look at the pictures in the link that Art
> posted, You see some inside work being done. Sometimes you have to remove
> ...





dougp26364 said:


> I could be wrong but I believe P@P has had significant MF increases, as has many of the old Sunterra managed properties. These MF increases have paid for soft refurbishments across the system for the old Sunterra resorts. I doubt the SA for water intrusion covered a great deal of those improvements, although I would not argue that some may have been necessitated by the degree of work being done to repair the water intrusion. It may have been a necessary part of the job with the deconstruction of the affected sections of building.



The refurbishment that I see in the pictures is ancillary to the structural work.  One can hardly be upset that when the project is completed that the floors and walls will be replaced with new materials.

But more to the contention that this is just a subterfuge to renovate the report, the areas that would be "refurbished" are probably the least important areas one would focus on in a refurbishment project.  The construction isn't getting into the kitchens or bathrooms.  It's not dealing with tiled areas.  It's not where plumbing is located.  

Now, one "enhancement" that might be worthwhile is to install individual electricity usage meters on the air conditioners when they are reinstalled, so that the resort can collect a service charge for A/C usage.  I would absolutely be in favor of that to reduce the electricity usage embedded into the annual fees and ensure that the people who use A/C pay for the A/C.  The cost of using A/C on Kauai (home of the highest electricity rates in the US) is anything but trivial; this isn't like providing free internet or maintaining a swimming pool.


----------



## artringwald (Oct 12, 2012)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Now, one "enhancement" that might be worthwhile is to install individual electricity usage meters on the air conditioners when they are reinstalled, so that the resort can collect a service charge for A/C usage.  I would absolutely be in favor of that to reduce the electricity usage embedded into the annual fees and ensure that the people who use A/C pay for the A/C.  The cost of using A/C on Kauai (home of the highest electricity rates in the US) is anything but trivial; this isn't like providing free internet or maintaining a swimming pool.



We would be one of the ones paying extra if there was a service charge for A/C. We were looking for a Poipu rental in 2000, and P@P was one of the very few condos with A/C. Most of the time A/C isn't necessary in Poipu, but DW gets bad headaches if it gets too hot or humid. We rented again in 2004, and had the A/C running just about the whole time because the Kona winds were blowing and it really did get hot and humid. After two stays at P@P, we decided that we liked it better than any of the other places we had stayed in Hawaii, and bought our first timeshare week.


----------



## daventrina (Oct 12, 2012)

dougp26364 said:


> ... it's past the point where they could be sued anyway.


That is the problem... Sunterra let it drag out past where there were options.

The repairs at LTVR haven't cost the owners a dime.


----------



## artringwald (Oct 12, 2012)

I've listened to both sides of the SA arguments. I read all the information from DRI. I listened to the presentation for the owners that Jamie gave at the resort. I read all 52 pages of the class action lawsuit. From my viewpoint, it looks like the HOA has been taking the best path to identify the problem, and get work under way to correct it. When I have repairs made on my own home, I'm willing to pay extra to hire competent people who will make sure the problem is resolved without any shortcuts or kludges. P@P is one of DRI's flagship properties, and unlike Sunterra, they seem to want to keep it in top condition. It's unfortunate that the HOA didn't do a better job breaking the SA news to the owners. 

If there really have been illegal practices and a conspiracy as alleged in the lawsuit, I hope they'll be revealed in the court proceedings. However, the work still needs to be done, and I'm glad the injunction to halt the repairs was denied.


----------



## slip (Oct 12, 2012)

It does seem that in this thread it's more skepticism than anything thing else.
The price is high and the 10 to 15% pork might be generous it definitely could be higher
than that but like Steve says after a while people will be OK with it. It's a very
tough pill to swallow but when it's all over and everyone sees what was done,
I think most will be alright with it. Some may even understand it better and
will be glad it was done the way they did it.


----------



## wilma (Oct 12, 2012)

Just thought it was rather silly and somewhat condescending to report that you poked around and can now assure people that something truly is wrong. "*I came away persuaded that there really was a problem, particularly after seeing that staining on building 8."* As I mentioned most are not disputing that there is a water intrusion problem. And an inflation of 10-15% on the fix amounts to $6-7 million, not a small sum. It is difficult to really trust the board's decision when the board is made up of DRI employees and a close family relative of a DRI VP....


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 12, 2012)

wilma said:


> Just thought it was rather silly and somewhat condescending to report that you poked around and can now assure people that something truly is wrong. "*I came away persuaded that there really was a problem, particularly after seeing that staining on building 8."* As I mentioned most are not disputing that there is a water intrusion problem. And an inflation of 10-15% on the fix amounts to $6-7 million, not a small sum. It is difficult to really trust the board's decision when the board is made up of DRI employees and a close family relative of a DRI VP....



Don't put words in my mouth, wilma.  I said "I came away persuaded."  I didn't say, "everyone should rest easy because I poked around"

"I came away persuaded" means "*I* came away persuaded".  That speaks to me, myself, and I.  It leaves ample room for others to not be persuaded. 

I'm sorry that you felt that I was condescending.  But that's a problem in your mind. I simply said I came away persuaded. You are the one who extended those words to mean something more, and then took offense at the extended meaning that you added to them.

I have also attempted in some rather lengthy posts to speak objectively about what my thoughts are.  I have done so deliberately so that others can consider and form their own conclusions.  I will note that is quite a different tack from that taken by many of the, shall we say, "vocal opposition".  Waving arms and shouting might be effective in a VP debate, but does little to sway me.  

+++++

Let me post the question to you wilma, If you were sitting on the Board, what would you have done differently than the current board did.  Don't try to look back in retrospect, based on what we know now.  Imagine yourself on the Board four or five years ago, as information starts to unfold.  

What are the steps that you see yourself proposing to your fellow Board members and how would that differ from what the Board did?


----------



## wilma (Oct 12, 2012)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Let me post the question to you wilma, If you were sitting on the Board, what would you have done differently than the current board did.



I would have communicated better with the owners, I didn't hear about until I got the special assessment bill. I would have actually polled the owners to get their input and involved them much sooner in the process, it was a PR disaster. Also I would have suggested evaluating an alternative to sell the resort and split the proceeds instead of doing this costly fix. And I would demand in the future that DRI family members not be on the board, due to the conflict of interest.


----------



## Fisch (Oct 12, 2012)

wilma said:


> I would have communicated better with the owners, I didn't hear about until I got the special assessment bill. I would have actually polled the owners to get their input and involved them much sooner in the process, it was a PR disaster. Also I would have suggested evaluating an alternative to sell the resort and split the proceeds instead of doing this costly fix. And I would demand in the future that DRI family members not be on the board, due to the conflict of interest.



They did explore selling resort and also knocking everything down and rebuilding.  This was from Jamie in the owners meeting. 

I agree it sucks having DRI on the Board.  But I believe they have every right be on there as they are owners too.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 12, 2012)

wilma said:


> I would have communicated better with the owners, I didn't hear about until I got the special assessment bill. I would have actually polled the owners to get their input and involved them much sooner in the process, it was a PR disaster. Also I would have suggested evaluating an alternative to sell the resort and split the proceeds instead of doing this costly fix. And I would demand in the future that DRI family members not be on the board, due to the conflict of interest.



We are in almost total agreement, particularly as regards the PR aspects.  That was one they absolutely should have seen coming.  Some better communication upfront, as well as maybe forming an owners advisory committee without DRI people.


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 12, 2012)

daventrina said:


> That is the problem... Sunterra let it drag out past where there were options.
> 
> The repairs at LTVR haven't cost the owners a dime.



I believe, but could be wrong, that it was past the point of going after the orignal developer by the time Sunterra took over management of the property.

Still, the point is well taken that Sunterra did not address the problem when it might have been less expensive to fix or, perhaps still be within the timeframe to collect damages from someone. Part of the reason Sunterra owners saw such big increases in MF's is because Sunterra has allowed resorts to fall into disrepair and hadn't collected sufficient cash reserves to pay for those repairs and/or necessary refurbishements and upgrades. 

There were a lot of complaints when the bills started coming out but, once the quality was seen and experienced, they seem to have died down. I believe this will be true at the P@P as well once the resort is put back into proper shape. You can't tell a fireplace to put out heat, then you'll toss in some wood. It's the same with these resorts. The money has to be there first, then the repairs can take place.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 12, 2012)

dougp26364 said:


> I believe, but could be wrong, that it was past the point of going after the orignal developer by the time Sunterra took over management of the property.


We bought in 1999 and I'm pretty sure that Sunterra had already taken over Signature Resorts (or whatever the name of the original property manager was) by that time.  At the time the resort was owned by a limited partnership in which Sunterra was the managing partner.

IIRC, the Hawaii statute of repose for construction defects is eight years, so Sunterrra would have been on the scene during the period when the developer was still liable.  Whether or not any significant money could have been recovered from the builder is a separate matter.


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 12, 2012)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> We bought in 1999 and I'm pretty sure that Sunterra had already taken over Signature Resorts (or whatever the name of the original property manager was) by that time.  At the time the resort was owned by a limited partnership in which Sunterra was the managing partner.
> 
> IIRC, the Hawaii statute of repose for construction defects is eight years, so Sunterrra would have been on the scene during the period when the developer was still liable.  Whether or not any significant money could have been recovered from the builder is a separate matter.



So maybe just one more instance where Sunterra dropped the ball.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 12, 2012)

dougp26364 said:


> So maybe just one more instance where Sunterra dropped the ball.



It's also entirely likely that the seriousness of the problems wasn't manifest until sometime in the last six to eight years.  For many years the big issue was always the soffits, and trying to press a claim for insurance recovery for soffit repairs.  Looks as if the soffits were a minor issue compared to other stuff going on.


----------



## artringwald (Oct 12, 2012)

*Fall 2010 HOA report*

If I had read the Fall 2010 HOA report closely, I would have been suspicious of the following paragraph:



> The Board has therefore decided to move forward and begin making repairs. The first project is the long awaited replacement of the damaged soffits, which the Board approved in the budget and bids are being collected. The management company will be soliciting bids to determine the actual cost of repairs to the buildings’ exteriors. The earliest the project could commence will be late 2011 and will concentrate initially on the oceanfront buildings. The management company estimates this could be a three- or four-year project and work on some of the buildings that are not oceanfront may be able to be pushed back several years. The AOAO Board will keep owners apprised of any significant developments in this regard.



When I read it, all I saw was soffits, and when those were repaired, I thought that was all they had to do. Everyone seems to agrees that they really let us down by not preparing us better for the SA bomb that was dropped two months before the first payment was due.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 12, 2012)

artringwald said:


> When I read it, all I saw was soffits, and when those were repaired, I thought that was all they had to do. Everyone seems to agrees that they really let us down by not preparing us better for the SA bomb that was dropped two months before the first payment was due.



I think that's all that almost anyone thought of.  There had been no indication or hint of anything more serious than that.


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 13, 2012)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> It's also entirely likely that the seriousness of the problems wasn't manifest until sometime in the last six to eight years.  For many years the big issue was always the soffits, and trying to press a claim for insurance recovery for soffit repairs.  Looks as if the soffits were a minor issue compared to other stuff going on.



Maybe it's the skeptic in me but, I can see DRI, or any management company for that matter, not wanting to alarm owners any sooner than necessary to the extent of a major issue such as the water intrusion. Can you imagine the alarm, panic and potential pushback that would have slowed the process down even further or, worse yet, stalled any progress on correcting the problem to the point it became critical and even more expensive to repair?

We've already seen that one group has decided on legal council, whether it was ill advised or not, attempting to hault the repairs. It's not in managements best interest to get to many hands on the project before you even get started. 

I can see where it would be advisable to get all the estimates first, then line up the contractors and estimate the billing and defaults before laying this out for the thousands of owners who are bound to be upset. I think this was a calculated move where they knew the initial knee jerk reaction would be outrage but, also guestemitating that the outrage would die down after a couple of years and if owners ended up pleased with the overall outcome of the repairs and any upgrades. 

Could they have done a better job explaining the extent of the damage, what they had done, why it hadn't been successful or why they couldn't place liablity on someone else? Maybe, maybe not. I really think this was going to be a no win situation for DRI and they just needed to get it done as quickly and inexpensively as possible. I'm not certain anyone could have done a much better job and if they had tried, it very well could have resulted in enough owners being able to stall the project or higher than ordinary defaults occuring before being able to get the project off the ground.


----------



## Beefnot (Oct 13, 2012)

dougp26364 said:


> I really think this was going to be a no win situation for DRI and they just needed to get it done as quickly and inexpensively as possible.



Uh, ok. Wait. Huh?


----------



## daventrina (Oct 13, 2012)

The full extent of the damage was likely not known until they started cutting holes in the walls to see the extensive damage underneath.


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 13, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Uh, ok. Wait. Huh?



Yes this is a lot of money but, it's apparently also a lot of damage (I haven't seen it first hand). Cost/expense can be relative and depend on your point of view. Roof replacement to your home might run $5,000 for a smaller home with asphalt shingles in a midwestern town or, it could run $25,000 for a moderate size home with cedar shake shingles in a more high class neighborhood with a strong HOA. In this instance, you on a small island in the middle of an ocean with what I consider a funky county government. 

Expense and keeping expenses low if a matter of point of view. It could have been MUCH worse, especially if there were delaying tactics by a small group of owners. As it stands now there is a small group who has apparently put a class action before the courts (haven't seen it, only have read rumors). What do you think their chances of winning are? Who do you think will ultimately pay for their foolishness?

Let's say they announced this early on and a small group of owners, intent on not paying any SA and wanting the resort sold, put up a fight. Any fight in a court room could easily add 2 to 5 years of delay. Do you think the cost of repairs would have gone down or would it have gone up? Thus, the phrasing as inexpensively as possible.


----------



## Beefnot (Oct 13, 2012)

Which means you are giving DRI the benefit of the doubt, and you are also certain that $65 million was the least expensive they could do it for.  You must be a very trusting guy by nature, assuming the best in people and entities even when their actions may suggest otherwise.  Ok, your prerogative.

As for the class action, there was a thread that linked to it which many, including myself, had read and commented on awhile back. Very damning if true.  If I wasn't headed to the airport right now, I would find it.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 13, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> As for the class action, there was a thread that linked to it which many, including myself, had read and commented on awhile back. Very damning if true.  If I wasn't headed to the airport right now, I would find it.



They had a lot of allegations.  They had *zero* evidence to support any of it.

That's the nature of preliminary filings. You allege everything you can possibly think; anything you can dream of goes into the filing. To think that what is alleged in a preliminary filing is indicative of anything is granting the plaintiffs 100 times the deference that you are alleging Doug might be granting DRI.


----------



## Beefnot (Oct 13, 2012)

I have natural level of skepticism. Combined with the real complaints about DRI's handling of this situation, as well as other questionable things I had read before about their dealings, I am in no way giving more deference to the plaintiffs than Doug. I have not convicted DRI, I am simply calling into question their motives and integrity with this whole fiasco. Doug has already convinced himself that DRI acted swiftly and with utmost fiscal responsibility before the lawsuit's allegations are vetted. There is a big difference.


----------



## Beefnot (Oct 13, 2012)

Here was the lawsuit thread with link to the lawsuit. Doug, you had posted in the thread.

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168836&highlight=poipu+lawsuit


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 13, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Here was the lawsuit thread with link to the lawsuit. Doug, you had posted in the thread.
> 
> http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168836&highlight=poipu+lawsuit



And I still hold to the thought that nothing will come of the class action except that the lawyers will get paid off and owners will be the ones doing the paying. 

It's one thing to be mad. It's another to have legal standing. DRI doesn't do anything without making certain they have the right to do it. If it's a small enough amount and not worth fighting, they'll settle. This is a very large sum of money and they've got to much on the line. 

Much like the great RCI class action lawsuit, this one is throwing good money after bad.


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 13, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> I have natural level of skepticism. Combined with the real complaints about DRI's handling of this situation, as well as other questionable things I had read before about their dealings, I am in no way giving more deference to the plaintiffs than Doug. I have not convicted DRI, I am simply calling into question their motives and integrity with this whole fiasco. Doug has already convinced himself that DRI acted swiftly and with utmost fiscal responsibility before the lawsuit's allegations are vetted. There is a big difference.



The thing is, I've dealt with DRI since 1998. I know how they do business. They're not taking action unless they know they're on solid ground. In this case it's going to take more than this small group of owners to get the construction stopped. The fact that DRI is proceeding isn't a good sign for this group of owners.

As to removing DRI as the management company, I don't think that will happen with this resort. There's to many interests owned by the Hawaiian trust to evicted DRI management from the resort. 

I've said this in the past and I still hold to it. If you're a DRI owner, you'd better like the direction DRI is going because you're just along for the ride. But then again, it's that way with most major timeshare management companies. The same can be said for Hilton, Marriott, DVC, Starwood et.....

DRI has a certain level of quality and they will maintain that level of quality. If a resort is beneath that level, they'll bring it up to DRI standards or they'll get rid of it from their collection. DRI isn't a charity. It's the owners that will pay for any/all improvements. 

With P@P there is a fiduciary responsiblity. Once the water intrusion was discovered and the extent was determined, the course was set. Nothing, not even a class action lawsuit by a few concerned owners, is going to stop the process.


----------



## Beefnot (Oct 13, 2012)

dougp26364 said:


> Nothing, not even a class action lawsuit by a few concerned owners, is going to stop the process.



Yes, that much I will not disagree with you on.


----------



## quachs2010 (Oct 29, 2012)

*deleted*

_Message deleted--Sorry, ads are not allowed on this forum. If you wish to give away your timeshare, check out the Bargain Deals forum, or feel free to place an ad in the TUG Marketplace._


----------



## dougp26364 (Oct 29, 2012)

You'll need to put something like this in the bargain deals section or the classifieds. 

To the general question of how to get rid of a timeshare, read the sticky (permanent threads at the top of a forum "stuck" or pinned in place) under the forum about selling. Getting rid of an unwanted timeshare is not an easy thing to do. It's a huge drawback to buying.

The easiest way is to default but, that can put a ding in your credit. You can call DRI and ask for their loss mitigation department and inquire about any options.


----------



## Ricci (Oct 30, 2012)

I am new to this thread and the only ties I have is that I am a DRI owner at Grand Beach.  I talked with a gentleman I met at Grand Lodge at Peak 7 last month......he used to work for DRI and held a substantial position at Poipu but I can't remember his exact title.  He was working there when the water intrusion problem was discovered.  His position was that leveling the resort would have been much better for the owners for approx. 10 - 20% more of the cost of repair.  Yes, it's more money, but they would have a brand NEW resort.  And it's true that Sunterra could have gone after the builder since the vapor barrier was installed backwards.  But was the builder still around, and how do you get blood out of a rock?  
He actually thinks there will be another SA....65 million will probably not cover it.  Of course, that's just his personal opinion.


----------

