# Summer Bay Owners Unite!



## roadtriper

I recieved my Ballots for the 07' HOA Board elections in the Mail ! anybody else get theirs?   I think we are all in agreement that things have been heading in  the right direction at the  resort!  a couple of things concern me personaly.   James Reach queried us on our opinions concerning the pecentage of non smoking units at the new resort. the general concensus was to either go completely Non Smoking or at least retain the 75% non smoking units mandated at the current Summer bay resort.  James reported back that the issue fell on Deaf Ears and the current board was going to leave it in the hands of the Management Co. Summer Bay.     and that their Flagship property in Orlando Florida  is  100% smoking units.   I feel that we owners need  to let our voice be heard on this issue.  What say You???    secondly  I feel like the Las Vegas owners are not well represented on the Summer Bay Web Site.   we have been promised a web site of our own but nothing has ever materialized.    James R. had a very nice start to one about a year ago but  it only lasted about a week and he took it down.    it was right around the time of serious negotiations between the HOA and Harrah's concerning the redevelopment rights to SBLV. so I suspect all parties involved wanted a "Media Blackout" until the deal was hammered out.   Now we need our website!    
from the Bio's provided with the Ballot,    Candidate Jerry Perman    is in favor of non smoking units at the resort, and mentions the need for a website!  I searched out Mr Perman and was able to speak with him  briefly.   He and his family own 2 units at Summer bay, and he seems to feel very stongly that we need to at the very least retain the 75% non smoking suites. and seems very excited to be running for a position on the Board.  I have asked mr. Perman (Jerry) to  join us here on Tug and discuss his positions with us. he has shared his email address  jerryper@gmail.com  if any of you want to lobby him about the non smoking thing or any other issues!   hopefully he will post here?     Anyone have any thoughts on any of the other Candidates? Contact info? I know Charles McKern has been President of the HOA Board and has been at the forefront of the negotiations with Harrah's  seems to me like he is one of the favorites!     Let's get some discussion going here and pick out who is best going to represent us as owners, so we can keep the forward momentum we have going at the resort!    Bob


----------



## Sandy

*Good going Bob*

Now that I am official, I want to be involved.  Turns out that my SB unit is the very first real, US based timeshare we have owned.  (not counting Hawaii, which I KNOW is in the US, but..... you get my drift). 

So, my husband and I want to really use our week and not always trade.  Plus, I have a real interest in the goings on with the upcoming move and board meeting.  

Thanks for the info. I am trying to actually get to the June meeting.  Even though we have owned Timeshare since 1980, we have NEVER been to one HOA meeting!


----------



## roadtriper

Sandy said:


> Now that I am official, I want to be involved.  Turns out that my SB unit is the very first real, US based timeshare we have owned.  (not counting Hawaii, which I KNOW is in the US, but..... you get my drift).
> 
> So, my husband and I want to really use our week and not always trade.  Plus, I have a real interest in the goings on with the upcoming move and board meeting.
> 
> Thanks for the info. I am trying to actually get to the June meeting.  Even though we have owned Timeshare since 1980, we have NEVER been to one HOA meeting!


Sandy, that would be great if you could make it out in June.  I'll be there for the meeting  Fri-Mon.     Jana, and others will be going out as well.  I think a "get Together" is being planned if we can pull it off!  Bob


----------



## janapur

I haven't received the ballots yet (assuming we get one per week owned) but I'm glad you're opening the discussion regarding candidates. 

Sandy- I sure hope you can make it to Vegas for the meeting.

Vic- the pictures you posted are awesome! Thanks.

I've noticed the prices creeping up on ebay. The inventory seems to be declining as well.

I feel very strongly about lobbying for a smoke free Summer Bay. It is the trend in timeshares and can only help us maintain GC status.

Regarding elevators, why not just offer the first floor units to those in need. The rest of us can benefit from climbing a few stairs after indulging at the buffets.

Looking forward to meeting everyone in June!

Jana


----------



## JoeMO

*Jerry looks like a very good candidate*

I liked what Jerry said in his bio.  I especially like his desire to allow members to request a non-smoking unit.  Unless they go to 100% smoke free (my preference) I don't think it is fair for non-smokers to have to stay in a smoking room.  Even the cheapest hotels have non-smoking rooms.

Does anyone know how any of the other candidates feel about this issue?  I think some of the candidates have been involved at SBLV before and I wonder how they have voted in the past on this and other important issues.

Thanks, 
Joe


----------



## ry"c

*Vote For Perman!; Do Not Vote for Jones!*

Dear Summer Bay Owners:

Retired Judge Jerry Perman. is a winner! He will make a genuine positive contribution to our board. Please vote for him.

In order to elect Jerry Perman, at least one incumbent has to lose. That losing Incumbent should be M.G. Jones. Please help our board do its work by not voting for Jones, thereby unseating her.

I leave it up to the owners as to what to do with your remaining three votes. Read the bios, and decide who you wish to elect. Incumbent candidate Benfield is the strongest advocate besides me for non-smoking suites. She was out ill at our last meeting when I brought up this topic, although she has been there in past votes. Incumbent candidates Koehli and Mckern have qualities worth retaining, despite their nonchalant attititudes on the non-smoking issue. Koehli is a quality CPA who voluntarily gives our board accounting advice. McKern was our board president when we negotiated the deal with Harrah's for the Desert Club deal. Jo Ann Whitaker and Vernon Tabb would also be good choices.


----------



## anne1125

OK, it looks like we have a good handle on what we want and who to vote for.  

James, I trust your opinion.  You've done a great job.

Bob, thanks for starting this and uniting us.  Maybe your name will be on the ballot in the future?

Anne


----------



## Mimi

Thanks for posting James.  We value your opinion!


----------



## janapur

Question to anyone who has received election material: will there be proxies for those that cannot attend the meeting? If so, would any of the qualified TUGgers feel comfortable volunteering to vote on fellow TUGgers' behalves?

Jana


----------



## roadtriper

*Ballots*



janapur said:


> Question to anyone who has received election material: will there be proxies for those that cannot attend the meeting? If so, would any of the qualified TUGgers feel comfortable volunteering to vote on fellow TUGgers' behalves?
> 
> Jana



Jana, the Ballots that are being mailed out, can be mailed back in the postage paid envelope provided. or folks can cast their ballot in person at the meeting.   *Even those folks who have given the HOA Board their "Long Term Proxy"  need to cast a ballot in the election.*  otherwise your letting the HOA vote for itself!     Folks who have recently purchased and are not "Owners of Record" at the resort yet should probably call Victor the resort Mgr. and ask for the proper procedure to get a ballot.     Last year I had just purchased one of my units and I got a proxy from the previous owner giving me their voting rights in the election, as  far as I know that satisfied the resort.


----------



## Sandy

Good point about contacting the resort. As a new owner myself, I might miss the ballots because of the transfer process.


----------



## hajjah

Sandy:  
Thanks for posting this.  The very same applies to me.  I may not get my material in time as well.  I will contact the resort manager for clarification.


----------



## jackio

Bob, thank you so much for the work you have done!  

James, we appreciate your advice now as in the past.  I will send in my ballots.  Since we own 2 weeks, we received 2 ballots in the mail.  Is this how it works?  Owners with many units have a greater share of the votes?

I, too, advocate non-smoking  units and this will reflect in my vote.


----------



## vyskocil

I know that we all want a board that is responsive and also looks out for our best interests as owners. I have never been a one issue voter and won't necessarly vote for someone just over what appears here to be on they way to becoming smoking/non-smoking issue. I do agree that the units should be divided into smoking/non-smoking units. I don't agree with the 100% ban as we need to be sensitive to ALL owners no matter if we agree with the life style or not. The problem in the past was that even though some units were designated non-smoking, smoking was allowed in them if you asked the management. I know this first hand. In my former life as a smoker I was checked into a non-smoking unit. I asked to be moved to a smoking unit. I was told that maint would be down to deliver ash trays and not to worry about the no smoking sign on the door. So I think that enforcement of policy is what is important here.

I know that James has been involved for a long time and very active on the board and I do respect his opinion. Having the insight of an active board member I would be interested to know Why James feels that Jones is not doing a good job. Is it a difference of opinion on issues or is it lack of participation, or ?

Website. I am all for having our own website. It seems as this is the only place I can find any info on our resort.  If this is not something that management is willing to provide maybe we as owners can start our own community website. As you said, James had a good start on one.  I host and build websites and would be willing to help or advise.


----------



## Mimi

Our timeshares in Hawaii are 100% non smoking, *including the balconies*, which really surprised me!  Smoking bans are increasing all over.  The rights of smokers are dwindling, as a direct result of second hand smoke on innocent victims and maintenance costs. I think it would be a shame to contaminate our brand new Desert Club furnishings with stale cigarette smoke!


----------



## anne1125

No matter how you look at smoking costs money when done indoors.  If someone must smoke, use the balcony.

I don't want to pay for replacing furnishings that are burnt or smoke damaged.

Anne


----------



## Sandy

I agree.  Even though some people I travel with smoke, they always do it on the balconies of timeshare resorts. 

Non-smoking is the wave and we must all accept this.  SB would be doing itself a marketing disservice if it were not in accordance with all of the other sales going on in Las Vegas.


----------



## JoeMO

*Enforcement and Choice*

I agree with vyskocil that enforcement of the current policy is a problem.  However, I don't believe that you can request a non-smoking room, so even if the current policies were enforced a non-smoker would not be able to get what he wants.  The current policy basically makes the whole resort smoking even if the policy was enforced.

It has been my experience that when you have some smoking and some not what really happens is the whole place is smoking.  The designating of some areas or units as non smoking is done just to appease the non-smokers but effectively makes little difference. This is pretty much the case whether it is a restaurant, a hotel or a timeshare.

Just trying to clarify the issue.


----------



## roadtriper

Joe, Excellent points!   But  I do think that you can request N/S at the current  resort? as I  understand  it  all the Smoking rooms are first floor units.  I have always asked  for a Non smoking room, and have always ended up on upper  floors in  the towers and terraces buildings.  my experience only goes back 3 years.  as far as  enforcement of the policy?  

My own Personal Feelings/Experience...  I think the current policy of aprox 75% Non Smoking Suites seems to work. maybe with some attention needed towards enforcement?

100% Non Smoking...  This would be easier to accomplish if you were Building a Brand New resort and all sales were "New"    converting an existing resort to 100% non smoking wouldn't be Fair to owners who have owned for many years and are smokers   (Marriot North American operations have gone 100% non smoking. did this apply to their timeshares as well?  does anyone have any info on how it was recieved by owners?)  

100% Smoking Optional...   This is  the easiest policy for the resort to enforce!   although this is the Obverse of the above 100% Non Smoking.  Not fair to owners who are not smokers,  and this can range from non smokers who just have a preference  to not be in a room where  someone has smoked, right through those with respritory/allergy issues who's health and comfort is effected

Again these are MY personal views!  while I'm vocal  and passionate about not smoking, my intent wasn't for this to become  a single dividing issue.   
Anyone have any info on any of the other candidates or any other issues?

We are a very small # of owners here on TUG , probably  20 or so!  in the big picture... out of 24,000 intervals we are a mere whisper of a voice.  if that!   BUT we do have the ear of James Reach who is a very Owner friendly HOA Board member.    It would be Great if we had more owners here on the board. and if we had the ear of  all the Board members in such a format.  any thoughts on how we can get better participation from owners, and or board members?      

Vyskocil, where you have Website experience.  if we do get a dedicated Web site for Summer bay at Desert Club,  how difficult is it to have a Mini forum such as this one we are on, for Resort Owners to have open discussion between themselves, The Hoa Board, and Mgmt ?    I think it would be Great to have someplace we could all visit to find up to date information.  discuss issues, events etc.  at election time the Candidates could use it  to Campaign and we owners could  know a little  more about them than a 2 paragraph bio!  

Those of us owners who have found Tug and Mr. James Reach  have had an advantage over the majority of owners in having a place we can go for info. all owners should have that avail to them. (well I geuss they do, if we could get them here on TUG!)   

Bob


----------



## eschjw

roadtriper said:


> My own Personal Feelings/Experience...  I think the current policy of aprox 75% Non Smoking Suites seems to work. maybe with some attention needed towards enforcement?



I agree that this seems to work ok. However, all smoking optional rooms should be on the top floor. *My question for James Reach is, why did the HOA want to change the policy and leave it up to Summer Bay management? *


----------



## spatenfloot

eschjw said:


> I agree that this seems to work ok. However, all smoking optional rooms should be on the top floor. *My question for James Reach is, why did the HOA want to change the policy and leave it up to Summer Bay management? *


I think if there are smoking rooms, they should be in an entirely separate building. That would prevent non smokers from having to put up with the smell or from having allergic reactions.  The Desert Club complex is big enough to allow this.  My preference is all non smoking however.


----------



## roadtriper

anne1125 said:


> OK, it looks like we have a good handle on what we want and who to vote for.
> 
> James, I trust your opinion.  You've done a great job.
> 
> Bob, thanks for starting this and uniting us.  Maybe your name will be on the ballot in the future?
> 
> Anne



Anne,   Maybe, someday  in the future?    Sure, I'd consider it sometime in  the future!  we have a bunch of  new owners here  on  TUG, and we're going to have a New  resort here in a year or  so.  if asked  to serve...    Bob


----------



## ry"c

*Reminder: Vote for Perman; Don't vote for Jones*

Dear Summer Bay Owners:

If you haven't already mailed in your ballots for the current HOA Board election, this is to remind you to vote for retired Judge Jerry Perman. Each owner has four votes per week; do not vote for Jones with any of your remaining votes.

Thank You,

James Reach


----------



## Sandy

Hi James, 

As a new owner, should I have my voting materials yet? 

I called Summer Bay to inquire, and they said they would send the packet out to me.  So far nothing. 

Is there a specific person I can call?

I hope to be present for the vote in June, but just in case, I would like to know how to get involved through proxy voting too. 

Thanks for all of your help.


----------



## Art4th

I haven't received a ballot yet either. Have most of the other owners on TUG received theirs?


----------



## JoeMO

*Got mine*

I got mine a few weeks ago and have already sent it back.  It came with the info on the yearly HOA meeting.

Thanks, 
Joe


----------



## ry"c

*Own on or before May 1st 2007 to Vote*

Owners should receive ballots if they owned on or prior to May 1st 2007. Owners should get a ballot, permitting four votes, for each week they own. Qualifying owners who didn't receive their ballots they should call Customer Care at (877) 642-5060 so they may participate in this election.


----------



## anne1125

Sent mine in with the above recommendations.

Received a nice glossy brochure for the new resort.  Just wonder why the 1 bedroom in Plaza, Fountains and Winnicks (1/2) got upgraded to the 2 bedroom?

Anne


----------



## Sandy

HI Anne, 

I believe that the studio units were upgraded b/c there were no studio/efficiencies at the new resort.  Likewise, there were an excess number of two bedrooms, so many of us will be in a lottery for the upgrade. 

The upgrade you asked about is probably related to the fact that the one bedrooms in the Plaza, Fountains and some of the Winnicks all had 2 bathrooms.  So those owners had bought a unit with two baths, and to put them into a unit with only one bath would be a downgrade. 

Hope I am right on this, but seems logical.


----------



## anne1125

Sandy, I think just the Winnicks with the 2 bathrooms got the upgrade because of the 2nd bath.  The other 2 seem to be regular 1 bedroom/1bath.

Anne


----------



## Sandy

Oops, 

Maybe they cost more from the beginning?  I don't know, but maybe James has the correct reasons for the upgrade.  I figure, some of them had to be upgraded and the HOA probably made their decision based on some history of sales or ownership or square footage.


----------



## roadtriper

*May the ODDS Be with You!*

I too wondered how this was all decided! BUT...  then I stopped to look at the big picture, and I'm Damn Glad I didn't have to figure it out!    We are dealing with 2 totaly different types of properties with 2 different sets of unit allocations.  I'm guessing that this is unchartered waters. and much thought was put into making it as fair as possible to all owners!  and from what I can see they are pulling it off!  those who own the fountians, Winnick and Plaza 1 bedrooms.  scored big, the rest of  us 1 bedroom owners scored big too!  a 43% chance of getting a free upgrade to a 2 bedroom???      where else does that happen?   if someone pays 24K for a 1 bedroom Tahiti Village unit what are the odds they will get upgraded to a 2 bedroom for free???    Zip, Zerro, Nada.,Knot!    It's VEGAS Baby!  43% Odds are pretty darn good!    If I don't get a single upgrade on any of my 4 1 bedroom  units I will still be A winner!  we are getting a new propperty and a fresh begining!  given the history of the resort, it sure had every oportunity to fail!  and thanks to the dedication of our fellow owners who serve on the Board  we have a new Resort!   I wish all of my fellow 1 bedroom owners the best of luck in the lottery!   it will be interesting to see how many of us tuggers are recipients of free upgrades!?     my prediction is about 43% of us!     RT


----------



## anne1125

I'm not complaining, just wondering.


----------



## Sandy

Great points roadtripper. The studio/efficiency owners scored big too.  Plus, all one bedroom owners will get much larger units.

Think of it this way: the odds might be even better since it is only the one bedroom owners who complete their transfer by Sept 1 who will be eligible for the lottery.  What percentage of owners are still disgruntled and have written off their SB resort?  What percentage do not even pay their fees?  What percentage have ignored their mailings and are deliquent?

What percentage will miss this deadline?  What percentage have their units listed for sale b/c they paid their upfront fees and don't care anymore?

No way to know for sure, but I am keeping my fingers crossed that ALL one bedroom TUGGERS make it into the lottery!  I think they only need 51% to begin the work, so once that is done things will get moving.  Late filers will still get a great deal!


----------



## spatenfloot

roadtriper said:


> a 43% chance of getting a free upgrade to a 2 bedroom???      where else does that happen?   if someone pays 24K for a 1 bedroom Tahiti Village unit what are the odds they will get upgraded to a 2 bedroom for free???    Zip, Zerro, Nada.,Knot!    It's VEGAS Baby!  43% Odds are pretty darn good!    If I don't get a single upgrade on any of my 4 1 bedroom  units I will still be A winner!


Actually it is all based on Harrah's new Timeshare Bonus Poker table game. You can bet with the deeds to your timeshares rather than chips.  Be sure to use your player's card when playing! I think it is located near the Keno lounge.


----------



## vyskocil

I am glad that there is much discussion on this BB. In the past when I received my ballots I was left to reading the bios and trying to decide from that. I think a good healthly debate is good.


----------



## vyskocil

roadtriper said:


> Vyskocil, where you have Website experience.  if we do get a dedicated Web site for Summer bay at Desert Club,  how difficult is it to have a Mini forum such as this one we are on, for Resort Owners to have open discussion between themselves, The Hoa Board, and Mgmt ?    I think it would be Great to have someplace we could all visit to find up to date information.  discuss issues, events etc.  at election time the Candidates could use it  to Campaign and we owners could  know a little  more about them than a 2 paragraph bio!
> 
> Those of us owners who have found Tug and Mr. James Reach  have had an advantage over the majority of owners in having a place we can go for info. all owners should have that avail to them. (well I geuss they do, if we could get them here on TUG!)
> 
> Bob




Sorry it took so long to reply. have been busy and not had the opportunity to get on tug to see what is happening. Forums such as this BBS are basically software scripts that are not really hard to install. There are many web hosts that offer them as part of the hosting package as well. For example I offer invisionboard http://www.invisionboard.com/ or a phpbased BBS software to my hosting customers. There are many other very good ones out there. Much would depend on who hosted the site, and what kind of access was allowed. What could be time consuming is monitoring the bbs. There is also php scripts out there for folks for email sign up for mass emailing mailings or emailing newsletters etc. That would also offer another means of communication. I have used some that allowed users to submit their own classifieds, urls to their websites, etc. I would believe that some of these same scripts may be in use on TUG. Once the site is up and running and you identiy specific needs or just want a wish list I would be able to make some recommendations. 

One final word. I am glad that there is much discussion on this BB. In the past when I received my ballots I was left to reading the bios and trying to decide from that. I think a good healthly debate is good.


----------



## janapur

"The upgrade you asked about is probably related to the fact that the one bedrooms in the Plaza, Fountains and some of the Winnicks all had 2 bathrooms. So those owners had bought a unit with two baths, and to put them into a unit with only one bath would be a downgrade. 

Hope I am right on this, but seems logical."
__________________
Sandy  




As per the new website, you are correct. I also agree that going from 1BR/2Bath to a 1BR/1Bath would be a downgrade. Incidentally, I bet they also paid more for those units like you also stated.

Jana


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Hi Guys,  I'm new to this board but was at the Summer Bay meeting and have reviewed the proposal.  It's terrible.  It appears the board has worked a deal that gives away the owner's equity.  I personally sent a letter to all board members explaining I have a group willing to pay $40,000,000 for the additional 160 units made available in the deal with Harrah's.  That's aprox. $1600 minimum cash to each and every owner on top of the new unit. If you send me your email address I can send you all of the particulars.

Paul Evans
Paul@premierbr.net


----------



## spatenfloot

paul@premierbr.net said:


> Hi Guys,  I'm new to this board but was at the Summer Bay meeting and have reviewed the proposal.  It's terrible.  It appears the board has worked a deal that gives away the owner's equity.  I personally sent a letter to all board members explaining I have a group willing to pay $40,000,000 for the additional 160 units made available in the deal with Harrah's.  That's aprox. $1600 minimum cash to each and every owner on top of the new unit. If you send me your email address I can send you all of the particulars.
> 
> Paul Evans
> Paul@premierbr.net


Sounds like a scam to me. In the first place, owners would not get cash from the sale of new units under any conditions. Secondly, Summer Bay will receive much more than that from selling the new units through normal methods.


----------



## janapur

For those of us that are new resale purchasers, giving away our equity is not a serious concern. I haven't paid more than $1000 for any of my purchases, including the 2BR units with points. Current ebay prices have gone up, about which I am thrilled.

While I sympathize with the many veteran owners who have been lied to and mislead in the past, this unprecedented move of an entire timeshare appears to be legit. Perhaps it is not what some owners were hoping for. However, no one buys timeshare under the premise that they will be bought out for a profit. Timeshare is not a financial investment, it is a vacation investment . . . and for some of us, it is an addiction- I mean hobby.

I'll grant you that the deal could have been better, but it sure could have been MUCH worse. Ask anyone who's recently paid a special assessment, lost their RCI affiliation, or just doesn't like the resort at which they own.

I for one am still doing the happy dance.  

Jana


----------



## roadtriper

*Up the offer!*



paul@premierbr.net said:


> Hi Guys,  I'm new to this board but was at the Summer Bay meeting and have reviewed the proposal.  It's terrible.  It appears the board has worked a deal that gives away the owner's equity.  I personally sent a letter to all board members explaining I have a group willing to pay $40,000,000 for the additional 160 units made available in the deal with Harrah's.  That's aprox. $1600 minimum cash to each and every owner on top of the new unit. If you send me your email address I can send you all of the particulars.
> 
> Paul Evans
> Paul@premierbr.net



Paul, as I understand it... the 8300 +/- new intervals are for sale.   evidently the $40,000,000.00 offer wasn't enough?   what is this "Group" planning on doing with the units?   is this group in the timeshare business?  where was this "Group" 5-6 years ago when Liesure ran the resort into the ground, looted all the assets and then went Bankrupt???   I see a HOA Board, that along with Summer Bay Mgmt has worked very hard to SAVE our equity.   the sale of the excess inventory will generate  5-6 times your groups offer. this will generate a bunch of $$$ for the HOA (us Owners)  and Summer Bay Mgmt stands to make a very healthy ROI !   That's their reward for stepping up to the plate and investing Millions in our resort.(that's what they do)   isn't that why this "Group want's to purchase the 160 units? to make a healthy profit?   I'd rather see Summer Bay make the money than some Unamed "Group"   
I was at the meeting as well, and there were a bunch of folks looking to cash out.  summer bay units have been bringing anywhere from $1 to $5000 on the resale market.  that $40,000,000.00  will  buy a lot of inventory.      I agree with Spattenfloot, this doesn't pass the smell test.   It's easy to come in after all the work has been done and second guess the deal, where were you and your group a year ago? 2 years ago? 5 years ago?   RT


----------



## spatenfloot

roadtriper said:


> I was at the meeting as well, and there were a bunch of folks looking to cash out.


If they are expecting Harrah's or anyone to offer them a bunch of money, they are dreaming. It will not happen. This deal is the best offer they will get (that isn't a scam anyway).  They could always sell their unit after the move is completed, since it will be worth much more than it is now. Unfortunately, some people have no idea how much their timeshare is actually worth to someone else.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

The problem is not with the Harrah's deal. Harrah's has been fair to the owners.  The problem is with the deal the Developer has cut with himself.  The board has agreed to sell the excess inventory of 160 units to the Developer for 11 million dollars to be liquidated by the developer through resales which could net them 160 plus million in sales (160 units X 52 Weeks X 20k per week in "Gold Crown" resort)  Simple!! The developer gets practically all of the owners new equity.  They make 160 million is sales and give the owner's 11 million over a 7-10 year schedule (that schedule given to me by email from Victor McElroy himself). So the developer is only paying 65k per unit, which could be presold as complete units before completion of renovations netting the owners betwee 40-80 million.  I have spoken with several Las Vegas real estate agents on the value of those units once renovated and they said you could expect anywhere from 250k to 500k per unit.  You do the math.  As an owner I don't have a problem with the developer making profit.  That's what they do.  But to give the owners only 11 million of 160 million in timeshare sales is ridiculous.

To answer the question on where was the group 5-6 years ago.  This offer wasn't on the board from Harrah's then.  It has just come up.  Additionally,  I have emails attempting to get the facts from the board where they have cited confidentiallity agreements and have not presented any of the facts of the deal they cut with the developer until just recently.

Don't take my word for it, ask your board for yourself how much the developer is going to pay, and when.  I would appreciate you forwarding me any response you may get from them, if any.

Charles McKern, bamboardman@aol.com, Mary Gertrude Jones, mgjones@netpenny.net, Gary Koehli, gkoehli@kwca.net, Victor McElroy, vmcelroy@summerbayresort.com, Paul Caldwell, pcaldwell@summerbayresort.com, Paul Skurecki, pskurecki@summerbayresort.com, Grace Benfield, Gracefenfield@wmconnect.com, Roy Whitworth, royboy@networld.com, Marcel Ferrere, mpferrere@zoominternet.net, Richard Charlesworth rwclux@msn.com, James Reach,Reach@dock.net

Doesn't it seem strange to you that Harrah's is willing to trade us giving us 32.7% more units and the money to renovate them but the board told us at the meeting they may only be able to hold maintenance fees stable for a couple of years.  Where's the money from the sales going........In the pockets of the developers.

Like I said, the deal from Harrah's is great,  it's the deal to sell the units for only 11 million (65,000 per unit) to the developer which is a scam.  But the developer has three appointed board members who are not voting for the best interest of the owners but for the best interest of the developer.


----------



## roadtriper

paul@premierbr.net said:


> The problem is not with the Harrah's deal. Harrah's has been fair to the owners.  The problem is with the deal the Developer has cut with himself.  The board has agreed to sell the excess inventory of 160 units to the Developer for 11 million dollars to be liquidated by the developer through resales which could net them 160 plus million in sales (160 units X 52 Weeks X 20k per week in "Gold Crown" resort)  Simple!! The developer gets practically all of the owners new equity.  They make 160 million is sales and give the owner's 11 million over a 7-10 year schedule (that schedule given to me by email from Victor McElroy himself). So the developer is only paying 65k per unit, which could be presold as complete units before completion of renovations netting the owners betwee 40-80 million.  I have spoken with several Las Vegas real estate agents on the value of those units once renovated and they said you could expect anywhere from 250k to 500k per unit.  You do the math.  As an owner I don't have a problem with the developer making profit.  That's what they do.  But to give the owners only 11 million of 160 million in timeshare sales is ridiculous.
> 
> To answer the question on where was the group 5-6 years ago.  This offer wasn't on the board from Harrah's then.  It has just come up.  Additionally,  I have emails attempting to get the facts from the board where they have cited confidentiallity agreements and have not presented any of the facts of the deal they cut with the developer until just recently.
> 
> Don't take my word for it, ask your board for yourself how much the developer is going to pay, and when.  I would appreciate you forwarding me any response you may get from them, if any.
> 
> Charles McKern, bamboardman@aol.com, Mary Gertrude Jones, mgjones@netpenny.net, Gary Koehli, gkoehli@kwca.net, Victor McElroy, vmcelroy@summerbayresort.com, Paul Caldwell, pcaldwell@summerbayresort.com, Paul Skurecki, pskurecki@summerbayresort.com, Grace Benfield, Gracefenfield@wmconnect.com, Roy Whitworth, royboy@networld.com, Marcel Ferrere, mpferrere@zoominternet.net, Richard Charlesworth rwclux@msn.com, James Reach,Reach@dock.net
> 
> Doesn't it seem strange to you that Harrah's is willing to trade us giving us 32.7% more units and the money to renovate them but the board told us at the meeting they may only be able to hold maintenance fees stable for a couple of years.  Where's the money from the sales going........In the pockets of the developers.
> 
> Like I said, the deal from Harrah's is great,  it's the deal to sell the units for only 11 million (65,000 per unit) to the developer which is a scam.  But the developer has three appointed board members who are not voting for the best interest of the owners but for the best interest of the developer.



Paul, your figures are correct as I understand it.  and the figures you quote make your point very well. and don't get me wrong I'm a hard working Blue Collar guy that would love to see  big check in the mailbox, but let me play "Devil's Advocate" cause I don't see it happening, nor do I expect it.

A. the Board does have 3 appointed Summer Bay employees, BUT it has 8 Owners as well, elected by fellow owners

B. as I understand it, Harrah's wasn't willing to give us the extra Inventory, they offered a unit for unit swap and THEY were going to retain the excess 160 units, the HOA  negotiated for the whole deal, or no deal.

C. I was told (unconfirmed) that the 160 excess units were not being remodled out of the 29 mil put up by harrah's  that the developer was footing the bill for the excess inventory? 

D. The $160 million figure you put out there is estimated potential not cast in stone could be more ,could be less.  and it isn't a "NET" figure    there are years and years of expenses taken out of that number before the inventory is sold out.  so it's an unknown exactly what the developer pockets?

E. if the 160 units are sold off as a whole they generate no maint fees for the HOA       160 X 52 X $425  =  $3.5 million a year income for the HOA  which as I understand it has to be paid by the Developer while the inventory remains unsold  (see Item D. above)   

F.again as I understand it... each owners interval is going to be an equal share of the whole enchilada  selling off 25% of the total property and loosing control of it may/may not look all that wise 10 years down the road when Harrah's, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Addleson, MGM Mirage,or the Hugh's Ctr. has closed in around us and would like another prime 18 acres.    10 years ago who'd of thought this deal would be happening?.

G . Summer Bay Mgmt Co.  has a vested interest!  did their financial investment,Financial assetts, managment style, Name, Vision for the property, have any effect on OUR negotiating Power concerning the redevelopment rights?  I sure think it did.   not so many years ago that neighborhood was kinda scary to walk through at times!   if the resort had remained in that state, an outfit a big as Harrah's wouldn't have too much trouble making a case with Clark county for Emminent Domain (sp?) !  

H. A massive Marketing/sales campaign to sell off the excess inventory as "Timeshares" at full pop developer prices. raises the Value of OUR units we all own.   as recently as a year ago you'd be lucky to realize $300 for a 1 bedroom on the resale market.  as evidenced by the sheer qty. of forclosures (folks were paying companies thousands of $$$ to take their SB units off their hands)and the inventory being sold on ebay by the PCC croud.  that inventory is drying up and prices are on the upswing.

Ok, I'll get of my Devil's Advocate Soap Box now!  I have no connection to SB Mgmt whatsoever. I'm an owner just as you are.  I've run all the numbers as you have. any yeah the extra inventory is worth a bunch.    Could the HOA worked a better deal with Summer bay?  Could we have all gotten a check in the mail?  Could the whole deal have gone to Hell in a Handbasket many times?      Shoulda, Coulda Woulda's  will have everyone second guessing what could have happened.   I'd rather deal in what is Happening!
Paul, you appear to be very Knowledgable in the Real estate, Financing end of things  and if they are offering $40 mil. this unamed "Group" obviously has the financial means to do this sort of deal.   you folks sell this to the HOA Board and I will stand side by side with all of you and help make it happen.  until then? I'm a happy camper!   I understand and respect your views of how you think it should shake out.  Just see it differently!    RT


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Roadtripper, thank you for your response.  That's what I'm trying to generate, another way of looking at things through dialog with other owners.  I believe if what you say in some of your commets is correct, then we are thinking the same.

Let me respond to your comments and we'll probably see where the board may need to clarify things.  

Your point,
A. You are correct with the number of board members.  However,  most timeshare owners are social people not business people.  The Summer Bay board members are appointed by the business to act in such.  The developer has far superior negotiating experience and in this case as timeshare salesman, sales experience to negotiate a great deal for themselves.

B. The HOA did a fantastic job of negotiating for the additional units.  Per an email from Victor McElroy the additional units will belong to the association to bargain, sell, or negotiate away on behalf of the owners.  That is what they have done, negotiated the sell over 7-10 years (per McElroy's numbers), that sale.  That's where we may differ in opinion.  If as condos the association could get between 40-80 million presold prior to the completion of renovation (upfront), why accept 11 million collected, as sold, over a 7-10 year period.  

C. ***We may need clarification from the board on this.  It has been presented that the 29 million would be to renovate the entire complex. We need to find out if this is the case.  Because this is a difference of many millions of dollars.

D. That is correct if done that way.  But again, see answer to statement "B".  The developer should be required to give fair market value for the property like anyone else.  They are a for profit company and must take on the same risks that for-profit companies take.  Are we looking after the best interest of the owners or for the for-profit developer.

E.  If the units were sold off in whole and the 40-80 million put into an interest bearing account of 5% we would generate 2-4 million annually in interest without bearing the cost of any of the maintenance of those units.  Maintenance fees are suppose to be a wash.  We are a non-profit association.

F. *****Again we need clarification from the board on this issue.  It's my understanding that we are not trading 1/25000 of a share for 1/25000 of a share.  If we had the same fractional ownership after the additional units are sold then we wouldn't have an arguement here.  Each owner would then own 1/25000 of a share in a nicer, bigger complex.  But it is my understanding when all said and done you will have something like 1/33000 of an interest.  So as you said, somewhere down the line should Wynn for example want the property you won't get 1/25000 of an interest, but 1/33,000 of an interest.

G. Summer Bay may have a vested interest in the goings on, but I would say the owner's who have been through so much, many of whom lost their units entirely, while others had to pay for years on a property they didn't even want to visit have a bigger vested interest.  This might be where you an I disagree.  I feel the owner's deserve the lion's share of the sales revenue from the excess units sold, not Summer Bay.

H. Again, marketing campain would not be necessary if sold as whole units.  Talk about value.  Do you think permanent residence would have more concern about maintaining Dessert Club then part-time or timeshare owners.  Besides, you wouldn't be putting an additional 8320 units on the market to have to compete with if you want to sell your units.  Right now, many people can't sell their present units for any price, as you pointed out.  There is a percentage of people looking to cash out once this deal is complete.  They will dump their units on the market at that time as well.  Victor McElroy already said it would take 7-10 years to liquidate the additional 8000 plus units.  So as an owner looking to sell you better be prepared to hold your units for years if you expect to get any kind of reasonable value under the proposed deal.

So as stated I believe we need clarification from the board on a few of the issues you raised.

I purchased my units on the resell market because I saw value, close proximity to the strip and low maintenance fees.  All of those things are going to be taken from me with the present deal.  At the meeting the best they said they could hope for was a couple of years of stable fees.

Thanks for your input.  I consider it to be valuable. Paul


----------



## roadtriper

You wrote "I purchased my units on the resell market because I saw value, close proximity to the strip and low maintenance fees. All of those things are going to be taken from me with the present deal. At the meeting the best they said they could hope for was a couple of years of stable fees"

I don't see how any Value is being taken from you?  the proposal you have presented may afford you more value, but the deal as it stands adds tremendous value to us all IMHO.  the locale is a block further from the strip, give or take.   Terraces IV  is only about 50 yards from the front gate of Desert Club.   if you look at the Villas to the back of the desert Club it's quite a hike.  but what isn't in Vegas? and I think they adressed the transportation issue.   as for the Maint fees?   we're starting out with some of the lowest Maint fees around.  in the past few years even with all the work going on at the current resort. etc. they have remained steady. and I only know of 1 S/A at Summer bay LV and it was under $100 and as I understand it was only needed because Liesure left the place upsidedown?    I imagine it's hard to know exactly what the operating budget will be at the new property.  given the past few years track record, and the current finacial health of the HOA I'm optimistic that we will have Maint fees that others envy for a long time.  will they go up?  Everything goes up. but I think they are capped to a certian limit of increase each year?   RT


----------



## Sandy

Very interesting discussion, 

I have a few questions about this new deal Paul describes:

- Can you clafiry why the figure is 1/33000 interest rather than 1/25000?

- Who is actually footing the bill for the remodel of the excess 169 units? This is a key factor b/c it can mean the extra cash in the hands of the HOA or depleted by remodeling costs.  I would factor this into the financial stability of the HOA in the future.

- What impact, if any, does the division of a resort into whole ownership and timeshares have on the value of the property? I know of other t/shares that have mixed use, but I have never inquired into the effect this might have on operations, residual value, maintenance, etc. 

- What is the value of the regular and routine payment of maintenance fees as compared with the cash upfront from an outright sale?

- I agree with Bob when he said, "Paul, you appear to be very Knowledgable in the Real estate, Financing end of things and if they are offering $40 mil. this unamed "Group" obviously has the financial means to do this sort of deal. you folks sell this to the HOA Board and I will stand side by side with all of you and help make it happen."  How could an owner not view an offer with many financial benefits.  But what remains to be seen is whether the ink is dry on the deal, or if there is room for further offers.  Does anyone know the answer to this?

- I don't understand how an owner's value can be taken away by the current deal.  If the prices go up, and gold crown units will sell for $20000+-, then the rising tide should lift all boats, right? We all should realize that the actual sales prices to neophite, off-of-the-street buyers has little reality to saavy timeshare resale purchasers.  Look at Tahiti Village, a new resort currently in active sales.  While the wild prices reflect 5 figure sales ($15,000 and up to $30000 or so), the resale market remains in the 4 figures, with very nice two bedroom units going for under $5000.  I don't think that one can compare the resale market with the retail market, except when making valuation comparisons or noting what developers make.  They always make a bundle, at the expense of the buyers. 

- Wouldn't putting the additional 8300 units on the market just put Desert Club in the game with all of the other timeshare development in LV?  I don't see this as a downside.  The pricing for resales may go up a little, but it may not. Just look at other developments currently in active sales, and then compare the pricing on the secondary market.  Even Marriott can be had for a significant discount, if you know where to look. 

These are just my initial thoughts.  Certainly, if the door is still open for the HOA to consider this proposal, it probably should at least give it a serious evaluation.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Let me try to explain it another way.  In 2002 the board approved declarations to demolish, reconstruct, and expand the current resort.  It didn't say anything about trading the land and moving the resort.

So when I purchased my units it was with the understanding the resort would stay put.  I knew the value was going to go through the roof as it did because of the growth of Vegas, the proximity to the strip and being directly against the Monorail.  The land alone would be worth more than the timeshare.  In order for any redevelopment group to do what Harrah's is proposing to do, I knew they would have to come up with a premium, which they did.  That premium, or added VALUE, was not only a new unit but an additional 160 units which have a proven VALUE of a minimum of 40 million to 80 million presold whole units, to perhaps 160 million as timeshares.  For each 1/25000 owned I would have, along with every other 1/25000 owner an undivided interest in the 40-160 million dollars..........and we do!!!!  No one is disputing those facts, along with the fact that the association is the recipient of the extra units.

Where the VALUE is being taken is the board has said they have agreed to sell to the developer something worth between 40-160 million dollars, for only 11 million dollars, and that 11 million will be collected over a 7-10 year period, not upfront.  So my 1/25000 of an interest in 40-160 million dollars is being turned into, through the associations agreement with the developer, 11 million dollars collected over time.  That's a lot of value being given away through that agreement.

I would bet you could find 160 people out of the 25,000 in the association who would sign purchase agreements for $250,000 each for a renovated condo at Dessert Club.  I would, and it would be a steal.  There's your easy $40,000,000 upfront.

Thanks again for your comments. Paul


----------



## Sandy

Thanks Paul, 

How do you get the reduction from 1/25000 to 1/33000?

Also, as I read your post and think I understand things, your issue is that the HOA is getting the short end of the stick re: the 169 units, right?

The figures you suggest are much higher, and indicate that if another group comes in, this group would offer much more up front for the excess units.

But, is this a consideration that can still be made, or is it a dead issue?

Perhaps this also explains some of the disgruntled owners at Saturday's meeting who seem to think that they were being jipped out of the lion's share of the money.  Perhaps they were also privy to your information and counter-offer, if I can call it that?


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

You're correct.  The issue isn't with the deal Harrah's is giving us or the nice new units each one of us will receive.  The issue is the board is not receiving fair market value for the additional units being sold to the developer.  

Like I said, it wouldn't be hard at all to get 160 people to sign purchase agreements on the units at $250,000 to get to $40,000,000 upfront.  A far cry from the 11 million being collected over 7-10 years.

And the deal is not done!!!  It takes 80% approval from the owners and as of now they only have around 23%.  Those 23% can back out if they choose.  But if you were to listen to the timeshare salesmen pumping up the deal you'd swear it's all but done. But they are salesmen.

I was told the only way to get anyone on the board to take action is to gather enough owners to resist the current deal with the developer, then renegotiate, or elect new board members who have the negotiating skills to hold tight against the developer. Many of the board members are the same ones who were board members when the resort got run down and driven into bankruptcy.  I'm sure they are all very nice and honorable people, but it's hard to put a lot of faith or trust in their hands without some scrutiny.


----------



## timeos2

*Outsider looking in*

I have no horse in the race and speak strictly as an outsider looking in. 

I have stated before that I think the Board has done a tremendous job for the owners taking a true sows ear and turning it into silver. Not quite gold as there could be some combinations of sale of the new units they obtained that may bring more than the current plan calls for - but it is all conjecture.  The effort and up front money required to reach even the $40 million "minimum" (and nothing, certainly not the $40 million, is guaranteed to anyone) is substantial. The Board can certainly make the case that money in hand - even at what amounts to a discounted rate - is better than non-guaranteed, potentially larger sum later. 

Based on the results to date I'd tend to trust the judgment of the Board as, from this outsiders view, they have done great job so far. And a dollar in hand is usually worth 4 in a possible bush.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

That is the point Timeos2, the 11 million from the developer is not upfront money, it's collected over 7-10 years if the developer sells the units as timeshares.  The 40 million is for whole, presold units.  That's the problem with the deal, the board is negotiating to get 11 million over time instead of 40 million up front.  Now do you see the problem.

Additionally, many of your board members are the same ones who steered the resort into bankruptcy.  It's not the board saving this deal, it's Las Vegas and the soaring land prices that has brough Harrah's to the table.  You would have to look at all the board decisions with some sort of scrutiny. Paul


----------



## janapur

paul@premierbr.net said:


> You're correct.  The issue isn't with the deal Harrah's is giving us or the nice new units each one of us will receive.  The issue is the board is not receiving fair market value for the additional units being sold to the developer.
> 
> Like I said, it wouldn't be hard at all to get 160 people to sign purchase agreements on the units at $250,000 to get to $40,000,000 upfront.  A far cry from the 11 million being collected over 7-10 years.
> 
> And the deal is not done!!!  It takes 80% approval from the owners and as of now they only have around 23%.  Those 23% can back out if they choose.  But if you were to listen to the timeshare salesmen pumping up the deal you'd swear it's all but done. But they are salesmen.
> 
> I was told the only way to get anyone on the board to take action is to gather enough owners to resist the current deal with the developer, then renegotiate, or elect new board members who have the negotiating skills to hold tight against the developer. Many of the board members are the same ones who were board members when the resort got run down and driven into bankruptcy.  I'm sure they are all very nice and honorable people, but it's hard to put a lot of faith or trust in their hands without some scrutiny.



Is it still possible to resist the current deal with the developer without quashing the deal with Harrahs? If so, sign me up for one of those $250K units.

Jana


----------



## timeos2

paul@premierbr.net said:


> That is the point Timeos2, the 11 million from the developer is not upfront money, it's collected over 7-10 years if the developer sells the units as timeshares.  The 40 million is for whole, presold units.  That's the problem with the deal, the board is negotiating to get 11 million over time instead of 40 million up front.  Now do you see the problem.
> 
> Additionally, many of your board members are the same ones who steered the resort into bankruptcy.  It's not the board saving this deal, it's Las Vegas and the soaring land prices that has brough Harrah's to the table.  You would have to look at all the board decisions with some sort of scrutiny. Paul



Setting up a system to get $20,000 out of each week of timeshare is no small thing to do.  Remember 50% of that money usually ends up as overhead. 

Mixing whole ownership and timeshare in the same project is usually a recipe for problems down the line. Make it a timeshare or a whole ownership but don't mix apples and oranges.  

I agree that every Board needs to have active owners watching over them and they need to be open with meetings and all information.  If the current Board took SB down (it was at a low point a few years back) then it is all the more miraculous that they were able to turn it around.  You have to hope they learned a tough lesson.  Watch them for sure, question when needed is always a good approach.  Again the recent moves seem to be very owner positive.  I applaud everyone involved - owners, Board and developers and hope it all works out well.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Timeos2, you are correct again.  That's why I proposed they split the deal into 2 pieces, one 489 unit timeshare piece equal to the present number of units at Summer Bay and one 160 unit condo LLC with an equal number of shares issued to the total number of present Summer Bay owners, aproximately 25,000, with a value of at least the 40 million in real estate.  If they could take 8 associations and combine them into one, they can take one and make it two.  Each owner would receive one new unit plus one share of stock in the LLC.  Then, when the units were sold off, each owner would receive their fair share of the proceeds.  Believe me, it can be done by the owners, for the owners.


----------



## spatenfloot

So Paul, why didn't your group simply buy the apartment complex in the first place? Harrah's only paid $25 million for it. At this point, it is too late for some group to come along and offer to buy them. Summer Bay is the developer/manager of our timeshares and the only one who can deal with Harrah's for the new property. Obviously, they will want to make the deal that benefits them in some way.  The owners of the timeshares do not own the additional units at Desert Club. The owners are getting a great deal which increases the value of what they do own (their timeshare week).


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Spatenfloot, your are incorrect on who owns the additional units.  I have an email from Victor McElroy and have spoken with unnamed board members who clearly state who the owners of the new units would be, the association.  If you email me at paul@premierbr.net I will foward you the email.  

And to correct you, Harrah's didn't pay $25 million for the units, they paid $250 million for the units.

I'm not interested in buying the units, I was only interested in getting the information of what we could get for the units which is why I contacted the investment group, to get true value.  I'm only interested, as an owner like you, to get my fair share of the deal and a fair share for each and every owner.

The reason Harrah's made the offer and bought the complex is because they own the "redevelopment rights", I don't.  They are responsible for making the offer which they did.

The offer from Harrah's to our association is a good deal.  That's not what's in question.  It's the agreement between your board members and the developers which is bad.  Your board is giving away a good deal from Harrah's and us, as association members, to the developer for pennies on the dollar.  That's where the deal turns into a bad one.

I can get 160 purchase agreements at $250,000 each for a total of $40,000,000 upfront, prior to the renovations.  Your board is giving the excess units to the developer for 11 million to be paid as they sell them over the next 7-10 years.  I'm not going to insult your intelligence and ask you if you see the injustice of that deal.  Everyone knows 40million upfront is better than 11 million over time.

I do appreciate your input and any other questions you may have. Paul


----------



## spatenfloot

Apparently i was thinking of something else I read then or the extra zero got lost in the internet. 

Regardless, roadtriper is correct about the maintenance fees generated by the extra units. ($3.5 million per year). Your response about sticking all the money in a bank account conflicts with your statements about owners sharing the proceeds. Those are mutually exclusive.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

You are asking great questions.  In our association, in theory maintenance fees and expenses should equal.  There is no need for excess maintenance fees if there are no excess expenses.  If we, as owners sold the units upfront and received 40 million in revenue, then that revenue put in the bank would generate an interest income alone of several million dollars a year without any expenses.  Bottom line is owners could receive the proceeds of the sales and not be responsible for the expenses of those units.  They would have there own maintenance fees taking care of their own units.  Great point though.


----------



## spatenfloot

Many of those expenses would still exist whether we have 400 units or 600 so it is not quite that cut and dried. Also, the maintenance fees help fund the reserves used for major projects or necessary large repairs.


----------



## Sandy

*Clarification please*

As I read these posts, I think some confusion (at least some of my confusion) comes about when we identify the parties in the deal. 

Who will be the recipient of the 11 million over 7-10 years? I thought that 
Summer Bay the resort only manages the property, the HOA is the governing body of the owners, and IMI is the marketing group/developer.  So, is it IMI that will benefit to the tune of 160million? Is the deal with IMI that is sour?

I see references in the posts here that "Summer Bay" will get 160 million, or that the owners will only get 11 million, or a combination.  Is the terminology correct as to which group will get what portion of any sale and which group can control the deal?

Also, why does it take only 160 people to make an offer to buy the additional 160 units? They are not on the open market, but rather are part of the entire SB deal with Harrahs. So how can some group of 160 individuals make an offer that would amount to 40+ million upfront?
Thanks for any clarification.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Sandy.  This might help.  We the owners are the HOA.  Their are three parties to this deal, Harrahs, HOA, and the developer, call them who ever you want.  The HOA will be the recipients of the 160 units, that's you, me, and the other 25,000 or so owners.  Those units have a value.  The developer has apparently negotiated a deal with your board of the HOA to get to buy those units for around 11 million dollars to be collected as the developer sells those units on the open market.  They have said in emails to me they expect that to take 7-10 years.  So the HOA would receive 11 million dollars over 7-10 years to be put into our general fund.

Now,  I have pointed out that those 160 or so units have a value of 4-15 times that amount, an undisputed value of 40-160 million in sales depending on how they are liquidated.  I pointed out that you could even offer the units to the 25,000 owners at $250,000 and you could get 160 owners to take that deal.  I would and I've spoken with others who would be all over that deal.  In addition, those units could be presold, providing 40 million up front dollars to the association fund, not 11 million which the developer doesn't even have to pay until if and when the units are sold.

So the question is a simple one.  Why is the developer, who wants to bust up these new units into timeshares and sell them for a profit, of which the HOA (you and me) receives none, not paying fair market value for the units?  The units belong to you and me as members of the HOA, that's undisputed.  So why are we allowing this to happen?  Contact your board and ask them.  I bet they don't tell you.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Spatenfloot, There is a saying where I come from, "Don't step over a dollar to pick up a nickel".  That's what appears is going on here.


----------



## janapur

janapur said:


> Is it still possible to resist the current deal with the developer without quashing the deal with Harrahs? If so, sign me up for one of those $250K units.
> 
> Jana



Since I've already completed my deed transfer, is it possible to pursue other options with regard to the 160 units without jeopardizing the deal with Harrahs?


----------



## spatenfloot

janapur said:


> Since I've already completed my deed transfer, is it possible to pursue other options with regard to the 160 units without jeopardizing the deal with Harrahs?


I doubt it.  Without the deal with Harrah's, then there ARE no extra 160 units because we won't be moving to the new resort.

Besides, the problem with this whole line of reasoning is the assumption that the owners have something to sell. They don't. The owners own nothing more than the timeshare interval that they purchased. Nothing ever said they are  entitled to a share of all the units sold after they purchased. The resort has always had additional unsold units. After the new deal, they will simply have more. This is not an RET, it is a timeshare.  If people want to throw away an unprecedented deal that benefits everyone, go ahead and fight it. You may end up making the whole deal too much trouble and the major players may back out leaving us with a small aging timeshare that does not hold its value.


----------



## roadtriper

*Condos*

Bottom line is...  Summer Bay Desert Club is a "Timeshare" resort!  that's what I bought into.   NOW, If we're talking CONDOS...  what's with this Piddly 40 Million???   I bet Trump spent 40 Million on artist's renderings.    the place is Zoned for highrise.  lets Bulldoze those 160 units and go with a 60 story Highrise!  600 Luxury Condos bringing $600,000 to say 4 million each!  I WANT a Piece of THAT!


----------



## Fern Modena

Paul,
I think you are wasting your time.  I don't think the deal can be changed at this time, although I am just guessing at this.

Besides everything else, doing things *your way* would change the total character of the resort.  It would become a "mixed use" project, with both timeshares and whole ownership.  I'm not sure that there are any mixed use timeshare projects in Las Vegas, or even if they are covered by NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes).  Removing approximately 25% of the units from the timeshare pool would change the reserves and maintenence fees and how they were calculated.  The "whole owners" need to pay a fee, too, which is something you didn't even mention.

This "deal" would be a great deal for the buyers of the whole units if you priced them at $250K each.  That is way undermarket for a unit that nice so near The Strip.

JMHO.  I have no horse in this race, I'm a local.

Fern


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Spatenfloot, I beg to differ.  The association will be the recipients of the excess units.  Would you  like for me to email you that specifically from Victor McElroy.  That is not in question.  Harrah's and the developer are two seperate entities.  The deal with Harrah's can and will eventually take place.  Harrah's will get that property in the end.  What's not set in stone is the deal with the developer.  And if you think differently we will have to agree to disagree.  Unless 80% agree to the move in won't happen.  That will force the developer back to the table. Period.

Yes Spatenfloot you do own a timeshare and to put it simply,  if the developer is forced to pay fair market value for the additional units, you will not have to pay maintenance fees out of your pocket for a very long time.

Fern Modena,  you are very bright. The whole owners would pay their fair share of maintenance costs as well which was never mentioned.  You also made the exact point I was making that the units at $250,000 would be way UNDER priced. 160 X 250k would be a 40 million dollar value, which as you said is way low.  As a local the others on this board should at least give that some consideration.  However, it's 29 million more, upfront, then the developer has agreed to pay to our HOA.  And in reference to your comment about mixed use projects in Vegas, just about every single big development being proposed and built in vegas is some sort of mixed use such as Condotels.  But I had proposed splitting the deal into two parts, 1-489 unit equal to the number of present units, and 1-160 unit deal.  It would be two seperate deals operating independently of one another. No Problems.

To wrap up the point.... The developer needs to pay more for the units then 11 million dollars or we as fiscally responsible and deeded owners should seek another alternative.

For those who have a hard time accepting the facts or alternative deals it reminds me of a saying "If I continue to think the way I've thought, then I will continue to get what I've got."  That "Laissez-faire" thinking and acting is the same thing that "got" this resort into bankruptcy in the first place.  Many of the same board members are making the important decision now that made them then.  If you think they should be able to make 100% uncensored decisions then again we will have to differ in our thoughts.  You and I as owners can make a better deal.


----------



## roadtriper

janapur said:


> Is it still possible to resist the current deal with the developer without quashing the deal with Harrahs? If so, sign me up for one of those $250K units.
> 
> Jana



Jana,   You only need a few more weeks!    seriously do the math, look at what you have invested in each of your weeks and multiply it by 52!   you can "assemble" a full years use! of course there's the $1800.00 a month Maint fees. but I'm guessing yould have enough left over out of your 250K to cover the fees for many years!  RT

P.S   Give me $20 and I wont tell your husband you just spent a quarter of a million dollars!


----------



## janapur

roadtriper said:


> Jana,   You only need a few more weeks!    seriously do the math, look at what you have invested in each of your weeks and multiply it by 52!   you can "assemble" a full years use! of course there's the $1800.00 a month Maint fees. but I'm guessing yould have enough left over out of your 250K to cover the fees for many years!  RT
> 
> P.S   Give me $20 and I wont tell your husband you just spent a quarter of a million dollars!



Very tempting! Plus I'd get weekly maid service and wouldn't have to worry about maintenance and utilities.

Seriously, I don't care for mixed use projects- Sands of Kahana is one. I was just thinking of other ts developer opportunities to net a bigger profit for the HOA.

Jana


----------



## Sandy

*Regarding Mixed use*

I do believe that there are several of the newest developments in LV that will be mixed use.  For example, isn't the place surrounding the Jockey Club going to be mixed use?  
Also, the Planet Hollywood will contain timeshares, condos, apartments, offices, restaurants,  theaters, etc. I think. 

But mixed use for a smaller development like the Desert Club might be a different story altogether.


----------



## spatenfloot

paul@premierbr.net said:


> Spatenfloot, I beg to differ.  The association will be the recipients of the excess units.  Would you  like for me to email you that specifically from Victor McElroy.  That is not in question.  Harrah's and the developer are two seperate entities.  The deal with Harrah's can and will eventually take place.  Harrah's will get that property in the end.  What's not set in stone is the deal with the developer.  And if you think differently we will have to agree to disagree.  Unless 80% agree to the move in won't happen.  That will force the developer back to the table. Period.



You are confusing the HOA with individual owners. Individual owners do not own any unsold units, therefore they should not expect to benefit directly from the sale of them.

I am aware that Harrah's and SB are different. However, Harrah's is the one who owns the Desert Club apartments, not Summer Bay or SBLV owners. The only way we get the new complex is by proceeding with the agreement with Harrah's. Why should we throw away a good deal simply because someone wants a condo instead of a timeshare? We do not have condos, we have timeshares and the deal reflects that.  If this proposal falls apart, I doubt that we'd get such a good offer again for many years if ever.


----------



## spatenfloot

paul@premierbr.net said:


> I personally sent a letter to all board members explaining I have a group willing to pay $40,000,000 for the additional 160 units made available in the deal with Harrah's.]





paul@premierbr.net said:


> I'm not interested in buying the units, I was only interested in getting the information of what we could get for the units which is why I contacted the investment group, to get true value.  I'm only interested, as an owner like you, to get my fair share of the deal and a fair share for each and every owner.


If you are not part of this investment group, why would the board bother to tell you about any potential deals made with them? Also, why would the group want you to be making offers on their behalf?  Either you have a vested interest in the investment groups activities and are leaving that out of your posts, or you are simply talking about hypothetical possibilities that are not likely.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

No, I'm not the one confused.  The HOA is made up of the owners.  Any revenues generated by the HOA is used to cover the owner's costs.  The more money the HOA generates the less the owners pay.....period.  The excess units will belongs to the HOA.  The more revenue the HOA gets for those units the more benefit to the owners.  I have provided you the email address for every board member.  Contact them for yourself.  Maybe they can explain it to you.  Give me your email address and I'll forward you an email sent to me from Victor McElroy saying just that...."The excess units will belong to the association." You, my friend, if you own time at Summer Bay are part of the association whether you like it or not.  However, I bet if you asked the board any questions about that agreement they have cut with the developer they will clam up.

I've offered you the facts.  What you do with that information is up to you.


----------



## spatenfloot

paul@premierbr.net said:


> However, I bet if you asked the board any questions about that agreement they have cut with the developer they will clam up.


Well, if no one will talk about the deal then how do we know the details you have provided are true?


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

I don't know if you were at the meeting or not,  but the 11 million was given out then.  When I heard that ridiculously low number for the 160 units I emailed Victor McElroy where he provided me with their anticipated time to sale the units over a 7-10 year period.  When I question him on why we were only to receive 11 million of 166 million in anticipated revenue for those units, his only response was the developer didn't share their resale figures and the board did not ask.  All of this is by email.  When I started exposing all the facts to the owners as I had pieced them together the board did not deny anything but quit discussing it.  I have done my homework.  I do this for a living.  I don't provide numbers I can't back up.

I do enjoy communicating and sharing information concerning our timeshare resort.  Regardless of our opinions, healthy discussion is very good.  I wish we had board members interested in setting up a forum such as this where all of the owners could communicate their suggestions, ideas and comments to the board effectively and effeciently.  The members could go to the forum 24/7 at their convenience and be kept up to date with the goings on.  Unfortunately none of the board members are pushing for that one.

Thanks for your comments.


----------



## spatenfloot

paul@premierbr.net said:


> I do enjoy communicating and sharing information concerning our timeshare resort.  Regardless of our opinions, healthy discussion is very good.



Discussion is always good.  Despite our differing viewpoints, I applaud the fact that your posts are polite and well reasoned.


----------



## roadtriper

paul@premierbr.net said:


> Spatenfloot, your are incorrect on who owns the additional units.  I have an email from Victor McElroy and have spoken with unnamed board members who clearly state who the owners of the new units would be, the association.  If you email me at paul@premierbr.net I will foward you the email.
> 
> And to correct you, Harrah's didn't pay $25 million for the units, they paid $250 million for the units.
> 
> I'm not interested in buying the units, I was only interested in getting the information of what we could get for the units which is why I contacted the investment group, to get true value.  I'm only interested, as an owner like you, to get my fair share of the deal and a fair share for each and every owner.
> 
> The reason Harrah's made the offer and bought the complex is because they own the "redevelopment rights", I don't.  They are responsible for making the offer which they did.
> 
> The offer from Harrah's to our association is a good deal.  That's not what's in question.  It's the agreement between your board members and the developers which is bad.  Your board is giving away a good deal from Harrah's and us, as association members, to the developer for pennies on the dollar.  That's where the deal turns into a bad one.
> 
> I can get 160 purchase agreements at $250,000 each for a total of $40,000,000 upfront, prior to the renovations.  Your board is giving the excess units to the developer for 11 million to be paid as they sell them over the next 7-10 years.  I'm not going to insult your intelligence and ask you if you see the injustice of that deal.  Everyone knows 40million upfront is better than 11 million over time.
> 
> I do appreciate your input and any other questions you may have. Paul



Not that it makes any difference in the discussion at hand. the LV Sun Journal has the 19.5 acre Desert Club sale listed as 164.4 million.   RT


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Then you might want to tell Paul Caldwell, one of your board members, to quit giving out the other figure to us owners in his sales pitch. He specifically said Harrah's paid $250m and they would be into the deal $350m when it was all said and done.  You need to email him at pcaldwell@summerbayresort.com and ask him what he meant.  He is one of those "Developer Appointed" board members pushing for the deal for the developer.

Good Job roadtripper.  Those figures help prove the point, what are the additional units worth?  164m plus 29m renovations = 193m for 658 units.   193m / 658 units = $293,000 per unit x 169 excess units = $49,517,000 value for the excess units.

So my only question again is WHY is the board only getting 11 million, collected over 7-10 years for something worth substantially more, that they could get up front.  At what point do we ask the developer to pay fair market value?

There is no dispute on who owns the excess units, the HOA. If you own something don't you have the right to sell it for fair market value.  This is a unique situation where there are 3 developer appointed board members who have a conflict of interest.  They should be voting to protect the welfare of the HOA but are voting to protect the profits of the developer.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Additional information....Just got off the phone with an attorney friend.  He pointed out that the Developer has the least vested in this deal.  He said we owners own the land, 1/25,000 each.  We already new that.  Look at your deed and you see what fractional interest you may have.  He said if Harrah's owns the re-development rights and wants to trade us "land owners" our interest in our unit for the Desert Club.  We could do so and we would own the entire Dessert Club without the developer.  The developer would have to duke it out with Harrah's on there own.  After all, the developer has the least vested in the deal.  They don't own the land and they don't own the re-development rights, and they don't own the Desert Club.  They seem to only own the board of directors..ha ha...joking.

That is independent attorney information, but each of you could consult with your own attorney.


----------



## janapur

Has James Reach been following this thread?


----------



## roadtriper

paul@premierbr.net said:


> Then you might want to tell Paul Caldwell, one of your board members, to quit giving out the other figure to us owners in his sales pitch. He specifically said Harrah's paid $250m and they would be into the deal $350m when it was all said and done.  You need to email him at pcaldwell@summerbayresort.com and ask him what he meant.  He is one of those "Developer Appointed" board members pushing for the deal for the developer.
> 
> Good Job roadtripper.  Those figures help prove the point, what are the additional units worth?  164m plus 29m renovations = 193m for 658 units.   193m / 658 units = $293,000 per unit x 169 excess units = $49,517,000 value for the excess units.
> 
> So my only question again is WHY is the board only getting 11 million, collected over 7-10 years for something worth substantially more, that they could get up front.  At what point do we ask the developer to pay fair market value?
> 
> There is no dispute on who owns the excess units, the HOA. If you own something don't you have the right to sell it for fair market value.  This is a unique situation where there are 3 developer appointed board members who have a conflict of interest.  They should be voting to protect the welfare of the HOA but are voting to protect the profits of the developer.



Paul,  I have no idea who's figures are correct? just stating what was reported in the LVSJ.  and I dont need to email anyone.  
I'm not convinced that the "Developer" is the bad guy!
and I dont see the fact that there are 3 Summer Bay Employees on the 11 member HOA Board as the end of the world.  I've been told that's a good ratio compared to a lot of other resorts where the Developer has a Majority of the Board seats.
I appreciate the respect and civilty throughout this discussion. but my Gut tells me you have cards you're not showing.  hope you prove me wrong!  RT


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Janapur,  I can assure you this thread will be relayed to all concerned.  Watch the number of views, it is being viewed with great interest.

RT,  I'm on your side 100%.  I had no intentions of being this involved. My wife and I are Summer Bay owners just like you.  We visited the resort in January and were excited to hear of these great things that were happening to our resort.  We were told to get the full story of the great changes we were to speak with these "people", IMI Partners, who would be there to explain things and answer any questions we may have.

However, when we requested the information from IMI Partners to view, on our own, and to provide such to our attorneys, that's when our experience went sour.  We were lied to, intimidated and treated with such disrespect, we left the resort and sent Victor McElroy an email detailing our experience, of which I won't go into detail here, but sent in detail to all of the board members of such.  I expected someone to contact me with great concern which never happened.  Victor sent me an email refering me to a higher up at IMI Partners Trent Van Buskirk to make things better.  By the way did you know that IMI stands for Interval Marketing Inc., a timeshare sales firm.  Mr. Van Buskirk did not provide me with the information I requested.  Their job is to sell you on the deal.  My gut, or instincts told me, there is a problem when it takes a skilled sales company to sell me on what was being offered.  If the deal is so great on it's own, why do you need trained, skilled, salesman to push the deal.

My wife an I returned with my mother in May for mother's day but didn't get the information.  So I made it a point to come back for the owner's meeting to find out what the deal was and why I was not being given the information I requested.  On Friday, the day before the meeting, I made a scene in front of several Summer Bay employees stating if I didn't get the paperwork requested, I would make a scene in front of the Board at the meeting.  I did everything possible, trying to get the paperwork, giving out my cell phone number, to make myself accessible 24/7.  Finally, Trent called me back to make his pitch and I made my position clear, again, give me the paperwork to review on my own or I would make a scene.  The night before the meeting the paperwork arrived. Understand, these timeshare salesman are trained not to give out information unless your in their cube on their terms.

I reviewed the papers and went to the meeting.  That's where everything to me became apparent.  The owners are not receiving their fair share of the deal.  If you were at the meeting you could tell all of the disgruntled owners.  They have been lied to, as my wife and I, and feel they are being taken, as my wife and I.  That's when I started figuring things out.

I purchased my first multi-family building in 1991 with an FHA loan.  I worked for a fortune 500 company at the time in finance.  In 1996 I opened my own finance and mortgage company.  Over the last 15 years both of my companies have been extremely successful.  I presently have an aparment building in downtown Baton Rouge we're converting to condo's and a 118 acre track we're converting to homesites.  So I have experience in these issues.  I started with nothing.

I didn't want to be in this fight and didn't pick it.  My first thought was, it's not my issue, the owners are not getting a fair deal, but leave it alone.  However, after my wife and I were treated with such disrespect, the chip jumped on my shoulder.  I have attempted to get the board involved only to find out they have confidentiality agreements, and/or, they have been intimidated by the developer to shut up or be pressured to resign.

In business you negotiate from strength.  Harrah's knows their strength, the re-development rights, and has been fair, more units and cash offered to us owners.  However,  our board is in unchartered or unprecedented waters.  Most HOA board members could never had been expected to be part of such a deal.  They may not realize completely our strenth, the deeded shares of all the owners.  The developer, who by the way is developer by name only, didn't develop our property,  owns nothing but a few rights.  They are business men trained in business and sales.  In a game of cards, they're bluffing.  They actually have the weakest position, but like I said, are skilled bluffers.  We, as owners have the strong hand but the board doesn't necessarily know how to play it.  That's not a knock on the board, just the facts.  As far as I know the board wants a great deal but may not know how to get it.

That's where I was drug into the deal.  My expertise is recognizing deals, good and bad.  Under normal circumstances I would have said, "The owners are getting shafted but I've got bigger fish to fry".  But someone picked a fight with me that I'm willing to finish.

I have the time and resources and c*&%&*nes to compete.  I've been trying to provide you guys with the facts as I see them.  I've already made myself clear to our board.  They now know who I am.  They may not know my determination, but they should know by now who I am.

I love Las Vegas.  It's a great city.  It will only become greater.  We all have an opportunity to benefit from this deal if we don't allow the developer to steal the equity.  I have offered my advice, attention, expertise and time to make sure the owners get what they deserve.  If they are truely interested. 

With great sincerity, Paul Evans


----------



## pranas

I am not an owner but am shopping for a unit on e-bay which is why I am following this thread,  At first I was confused by what paul@premierbr.net  was saying.  But after reading all of his posts, I find his analysis quite logical. I wonder how many owners realise what a sweetheart deal the developer is getting with the owners' blessing.  But if a lot of the  owners are so happy with their new units that they are willing to give the rest of property to the developer for a fraction of its true market value, so be it.


----------



## roadtriper

Paul, I dont think it's a secret who IMI are. 2 min. of Due Dillagence and I knew exactly who they were.  I also don't think it's a secret they are there to sell you.  the first order of business is to do the deed transfer, then to sell the hell out of RCI Points and excess Summer bay Inventory.  heck you can look at thier clothing and jewlery and tell they are either used car salesmen or Timeshare pimps! 
If you and your wife were treated disrespectfuly, then I'd be pissed too. there is no need in Business for disrespect.

With your credentials and business background you should know that creating a scene, or threatening to create a scene. will loose you credibility every time!   it may have got you the paperwork but I bet it didn't gain you any respect?   RT


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

pranas, thank you for your understanding and I hope you do become an owner.  One thing though,  77%, a huge majority of the owners have NOT agreed thus far to the exchange.

RT-Your correct again.  I would not have "caused a scene" so to speak.  The scene would have been asking some questions to the developer or board that they would not have felt comfortable answering at the time.  Some of the same questions I'm posing to you guys.  

I would encourage everyone to become active in your membership at this very important time.  Make every effort to communicate your concerns to your board.  This is our resort. Make sure your voices are heard.  Then, in the end, regardless of whether we get a fair deal or not, you WILL have your new timeshare.  It's whether you're paying a lot more for it or not that will tell the tale.


----------



## timeos2

*Get the basic move approved - work to make it even better*

Paul - You have the correct bottom line. Hopefully the general membership at SB will at the least vote to accept the offer and get a nice new resort out of the deal. I applaud your attempt to really dive into the numbers and the underlying offer as well as raising some great questions that the Board should welcome as they work through the process. It would appear that some money is being left "on the table" that would reduce the ongoing costs to owners in the negotiated sale price for the additional units that would be created and sold.  As much as possible I certainly hope the Board, with the thoughtful support of active owners such as yourself, will press as hard as they can to maximize the return on that once in a lifetime opportunity. But even if they don't it appears the current owners will come out way ahead of where they were a couple years back. So the best thing will be to get either the current or an improved deal accepted by the members. Despite the improvements offered to owners in the current, perhaps flawed plan, it still seems that they have a ways to go to obtain owner approval. It would be a real shame if it falls short as it is doubtful that an offer this good would come around a second time.  

Best wishes to everyone involved and I hope you'll be enjoying a beautiful new resort in the next few years when the dust settles.


----------



## Sandy

*Good points, John*

I agree that the current deal is a whole lot better than the runaround the owners have gotten. From what I heard and read, SB owners have truly been through the fire!

With that in mind, the current deal is, indeed, a good one.  What Paul brings us to think about is "could it be better?"

I, for one, would welcome a deal that is better than good.  However, I am unsure of where the entire matter is in the processing. I know that the SB owners are being asked to sign the papers to get the move to Desert Club going.  As I understood things, we only needed 50%+ to get the renovations underway.  Now I am reading about needing 80% approval. 

What remains unclear, among other things, is whether the "approval and deed transfer" is the entire deal or whether it can be broken as Paul suggests.  Following these threads, we owners do not want to lose a good thing.  But if there is significant resistance because part of the deal is not-so-good, does that threaten the rest of the deal?  If not, then what is the problem?

In other words, if the deal Paul proposes is sound, and if it can be segretated from the underlying move to Desert Club (with the deed transfer and all), then why wouldn't an owner be willing to consider many millions of dollars in addition? 

Surely there are intangibles and unknowns. What is the advisability of a "mixed-use" timeshare property?  How much control does the IMI group really have? After all, they consist of the timeshare salespeople who stand to gain a majority of the money under the current deal. They get the bulk of the sales and the HOA gets the pennies, according to Paul's info. 

The IMI would put up the most resistance, but then they are not the owners, are they?

If there are no timeshares to sell (the extra 160 or so units), then the move will be just a very unique transfer of timeshare development, with the owners getting both a newer property and money in hand.  Plus, the added benefit of no glut of additional timeshare for the sharks to sell, to market to victims, to have running through the property interrupting the relaxation of vacation. That sounds good to me. 

On the other hand, doesn't the presence of an active resale marketing program on site raise the prices of all units?  Maybe, I don't know. It might have the opposite effect of depressing prices, as Paul suggests. 

So many questions.....


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Hello again guys.  I wanted to give you a day to absorb some of the new thoughts I had presented before putting something else out there.

Those of you at the meeting may have recalled an owner mentioning the idea of renting out the excess units. After all the HOA will own them all free and clear.  That idea was quickly swept under the rug by the developer with the arguement that it may, "effect the non-profit status of the association.  We wouldn't want to have to deal with all of that", in so many words.  I emailed Victor about that and he responded the same, in so many words.  However,  it wasn't a bad idea and deserved more time than it was given.

Victor had just been praised a few minutes earlier for his program of renting out owner's unused time.  In fact, the extra income amounted to about 1 million dollars.  Now, don't anyone believe he put together that program out of the goodness of his heart.  Management worked out an agreement to earn a nice cut for themselves of around 15% if I remember correctly.  I don't have the financial report in my hand, but management fees were discussed in it.  Again, everything they, management and developer, do is profit related, their profits.

Now, look at these VERY conservative rental numbers.  160 units X 365 days per year x 50% occupancy x $200 per night = $5,840,000 per year.  WOW!!!

That assumes only a 50% occupancy rate.  We know the strip area occupancy is much higher.  That assumes only $200 per night in a brand new high end condo......cheap.  So very conservative.  

So $5,840,000 every year, without selling the units or giving up any real estate rights.  If like the sales pitch goes, the strip comes to our door, then the real estate continues to rise and each current owner would be the recipient of higher real estate prices.  The revenue would supplement our dues and who know what we'll have in the future. 

Again, it was brought up at the meeting, and it was not dismissed for anything other that it may effect our non-profit status.  However, we could segregate the additional units in an "Owner's LLC" which could provide passive income to the HOA.  Additionally, this idea would take the "mixed-use development" argument out of the picture.  

This could be done quite easily, wasn't dissmissed for any reason that couldn't be overcome, and current owners keep the units through our HOA.  We don't give up our rights to the units as owner's to do with the units as we see fit in the future.  As they say, "We'll cross that bridge when we get there".

Imagine having a "Gold Crown Resort" with low, supplemented maintenance fees for every owner for ever.  Truely an envious position.  Talk about protecting owner's value.

Any ideas, questions, or suggestions? 
Paul


----------



## roadtriper

OK, Now weve gone from selling Condos to opening a Hotel?   which is basicaly what you are saying!  if you seperate the 160 units out and just rent them out nightly, you have yourself a Hotel. 


"Management worked out an agreement to earn a nice cut for themselves of around 15% if I remember correctly. I don't have the financial report in my hand, but management fees were discussed in it. Again, everything they, management and developer, do is profit related, their profits"


The financial report says that their Managment Contract is based on 15% of budgeted expenses, so getting 15% of the rental income too doesn't seem out of the realm?  

Paul, everything I do relating to MY 2 businesses is PROFIT Related!  I'm going to go out on a limb here... But I bet that's how you run YOURS also?

As was shown in the finacial report and you have mentioned, the resort has been succesful in renting out unused units inside the 45 day window through wholesalers like orbits, travelocity etc.  which netted the HOA (us) $935,085.00 after the Greedy Mgmt company  took their cut  ($103,453.00)
which represents 15% of transient rental revenue in excess of the budgeted amount.

We've established that it's going to take 7-10 years to sell off the units as timeshares.   those units will not be sitting vacant for 7-10 years! can't we assume they will be rented out the same way excess inventory is being rented out currently?    if so that is income not figured into your numbers of your previous proposal. 

Bottom line is that Your position is that Summer Bay Mgmt. shouldn't get the excess inventory for the current agreed price of $11-12million, and the HOA (Owners) should decide on it's fate. and profit from the outcome.   Fair statement?    But on the flip side... none of your proposals, figures, or statements seems to give Summer Bay Mgmt. any Credit for their efforts, and investments since 2003.  or their commitment towards the future.  I don't have the ammunition, nor is it my charge in life to Defend Summer Bay Mgmt Co.  but in our case (Las vegas Owners)  Summer bay Mgmt company represents a lot more than "Hired Help" .     look at our resort circa 2003  and look back 5 years!  then go bact to 2003 and look forward 3 years.   I'm Just Sayin...        RT


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

RT-We've all agreed that the HOA has done a fabulous job of negotiating the additional units for the owners.

I have only said great things about the management of our resort and the handling of our financials by Summer Bay Management of such.  I'm not saying Summer Bay management did anything other than a great job of managing the financials of the resort as well as the renting of the excess units.

I want to make sure everyone, the owner's as well as Summer Bay management, knows I stand up and APPLAUD that fantastic job they have done, and I believe that job should be considered when it comes to renewing their contract.

I'm just pointing out they didn't do it out of the graciousness of their hearts.  They did it for profit.  I didn't say profits were bad, I just pointed out that to be their catilyst for their actions, and rightfully so. If I were a stockholder in Summer Bay Management, I would expect nothing less.  However, I'm not a stockholder in Summer Bay Management, I'm an owner.  I would counter managements position with that of the owners.   In fact, Summer Bay Management would benefit tremendously by the additional units as well.  Think about 15% of 6 million new dollars a year for their efforts, $900,000 per year.  That's a whole lot of "Thank You!".

But as you pointed out so clearly, I believe the owner's should have control of the fate of the additional units and rightfully so.  Once an egg is scrambled you can never put it back to its original shape.  I'm not wanting to scramble this egg (sell off the 160 or so new units), until we, as owners can make the proper decision, once we have been given all of our options.

Thanks RT for your questions.  Many people have those sames questions but don't ask.


----------



## Sandy

*Maintenance Fees factored in*



spatenfloot said:


> Regardless, roadtriper is correct about the maintenance fees generated by the extra units. ($3.5 million per year).



I read through this thread again specifically to factor in the maintenance fee question.  If the numbers above are correct, then this $3.5 million is an annual benefit that the HOA will gain over the next 7-10 years during the sales process.  My understanding is that the MF will be paid by the IMI group as they pursue the sales. Once sold, the new owner assumes responsibility. 

This results in a significant amount of money, on top of the $11 million.  Over 10 years it is about 35 million, but cutting that in half gives $17 million or so.  By adding this to the figure for the outright sales amount gives the HOA more than the bare-bones $11 million for the units. 

The money over 7-10 years is still not as good as upfront money, but it is recurring money that will continue.


----------



## roadtriper

Sandy said:


> I read through this thread again specifically to factor in the maintenance fee question.  If the numbers above are correct, then this $3.5 million is an annual benefit that the HOA will gain over the next 7-10 years during the sales process.  My understanding is that the MF will be paid by the IMI group as they pursue the sales. Once sold, the new owner assumes responsibility.
> 
> This results in a significant amount of money, on top of the $11 million.  Over 10 years it is about 35 million, but cutting that in half gives $17 million or so.  By adding this to the figure for the outright sales amount gives the HOA more than the bare-bones $11 million for the units.
> 
> The money over 7-10 years is still not as good as upfront money, but it is recurring money that will continue.



Sandy,  you wrote: "but cutting that in half gives $17 million or so. "    why are you cutting it in half???   RT


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

That money will always recur, whether it's in the form of room charges, rent, maintenance fees or annual interest on the millions if received up front. If you're going to cary something out 10 years how about the 6 million or so in room charges over 10 years without giving up the units.  That's 60 million in revenue to the HOA and you still got the units.

The issue here is, before the ink was dry on the deal with Harrah's the developer was trying to figure out how to cut it up for themselves.

No matter how you look at it $65,000 (per unit) for something worth $250,000 or more is not a good deal, period.

No matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, it's still a pig.  No matter how many snake-oil salesmen (timeshare salesmen or the like) tell you differently.  In fact it's not a pig, it's a hog.  Where I come from they have a saying that pigs get fed, but hogs get slaughtered.  It's time for a "Coshon de lait"!!!!


----------



## Sandy

Bob, 

I said "cutting in half" to reflect that even if only half of the fees are paid and collected (for whatever reason), the amount is still significant. 

Paul's points are still valid: there are more advantageous ways to look at the sub-deal with a timeshare sales force/developer. We all know that the IMI sales force will gain the bulk of the money, as every timeshare sales force does. 

Does anyone have an opinion on whether having an active sales force on site is of benefit to the owners?  Do prices on timeshare resorts increase or decrease if they are still in active sales? Are resale prices higher in sold out resorts? Is it true that resale pricing will be depressed b/c owners will be competing with the sales team? Or is that a real benefit ("look - those guys are selling units for $20,000, but you can buy my unit for $___")


----------



## timeos2

*Maybe but who runs the show and who pays*



Sandy said:


> Bob,
> 
> I said "cutting in half" to reflect that even if only half of the fees are paid and collected (for whatever reason), the amount is still significant.
> 
> Paul's points are still valid: there are more advantageous ways to look at the sub-deal with a timeshare sales force/developer. We all know that the IMI sales force will gain the bulk of the money, as every timeshare sales force does.
> 
> Does anyone have an opinion on whether having an active sales force on site is of benefit to the owners?  Do prices on timeshare resorts increase or decrease if they are still in active sales? Are resale prices higher in sold out resorts? Is it true that resale pricing will be depressed b/c owners will be competing with the sales team? Or is that a real benefit ("look - those guys are selling units for $20,000, but you can buy my unit for $___")



No, having sales weasels on the property is never a plus.  But it can be a necessary evil.  To become a sales operation the Association would have to file with the state, have proper, licensed representatives, hire sales folk(who have to make money) and much more. Then you have to promote the project unless you plan to merely offer it to guests at a deep discount - far closer to the 50% or less that resale units sell for rather than the grossly inflated prices that your weasels/developers get.  In that  case the gross income will be 50% of what the pro's bring in, but the overhead also cut, so the net to the Association would be about the same as the weasel approach and much higher than the current offer appears to be.  You could also plan on a longer than 7 year period to sell it off but, of course, you'd be able to rent the unsold inventory in the interim. Finally you are now setting the bar for "new" purchase basically at 50% of the jacked up developer level. Great for buyers and it is the way most timeshare SHOULD be sold but now you are effectively in competition with resales until all those 160+ units are sold. To compete with "new" sales the current owner would have to cut their price and they may not like that. I'd bet it's still much higher for your beautiful, new resort than what they can get today but not as high as it could be if the developer was offering "new" units at more than double the resale prices.  

It would be a big risk, a lot of effort and not something most Associations are set up to handle. On the other hand not many get the chance you have to own 50% of a development to sell.  Personally if I sat on the Board I'd go after the developer for a much better price for the units than the current $11 million. I'd bet they'd go $25 or even $30 just to get the sales rights. I don't think I'd want to try the direct sale route but it would depend on knowing a lot more details than can be shown here to outsiders.  Again my biggest worry , and it may be whats driving the Board now, is that the whole deal falls through and THEN they will be held responsible. Somehow this has to get approved and then, if possibe, work on that final piece of just how much of the "new" units sale price comes back to the Association.  Don't kill the goose trying to get one last golden egg while it's still just a chick.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

The simple solution then would be to consult with developer competitors, those who also are in the timeshare business and have them bid out the project.  That way, all the personal, emotional connection with the present developer is put aside.  If the present developer has a problem with being "FAIR", then we, as owners should ask, "HOW MUCH!!!".  How much will it take for you to go away completely.  There is so much equity in the deal I'd be happy with paying them off and making them go away completely.  That way we don't have this problem in the future when the "Strip" is again knocking on our door.

The object here is not to kill the goose but just the opposite, keep the goose laying the gold for years to come.

Additionally,  with a "FAIR" deal, I would be supportive as well as many other owners.  There are still 77% or so not on board, the vast, silent majority.  Many of those people see the exact same thing I do and are not going to sign on to it.  We could move so much more quickly, a benefit to everyone, with a "FAIR" deal from the developer.


----------



## timeos2

paul@premierbr.net said:


> The simple solution then would be to consult with developer competitors, those who also are in the timeshare business and have them bid out the project.  That way, all the personal, emotional connection with the present developer is put aside.  If the present developer has a problem with being "FAIR", then we, as owners should ask, "HOW MUCH!!!".  How much will it take for you to go away completely.  There is so much equity in the deal I'd be happy with paying them off and making them go away completely.  That way we don't have this problem in the future when the "Strip" is again knocking on our door.
> 
> The object here is not to kill the goose but just the opposite, keep the goose laying the gold for years to come.
> 
> Additionally,  with a "FAIR" deal, I would be supportive as well as many other owners.  There are still 77% or so not on board, the vast, silent majority.  Many of those people see the exact same thing I do and are not going to sign on to it.  We could move so much more quickly, a benefit to everyone, with a "FAIR" deal from the developer.



Which unfortunately goes back to a post of many months ago. Are the majority of owners smart enough to take a once in a lifetime offer (no, the strip isn't likely to come calling a second time for todays owners) or will the offer - flawed or not, the best they have un hand - die for lack of approval. If dead then kiss anything - including just the new, improved resort - goodbye. If 77 percent haven't signed in it is looking more like dead meat than success.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Timeos2,  You are a very wise moderator and do provide great opposing points to many of the posts.  I do have some strong beliefs based on my own limited, worldly experience in dealing with situations of the such.  Also, even though I respect your opinions I think many of us owner's would take offense to your comments, "are they "smart" enough to take advantage of a once in a lifetime deal...".  I could counter that with are they "stupid" enough, but I wouldn't do that.

1. The owners hold title to the land which our resort sits, undeniable.  That land will continue to increase in value in the great city of Las Vegas.  Location, Location, Location is and will whole true.

2. Harrah's will excercise their re-development rights in time.  They will, and have proven themselves to be fair, in the dealings with our HOA.

3. If the owner's pool their land interest and trade that interest to Harrah's for the the Desert Club then the developer will be left to deal with Harrah's on their own to fight over "whatever" rights this "in-name" only developer may have.  Our problem with the developer would be over.  They'd have no interest in the "Desert Club".

4. The present deal is so lopsided that the person with the least vested interest, the developer, has the most to gain.  It's no coincidence that they are the ones selling the owners, "The strip will soon be knocking on your door!", arguement to move, not me.  So that was a great point you made it might night happen in the lifetime of many of our owners and something they should consider when making their decision on the deal, to move farther away from the strip.  That was not me saying, "Don't buy that arguement about the strip coming to the Dessert Club", that was you.  All the owners need to think about that one again and use it in their decision to move.

5. If you want the deal to go through more quickly, make it "FAIR".  Making it "FAIR" could almost guarantee success.

6. You negotiate a deal from a position of strength.  Do date the developer has looked at the owner's as a bunch of pansies, will accept any deal.  If the owner's stand up to the developer and show they will only accept a "FAIR" deal or nothing then the developer would have to re-consider their options.  They are businessmen and can and will see things differently at that time, not until then.

Like I said before it's the HOG in this deal that's causing all the problems. Slaughter the Hog and the deals done.


----------



## timeos2

Paul - Nothing derogatory intended in the "smart" comment. But these things can be over analyzed & people can outsmart themselves.  I think about cases - and there are many - where property owners think they can do better & end up having things built around the land rather than on it - the land becomes orphaned and virtually worthless. It could happen here too - look at what the Jockey Club ends up with.  They didn't even get offered a buy out as apparently the developers next door felt it would be too tough to obtain. Right now Summer Bay may be proving them right. 

I think you have great ideas & concerns but I'd advise working to get things approved & that sale clause altered if possible - but #1 getting the overall sale of the existing land approved.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*A Bird In The Hand.*




timeos2 said:


> I think about cases - and there are many - where property owners think they can do better & end up having things built around the land rather than on it - the land becomes orphaned and virtually worthless.


In Arlington County near here 2 holdouts still have their nice 3BR-2BA 1960s-era suburban homes on a corner right across from the Metro subway station -- except that their houses are surrounded on 2 sides by a bunch of new big bux luxury townhomes.  Pretty clearly those 2 property owners wanted so much money from the land consolidators that the townhouse project went ahead without those 2 corner properties, which now just sit there as before, but looking all out of place in the newly reconfigured neighborhood. 

It's hard to imagine now how those 2 lots, even with the existing homes demolished & the debris trucked away, could be integrated into the neighboring townhome development.  Possibly some "slice of cake" houses would fit, but not as well as if the whole corner area had been redeveloped as a single project.  

Maybe things are different out behind the Las Vegas Strip, but around here residential real estate values are way down.  A 4BR-3BA split-level on cul de sac that would have been snapped up for $900*,*000 a couple of years ago today would linger on the market at $780*,*000.  So it goes. 

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


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

No offense taken.  I just don't believe our property will be "orphaned".  As for the Jockey Club, two totally different situations.  I don't see them wanting to move from directly on the strip.  Besides, with the development all around them makes them feel much more comfortable.  The first office I ever had was in a somewhat rundown office building around a bunch of brand new buildings.  Across the street I would look at this unbelievable silver and black glassed building.  My rent was 1/3 of theirs but I use to brag that I had the better deal.  Everyday they had to look out their window at me while my view was them.  Helped me make feel better.  Since purchased a better building though.  So the Jockey Culb can say the same thing.  Look at our view.

As far as overanalyising this deal, not here.  It's pretty simple.  $65K is no where close to $250k.  Every single valuation model used says the owners are getting the shaft.

If need be I will bring to the next owner's meeting a Las Vegas real estate broker, a hotelier, as well as a competing timeshare developer to provide the owner's and the board with the obvious.  This deal will not be done by then, as presented at the pace their going.  I'm not in any hurry for the scr#$^ing about to happen to the owners.

With great respect and sincerity, Paul


----------



## Sandy

timeos2 said:


> To become a sales operation the Association would have to file with the state, have proper, licensed representatives, hire sales folk(who have to make money) and much more. Then you have to promote the project unless you plan to merely offer it to guests at a deep discount - far closer to the 50% or less that resale units sell for rather than the grossly inflated prices that your weasels/developers get.



Sorry, 

I did not mean to suggest that the HOA assume the sales obligation itself. You are correct to point out what an undertaking this would be, and it is not something I am promoting.  

I was referring to the IMI group (or whoever is the designated hitter on timeshare sales under the current agreement - I think we are referring to them as the "developer.")


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Hi Alan,

Yes the strip is completely different. This property butts right up against the New Monorail, directly behind Harrah's, Imperial Palace, The Flamingo.  Word is the Flamingo and the Imperial Palace will not to far in the future be imploded.  Harrah's has bought the redevelopment rights and will build something unbelievable where our property sits.  The property consists of around 18 acres.  The deal with Harrah's is great.  It's the deal the HOA has cut with a third party to sell the excess units Harrah's has agreed to give the owners which is awful.  Believe me, something spectacular will be built on our present site in the end.  It's the behind the scenes deal with that developer which needs to be addressed.

Thanks for your comments.


----------



## Sandy

*Next Owner's Meeting?*



paul@premierbr.net said:


> If need be I will bring to the next owner's meeting a Las Vegas real estate broker, a hotelier, as well as a competing timeshare developer to provide the owner's and the board with the obvious.  This deal will not be done by then, as presented at the pace their going.  I'm not in any hurry for the scr#$^ing about to happen to the owners.
> 
> With great sincerity, Paul



Paul, is there going to be an owner's meeting before next June? If not, won't the necessary 50%+ of the owners have voted to at least begin the process or relocating to DC? Perhaps I am still confused on whether we need 50% or 80% to approve the "deal" and what aspect of the "deal" will remain on the table.  

The deal to take the DC units is a good one and I have read nothing to suggest otherwise. The deal with the "developer" timeshare sharks is probably the weakest link, in that they are geting the bulk of the money to sell the 169 units as timeshares.  After the clear presentation, most owners would want to join in and support a better deal - whatever that means under several scenarios presented here. 

The glitch and concern many might have is whether this might jeopardize the great aspect of the deal - the new, remodeled, gold crown units at the DC.  As long as nothing impacts the success of this opportunity, most owners should join ranks, especially if it means more money on the table for the HOA and/or in their pockets WITHOUT jeopardizing the move. 

I would hesitate if I believed that any action might result in the possiblity of losing the benefit of the most promising move to the DC.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Good call Sandy!!

All of the undertakings the owner's choose would be handled by experts in that field, not the owners themselves.  However, I would bet if you polled the 25,000 owners, you would find experts in accounting, developing, sales and any other profession needed, to advise the board.

Great response.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Sandy,

Where did you get 50% of the owners have voted to move?  Where was I?  No one asked for my vote.  At the meeting they said and I later confirmed only around 23% had signed any papers.  Maybe you can educate me on this.

Thanks


----------



## Sandy

Thanks Paul, 

I believe I was told this figure several times during the presentation to sign the documents.  From my recollection, the 50% was only to begin the process of moving to the DC.  Didn't they also say that at the annual meeting? I will check my notes when I get home tonight. 

I know that they bragged about having 98% of owners who saw the new DC agree to sign their papers, but that is probably a somewhat small number.  Heck, I spoke to several of the owners who were there and they had not even seen the DC. 

From reading these boards here on TUG, I was surprised to see the 80% figure, because I had never heard that number before now.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

I don't necessarily believe the 98% figure because I never signed a thing and they refused to give me any paperwork to review on my own.  So the 98% might be only those people they could get in their small booth, hover over them and coerce them to sign with half-truths and inuendo.  Trained, skilled timeshare salesman do not want you to come back to sign because they know their success rate on Be-backs is extremely low.  Besides, that number came from the developer, Paul Caldwell, and I've already pointed out some other exaggerations out of his mouth.


----------



## Sandy

*Good Points*

so many figures tossed about.

The percentage of owners who actually visit the SB and view the DC in preparation for their deed exchange is probably pretty small.  This is where the 98% most likely comes from.  

But, he never said how many real people that equates to. My guess, a very small number.  But it might include those who sent their paperwork back in the mail.  Not sure.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

I confirmed the total people who signed, whichever way, to only be around 23%, or around 5700-5900 actual deeds transfered.  That could also include multiple week owners. That was it.


----------



## timeos2

paul@premierbr.net said:


> I confirmed the total people who signed, whichever way, to only be around 23%, or around 5700-5900 actual deeds transfered.  That could also include multiple week owners. That was it.



Paul - What is required to make this fly? A 50% + participation of total weeks owned of which 80% must agree to the plan or an 80% participation of total weeks owned with 50% or more agreeing? That makes a big difference as to whether or not this has any chance of passing.  At our Florida resort for some things - such as selling out the property - it requires a "super majority vote" which means 66.6% of all owners must return a ballot (vote - proxy whatever it is being asked for) and of that 66.6% or higher 50% plus one vote must be "yes" or the proposal fails. Is that similar to what SB needs to make this proposal pass?


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Timeos2,  We were told and I believe, because of the present By-laws that 80% of the owners would have to agree.  However, from a pure speculation point (real estate owned), I believe something else could be in the works if you could get over half the "land" owners together.  I'm not completely versed in real estate laws in Nevada as I am in Louisiana. There may be some niche laws.  For example, in Louisiana the statute of frauds says any and all real estate transactions must be in writing to be enforcable.  Also here, if you purchase property for less that 50% of it's value, then the seller has the right to come back, within a specific period of time, and take it back, providing they give you back what ever the consideration, money for example.  That keeps "little old ladies" from being swindled by a smooth talker.

Signing those papers, giving your control to the developer, also caused a great deal of concern on my part.  What happens if he gets over 50% of the deeded land owners to agree on something but not the 80% required by the by-laws.  Then he goes in with a power play to gain control of the deal by-passing the HOA by-laws.  Could happen.  That's what I've been telling the owner's to do, pool their land interest together and negotiate with Harrah's without the developer. Then let the developer duke it out with Harrah's.  Everyone would be wise to ask more questions and simply watch out.  As the saying goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." That could answer the question of why the board is so mum on the behind door deal they cut.

As far as which number 80% or 50% is important, that would be a great question for the board to answer if anyone can get them to respond.


----------



## roadtriper

*Be Careful, Be VERY Careful!*

Harrah's and their Lawyers, Summer Bay and their Lawyers, and the HOA and it's Lawyer(S)  were all in Negotiations for a year or better. and all parties finaly agreed to the current deal and shook hands.   it's a 3 party deal and if one of the parties (HOA) goes back and wants to change their position, it kicks the door wide open for all parties to try to reposition their interests.  and basicaly negates a years worth of negotiations and we start over.
Be Careful what you ask for...   RT


----------



## LilaG

*I am satisfied with the deal we are getting*

I own at Summer Bay in Las Vegas.  I am very happy with what the HOA has negotiated for us.  My  2 existing run-down Summer Bay timeshares will be upgraded to modern, clean, and larger units, with the possibility of winning the lottery drawings and getting a 2 bedroom unit.  These are going to Gold Crown units.  I am not greedy.  I bought a timeshare to use for a vacation, and having a nicer place to stay with more trading power is a very good deal as far as I am concerned.  I want to have the use of the new buildings as soon as possible, and have the new deed/title in my hands.  There will not be negotiations with Harrah's.  As far as I know, Harrahs has been sold to Apollo Management and Texas Pacific.   No one knows what they will do with Harrah's properties, but I certainly don't want to take any chance to find out.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

RT-Finally!!!  I found someone with some inside info.  Do you wanna share?  See, simple people like me are left to have to figure things out on our own, since the members of the board have been sworn to "secrecy".  Heck, if we knew our board agreed to give away our equity on a handshake we could have saved ourselves a lot of time talking about it.  

Now, do you really have this inside information or is it the same propaganda being thrown out there by the developer?  Shoot,  if the board would have a line of communication with the owner's, I guess we would really know, not have to speculate.  Well I guess they've earned my blind faith, you know, after driving us into bankruptcy, not realizing what "redevelopment rights" were, then taking all the credit for the fact the real estate value our resort sits on in Las Vegas, has now gone through the roof.  How foolish of me to question those secret, behind door deals that they say are confidential.  Besides we all know the time share salesmen, appointed to the board by the developer, would never say or do anything remotely dishonest, even though they do have millions of dollars at stake for themselves.

By the way, if you believe that, I have some beach front property I'd like to sell you.  Whoops, gotta negotiate with the developer first even though he doesn't own it.

LilaG, Congratulations on your new units.  I guess your income is not fixed like many of the other owners so you don't have any problem paying the new, higher annual maintenance fees.  Oh that's right, the board said they may be able to keep those fees reasonable the first couple of years, maybe, but no guarantees.  You see, that great deal Harrah's is giving to us is being taken by those "greedy" developers. Did I say "greedy", I meant honest.  I was just looking at the word you used and tried to figure out who you meant the word for. Well, they are paying us at least 10 cents on the dollar.  In addition, they have given us permission to rent our own property out until such time they say they want it. What right do we have to complain.

Hey guys, please excuse my sarcasm.  It's just my feable attempt to make light of things.  Did get some info today about somethings of interests.  I was told to wait to share.  I do hope everyone had a wonderful 4th and for you to please keep in your thoughts and prayers our wonderful servicemen protecting our wonderful country. Without their efforts we wouldn't have the freedoms to express ourselves.   Paul


----------



## roadtriper

paul@premierbr.net said:


> RT-Finally!!!  I found someone with some inside info.  Do you wanna share?  See, simple people like me are left to have to figure things out on our own, since the members of the board have been sworn to "secrecy".  Heck, if we knew our board agreed to give away our equity on a handshake we could have saved ourselves a lot of time talking about it.
> 
> Now, do you really have this inside information or is it the same propaganda being thrown out there by the developer?  Shoot,  if the board would have a line of communication with the owner's, I guess we would really know, not have to speculate.  Well I guess they've earned my blind faith, you know, after driving us into bankruptcy, not realizing what "redevelopment rights" were, then taking all the credit for the fact the real estate value our resort sits on in Las Vegas, has now gone through the roof.  How foolish of me to question those secret, behind door deals that they say are confidential.  Besides we all know the time share salesmen, appointed to the board by the developer, would never say or do anything remotely dishonest, even though they do have millions of dollars at stake for themselves.
> 
> By the way, if you believe that, I have some beach front property I'd like to sell you.  Whoops, gotta negotiate with the developer first even though he doesn't own it.
> 
> LilaG, Congratulations on your new units.  I guess your income is not fixed like many of the other owners so you don't have any problem paying the new, higher annual maintenance fees.  Oh that's right, the board said they may be able to keep those fees reasonable the first couple of years, maybe, but no guarantees.  You see, that great deal Harrah's is giving to us is being taken by those "greedy" developers. Did I say "greedy", I meant honest.  I was just looking at the word you used and tried to figure out who you meant the word for. Well, they are paying us at least 10 cents on the dollar.  In addition, they have given us permission to rent our own property out until such time they say they want it. What right do we have to complain.
> 
> Hey guys, please excuse my sarcasm.  It's just my feable attempt to make light of things.  Did get some info today about somethings of interests.  I was told to wait to share.  I do hope everyone had a wonderful 4th and for you to please keep in your thoughts and prayers our wonderful servicemen protecting our wonderful country. Without their efforts we wouldn't have the freedoms to express ourselves.   Paul



Paul,Paul, Paul,    You were doing so good...   Sarcasim isn't necessary even when you excuse yourself!     I'm not privy to any "Inside Info"  do you question My assumption that Harrah's ,  Summer Bay, and  OUR HOA were present at all negotiations?  do you question My assumption that they were all represented By council?  and do you question My Assumption that they all shook hands when the deal was done?   Hell I bought a 100 Board ft. of 1X4 pine for $75 today,  and ended the deal Shaking the hand of the man who owns the Lumber yard!   

[_*please keep in your thoughts and prayers our wonderful servicemen protecting our wonderful country. Without their efforts we wouldn't have the freedoms to express ourselves*_ Hey you finaly found something we agree on!   we do live in the Land of the Free, Because of the BRAVE!       RT


----------



## roadtriper

LilaG said:


> I own at Summer Bay in Las Vegas.  I am very happy with what the HOA has negotiated for us.  My  2 existing run-down Summer Bay timeshares will be upgraded to modern, clean, and larger units, with the possibility of winning the lottery drawings and getting a 2 bedroom unit.  These are going to Gold Crown units.  I am not greedy.  I bought a timeshare to use for a vacation, and having a nicer place to stay with more trading power is a very good deal as far as I am concerned.  I want to have the use of the new buildings as soon as possible, and have the new deed/title in my hands.  There will not be negotiations with Harrah's.  As far as I know, Harrahs has been sold to Apollo Management and Texas Pacific.   No one knows what they will do with Harrah's properties, but I certainly don't want to take any chance to find out.



AMEN!   I too ,am HAPPY!    Thanks LilaG!      RT


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Hey RT, I was joking with you.  I know what you meant.   My first business loan was from a friend secured by nothing more than a handshake and a promise.  My efforts are simply to get all the facts to the owners so than can each make an educated decision which is best for them.

I did get an email from our board president, Mr. McKern, a couple of days ago, acknowledging my concerns.  I had told him my concerns were 100% for the owner's equity and the deal cut with the developer was so bad I could not support it at present.  After he realized I owned 9 weeks at Summer Bay he admitted my "agenda", as he put it, may be different than some of the other owners, board members, or the developer.  He is correct.  See, some of the owners have an agenda to just get any deal done at any cost, period.  They could care less about the terms.  The developer's agenda is to get this deal done for themselves, period.  But, I'm not so sure all of our board members, other than the developer appointed, really like this deal as it is, but at present do not have the ammunition they need to negotiate a better one, and are backed into a corner, where they feel they have to show their support.

I had told our board members that every single valuation used says the owners are not getting a "fair' deal.  I told them I would be more than happy to provide experts to prove such, but they haven't expressed an interest in my offer.  You see because I own 9 weeks, for every dollar lost in the deal I lose it 9 times. So if the valuation says each owner could be entitled to $1600-$3000, then I could be out $27,000, put straight into the developers pocket.  Additionally, when maintenance fees go up prematurely, I'll have to pay those higher fees 9 times.  That said, each and every multiple-week owner, such as myself or janapur, for example, stand more to lose in this lopsided deal, or more to gain if our board can come to a "fair" agreement with the developer.  The developer at the HOA meeting acknowledged and admitted, if you look at this in terms of equity, you will not like it.  In the same question and answer part of the meeting admitted the developer stands to make a big profit for themselves. 

Now, this is a possible scenario that would let our board off the hook.  Don't sign the transfer deeds right now.  Barely 23% have agreed to the deal.  That's the easiest 23% to get.  Each and every following 1% will get harder and harder to convince.  It only takes 21%, 1 in 5, to say no deal, right?  Then they don't have the 80% needed. I think getting 80% to agree to this thing is going to prove difficult at present. That line they're given about 98% of those who listen to the pitch sign, is bogus.  First off, those who were going to sign anyway without being pitched signed.  My wife and I, for example, refused to go into the little room with timeshare salesman to be pitched.  We asked for the papers to review on our own and they refused.  Did we count toward the 2% since we refused to be presented at all. Did we count 9 times since that's how many weeks we have.  I doubt it.  I can continue to go over all the flaws with that number.  Sounds like they pulled it out of the air.  

So what happens if not enough owners agree to the deal?  Nothing? Don't believe that.  By not agreeing to giving away all the equity in the deal it would force everyone to ask, "Why?"  What is the problem?  What do we have to do to make it work?  The answer would be simple, "Mr. Developer, Give us a "fair" deal!!"  Not signing would give your board members the ammunition they need to fight for us, the owners, without appearing to be against it themselves.

I noticed on other threads people have continued to question why the board refuses to set up an open forum such as this one for the owners to communicate their concerns, ideas, or suggestions.  But the answer is becoming quite clear.  The exchange of information and ideas is impowering and lends itself to independent thought.  If all of the facts our given to all of the owners, not being masked in half-truths or lies, then more owners would be asking the exact same questions I will continue to ask, "Why can't we all be "fair" in our dealings?"

For those people who really want to get into those new units as quickly as possible, then you would support what I'm saying now instead of waiting until they don't get the 80% and then say, "Now what?"  Let's just demand our "fair" deal now so all of the people with the same concerns as mine, can also get excited and jump on board!!  

With all sincerity, Paul


----------



## Fern Modena

Paul,
How many years have you been an owner?  If you are a long time owner, you know that it took years for the resort to get to this place, where they have this offer for the sale/transfer/deed swap.  Not taking the offer does not necessarily mean there will be a better offer, and I think it is irresponsible for you to encourage people to do this.  For many/most people the deed transfer is a good thing, IMHO.  

Why do I say that?

They go from an old, falling down around the edges resort to a much newer one, with much better appointments and amenities.  Summer Bay at the Desert Club will be more in line with the newer resorts in town, with all units having dishwashers, washer/dryers and plasma tv's, among other things.  A good portion of the owners will end up having their units upgraded from 1 BDRM to 2 BDRM.  If they are RCI Points owners, they will receive a substantial bump in their point allotment each year.

And if the deal doesn't go through?  Fees will definitely go up.  The resort has had ongoing plumbing and pool problems, and it isn't going to get any better.  Many parts of the resort were built with the plumbing under the slab, so a plumbing leak is a major problem.  Parts of the resort are over 30 years old.  It is one of the oldest resorts in Las Vegas, if not the oldest.

For you to say that as a multiple unit owner you could suffer a big loss makes no sense to me.  Unless you bought from the developer, your units will most likely be more than what you originally paid for them.  With your financial acumen, I've gotta think you didn't pay much for your units.

JMHO, of course.

Fern


----------



## JoeMO

*My Thoughts*

I would like to chime in on this discussion.  First let me say that I am thrilled at what has happened at SB with this new deal.  To go from a one bed moderate resort to a 1+ or 2 bed five star resort, with some reserves to help with future MF's, is very good by any standard.  Even if we are only getting 20% of what the 160 extra units are worth, I am still happy.

However, I do think that Paul has raised some valid questions.  I appreciate him noticing something that the rest of us seemed to have missed.  I would also like to get an even better deal, if that is possible.  My questions are directed towards Paul but anyone who has any info or helpful observation is welcome to join in.  Here are my questions:

1.  What did the Board President, Mr. McKern, say other than acknowledging your concerns?  Did he give you any answer as to why we are only getting 10 mil for something that is reasonably valued at many times that amount?

2. Are not all parts of the deal connected together?  Could we separate out the "gift" of the 160 units to the developer?  If we renegotiated the 160 unit part of the deal wouldn't that jeopardized the whole deal?  My feeling is that this is part of the answer to your (Paul's) questions.  That we got a bad deal on one end (the 160 unit gift to the developer) and a great deal on the other end (gold crown, larger, etc.).  Maybe the developer is remodeling/rebuilding the new resort for half the going rate because he is getting the 160 units.

3.  Could our estimates and evaluations of the worth worth of the 160 units be way off?  I don't think we are paying for the remodeling/rebuilding of the 160 units, the developer is.  He also has to market the units and absorb many other costs until they are sold.  We should be looking at the profit the developer will make.  If they could sell each week for $10,000 they would get $500,000 for each unit or $80 mil.  I would guess that the cost to sell a timeshare week is very expensive.  Let's say half of the $80 mil is overhead.  Now we are down to $40 mil.  If the developer had to pay for the remodeling/rebuilding he will make a whole lot less than the $40 mil.  Part of the reason I think this is how it is working is because they have given us a figure of between 7-11 mil.  That to me sounds like a cut of the profit.  Maybe they are giving us some percentage of the profit.

4.  Wouldn't the correct way to proceed be to trust the people that have been involved in this until it is shown to be otherwise.  I don't mean we should be gullible or naive, but the board has done a fabulous job and so I can't help but suspect that they are on top of this.  I would also like to know the answer to the questions Paul has raised.  But like most people I would rather risk getting a bad deal on the 160 units then risk loosing this great deal we have been offered.  Of course the best thing would be to keep our great deal and get a better deal on the 160 units, if that is possible.

Thanks, 
Joe


----------



## Mimi

We own three 2br SBR units. We currently pay approximately $60 per night for our accommodations.  For these rates to remain in place for the new DC complex with gold crown ammennities is a wonderful deal for us, for as long as it lasts. We pay twice that much for our Hawaii units, which are not new, and still believe our vacation costs are low, compared to the norm. We are not greedy. We know what we have and we anticipate incredible upgrades for all owners. What other timeshare owner receives the opportunity to get more for their money, *after their purchase*, at no cost to them. We have transferred our units and hope other owners do the same, as soon as possible, so we can enjoy the new facility.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Hi Fern,  I understand some of the older owners have been through an unbelievable emotional rollercoster over the last many years.  They watched their resort go from good to bad to bankruptcy then out.  So like I said before, there are some people who just want to get this thing over with and want this deal, period, such as yourself.  That is understandable under your circumstances, to want what you think is best for you.  So I would never tell you how irresponsible you are for wanting what you think is in your best interest.  I might not agree with the decision of many of the 25,000 owners, but I would not call them irresponsible for their beliefs.

What I find to be irresponsible is the board of directors consistant refusal to set up a website for the owners, so ALL the owners can express their many different ideas, concerns and desires.  I respect your view but can promise you it is one of many differing views. It would be extremenly self-centered and naive to believe otherwise.  And by not taking everyones concerns into the decision making process is and will always be a recipe for failure.  So for me to help get some facts out to the owners, so they can make an educated decision, best for them, given ALL the choices, would not be an irresponsible thing, quite the contrary.

That said, I believe the past, emotional interest vested by many of the owners may be hard for them to let go of.  That's what the developer is hoping for, for emotions to overcome economics.  You see I don't have that same emotional investment as many of the older owners and my beliefs are based on economics.  In fact, those emotions caused thousands of owners to bail out over the years, just give up.  Take their losses and run.  It was simply to much for them to handle.  And why not.  

Now that brings up some interesting questions.  Where were the old owners and board members when the resort was driven into bankruptcy with poor owner oversight and bad board decisions?  I have spoken with many of the older owners and board members and not one, takes any responsibility for the bad decisions of the past.  Everyone wants to blame Leisure and their management.  That's the easy thing to do since Leisure is no where around anymore. But for those of you who don't know it, some of your same board members who made all the bad decisions in the past are still on the board.  So again, where the owners and the board then, asleep?  Am I suppose to put my blind faith in those same owners and board members now?  

I am from a different world where I take responsibility for my decisions and try to make those decisions by gathering the facts. Among those facts is in the beginning of this thread one of your board members James Reach was lobbying to have some board members removed.  Why?  If they're doing such a great job why is he lobbying to replace them?  Additionally,  I saw in another thread that Mr. Reach at one of the board meetings could not even get a second when it came to non-smoking units.  That's a shame.  Not one other board member would second his request.  It took action from the owners, by making your demands heard, to finally get something done.  It will also take actions by the owners to get a "fair" deal from the developer, or inaction (not-signing), to get everyone heard.

So finally, is it irresponsible for me to point out there are differing views, there are unanswered questions.  And this deal may not get done because a bunch of people may be to short-sighted to see that and think their way of thinking, and what's best for them, is the only view held by all 25,000 owners.  I would think just the opposite.  My way of thinking is everyone's interest and desires are important, including yours, mine and everyone else that the board has not even asked.  I'm not so short-sighted to not see it is going to take 80% of the owners to agree.  A large percentage of people aren't going to do anything, period.  They just don't care.  Others are not going to sign for any number of reasons.  I'm trying to point out problems with this that might cause it to fail and not be acceptable enough to get the 80% needed.  I know a lot of people that are not going to sign off on this deal as is, period, and it would be a shame because the reasons are obvious.  So does our board have a back up plan?  I know they wouldn't have put all their eggs in this basket without a backup. Hope not, anyway.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Hi JoeMO,  To answer some of your questions:

1. We were told we would get 29 million along with the Dessert Club to renovate the entire complex including the additional 160.  I heard differing statements that some owners say they were told and under the impression the developer was paying the cost...I asked and was told that was false.  Our HOA, with the funds provided by Harrah's will pay the renovation costs.  how else could we rent them out until sold.  That is the sad thing.  Under normal timeshare projects the developer actually risks money, builds units, and bears the all costs until sold.  This developer is in-name only.  We bear all costs. He doesn't even have to buy the units from us unless he sells one first.  Sad!

2.  I spoke with people who value property and say we could get $40,000,000 upfront for the real estate itself.

3. This in-name only developer is a skilled, trained timeshare saleman and negotiator.  They browbeat our board into a deal.  Harrahs has been fair, it's the timeshare salemen who are the hogs in this deal.  The only way to get them back to the table is for the owners not to accept this lopsided deal.

4. As far as trust in your board...be careful..very careful.  Over 25% are developer appointed, 3 of 11.  Many of the board members were the same ones around when the resort was driven or managed into bankruptcy in the first place.

5. Finally, I have no reason to believe that our elected board members don't want what's best for us but may not be in the position to best represent us.  They were forced to sign confidentiallity agreements about the dealing with the developer and may be forced to resign if they discuss the details. That's why many of the most important details of the deal can't be given to the owners.  Because of fear of rebellion.

All good questions.


----------



## timeos2

*There is no other offer - this is the one to pick or reject*



paul@premierbr.net said:


> 5. Finally, I have no reason to believe that our elected board members don't want what's best for us but may not be in the position to best represent us.  They were forced to sign confidentiallity agreements about the dealing with the developer and may be forced to resign if they discuss the details. That's why many of the most important details of the deal can't be given to the owners.  Because of fear of rebellion.
> 
> All good questions.



Now THAT is the most troubling thing I've read about the deal if true. Nothing about this deal should be hidden from the OWNERS (I can understand if they don't want it published for the general public although even that shouldn't be a big problem really).

If this is being handled that secretly then it is a big red flag.  Enough that you risk the whole deal? Probably not. As Fern says it was hard fought to get it and there are ZERO guarantees a better one would follow if this ones rejected. 

Heck even the prime player in all this - Harrah's - is in flux. The new owners might not even be interested in the deal anymore should the current offer fail. If I were an owner I'd want it signed sealed and delivered even if I'm leaving money on the table. As it is I think it's flat lining and the most likely result is the SB owners are not only not going to share in the wealth but be stuck with what they have rather than a nice, renovated and vastly improved resort.  It was too good to be true me thinks.


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Interesting articles about land values in Vegas.  Also about Harrah's buyout offer.  Has much to do about the land holdings.  Good thing we own the land.

http://www.hotelinteractive.com/index.asp?page_id=5000&article_id=7833

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070622/las-vegas-investing.htm

The propaganda is, "If we don't accept this deal we'll never get a better one."  Poppycock!!!  As the articles clearly point out, in the short year while your board was negotiating, the land prices on and around the strip have gone through the roof.  Like I have clearly pointed out, it's not your board that brought this deal to the table but Las Vegas land prices.  That's the one thing you can't create more of, Las Vegas Strip/Monorail land.  Don't be so quick to accept something just for the sake of accepting.


----------



## Jwondra

Does anyone know why the website given in the packet with the documents, that is suppose to answer any questions doesn't seem to exist?

www.deedexchange.summerbayresort.com

I didn't realize what was going on and decided to check it out, but can't seem to get to this web site.


----------



## Fern Modena

You added a www in front of the URL that doesn't belong there.  It should be http://deedexchange.summerbayresort.com

Fern



Jwondra said:


> Does anyone know why the website given in the packet with the documents, that is suppose to answer any questions doesn't seem to exist?
> 
> www.deedexchange.summerbayresort.com
> 
> I didn't realize what was going on and decided to check it out, but can't seem to get to this web site.


----------



## JoeMO

*What happens if this deal doesn't go through?*

I know this question has been asked but I don't think it has been adequately answer. I think the answer is very important because it can help people decide what to do. 

If this deal doesn't go through are we back to square one?  Doesn't Harrah's already own the property and so we would be at their mercy.  Could we just renegotiate with all parties and maybe get a better deal.  I know that is what Paul wants but is it really that simple, easy and with very little risk?

Thanks, 
Joe


----------



## spatenfloot

JoeMO said:


> I know this question has been asked but I don't think it has been adequately answer. I think the answer is very important because it can help people decide what to do.
> 
> If this deal doesn't go through are we back to square one?  Doesn't Harrah's already own the property and so we would be at their mercy.  Could we just renegotiate with all parties and maybe get a better deal.  I know that is what Paul wants but is it really that simple, easy and with very little risk?
> 
> Thanks,
> Joe


Yes, Harrah's owns the Desert Club property. If the deal fell through, it would all go back to square one.


----------



## JoeMO

*Who owns SB*

Do we still own the Summer Bay Resort in LV?


----------



## spatenfloot

JoeMO said:


> Do we still own the Summer Bay Resort in LV?



Yes, until enough owners approve the offered deal. Then the transfer will take place.


----------



## Fern Modena

I mentioned this peripherally in another post about Las Vegas.

The area near where Summer Bay sits and nearby is subject to flooding during monsoons.  There have been several bad floods there which have damaged the resort.  Awhile back the county built a very large storm channel right by the exit to the Towers parking area.  Shortly thereafter the first two Villas buildings were flooded extensively and had to be shut down until repaired.  They say it would have been even worse had the channel not been built.

In any event, I don't believe the Desert Club would have the same drainage issues.  There are drainage issues on Koval, but they are further south, near Albert.

That's another reason that the move to the Desert Club makes sense for the owners.

Fern


----------



## Mimi

I purchased 3 SBR units on eBay last October anticipating the Harrah's acquisition.  We had often stayed at SBR and I was aware of the condition of the property. I am happy with the move to Desert Club. It was exactly what I had hoped for. A new resort; no special assessment; no transfer costs. Could things be better? Things could always be better and also alot worse. Since I am no entrepreneur, I am grateful for the proposed deal. Our deeds have been transferred and I would hope other owners act quickly to move this process along ASAP.   :annoyed:


----------



## paul@premierbr.net

Mimi, just curious, how did you know about the Desert Club deal last October.  Do you have inside sources none of us simple owners have?  How could you have known what was coming.  All of the negotiations where kept secret and many of the "terms" of the deal envolving the benefits to all of the parties involved are still being hidden, disguised or hidden in the presentation of the deal.  Could you please give us some of the insights you may have had or reasons to believe this particular deal would happen, or one similar, ensuring your happiness with your purchase of these three new units for yourself.

And PLEASE don't sell yourself short.  If you purchased based on the fact you "knew" something better was on the horizon was quite insightful and somewhat "entreprenerial".  I applaud you in your purchase because it will prove to be a good one.......for you.

Fern,  interesting you talk about "Monsoons" in the dessert as a reason to explain how much better the Desert Club, across the street, is SO much better.   WOW!  You must understand I'm a guy who lives in Baton Rouge, LA and understands more than most about "real" flood issues.  I develop properties, loan money on properties, and evaluate properties with "true" flood plain issues.  Flooding, from a developing standpoint at our resort is not an issue when it comes to valuating the land value.  You can place your whole hearted belief in that.  So did I really read correctly when you said a move across the street makes so much since because it doesn't have the same flooding problems? :hysterical:

JoeMo, YES we own the land at Summer Bay. Thank God

Spatenfoot, I'm curious.  What is square one?  Since that's where you said we would start if this deal didn't happen.  Is it, HI, my name is.......?   I don't think so.  It would not start there obviously since all the parties are at a particular position that would not have to be completely altered, just improved or moved in a more "fair" direction.  But if we did decide to start from another spot many don't have a problem with that either.  What happens if the property doubles in value again before the owners approve the deal?  

Has anyone gotten any information from the board that would lead them to believe the board wants an open, above board, desire to hear ALL of the owner's concerns about the deal that may cause it to fail?  Or are they sticking to their position that less communication with the owners is the best thing for everyone.  Ignorance can be so bliss!!

I have some interesting info that I will share in the next few.  I'm positive now more than ever that this deal may be doomed and will provide you with some more facts soon.  So before that happens I would again, ask your board for that back up plan in the event this one fails.  Wouldn't that be the "responsible" thing?  Are we not entitiled to know?  Doesn't everyone believe the board should have a back up plan regardless, to make sure all bases are covered?  Or is the board so stack with developer people that they are so confident they are going to ram this one through regardless.  

Vote: "Fair deal or No deal"


----------



## Fern Modena

Paul,
You obviously have little knowledge of how monsoon rain and the resultant flooding has affected Summer Bay and the neighborhood around it.  To belittle it as not a "real flood issue" is to show that you don't understand what happens in the desert at all.  

The Desert Club is not "across the street" from the area that floods.  I was clear about that in the post I made.  The Desert Club is on much higher ground, across Koval.  The area of the resort which floods is not near there, it is on Audrie, on much lower area, behind Imperial Palace.  Its probably a quarter mile away from the new club, all of it downhill.

You are talking about land values, but most timeshare owners are talking about the value and usage of their timeshare, not the land.  I'm saying the move is better for owners than staying where they are because the new resort is much less likely to flood and much less likely to cost them in assessments to repair the resulting damage.

As an aside, I don't much care for your ridiculing and belittling me, when I stuck to facts in my post.  

Fern



paul@premier said:


> Fern,  interesting you talk about "Monsoons" in the dessert as a reason to explain how much better the Desert Club, across the street, is SO much better.   WOW!  You must understand I'm a guy who lives in Baton Rouge, LA and understands more than most about "real" flood issues.  I develop properties, loan money on properties, and evaluate properties with "true" flood plain issues.  Flooding, from a developing standpoint at our resort is not an issue when it comes to valuating the land value.  You can place your whole hearted belief in that.  So did I really read correctly when you said a move across the street makes so much since because it doesn't have the same flooding problems? :hysterical:


----------



## roadtriper

Paul, I need to back up Fern's position here... I've been in Las Vegas during the rain and that area floods hard!  and it doesn't have to be a major downpour!  I've spent some time in YOUR neck of the woods also and you get some serious weather Too!

I think it would be appreciated by all, if we all kept our coments polite and to the point.   getting in little barbs and taking pot shots at folks isn't necessary from any of us.

Mimi didn't have any info that any of the others of us didn't have!  Yourself included!
is it correct that you own 9 +/- intervals at Summer bay?  how many were purchased in the past 1-2 years?   it's been no secret for the past 2-3 years that there was the potential for great things at the resort. it was just an unknown untill earlier this year.(See Edit)  it's no secret that most of us bought resale,  also because SB was a value. and because of the upside potential.    *EDIT ( I just went back and researched the first announcement of the potential Desert Club deal/offer, it was July 11 2006 in an electronic newsletter from Victor to all owners who have an email address on file. and there was much discussion about it here on TUG in the following weeks/months. The official anouncement that the deal was agreed to was dated Dec 27 2006 ) EDIT   *  so if you didn't know about it last Oct. it's not because it wasn't public knowledge   

If you have facts or info we need to hear, Lay it on us!  but don't fault folks here for being happy with the deal at hand!  I'm one of those folks    RT


----------



## timeos2

*It's even less likely a second time*

Besides the fact that getting any timeshare Association membership to agree nearly 100% to anything (no question about that - look at this thread for a prime example!) once a proposal which seems to offer a good deal to most owners is shot down a second attempt isn't more likely - it's less likely as the potential buyer says "hey, they turned down a good offer after XX months - I'm not going through that waste of time and money".  Plus grandiose plans come and go overnight in Vegas (see the "W" Hotel that had already cleared land, set up signs and had a sales office) so what they need today is a parking lot tomorrow.  

Like it or not timeshare ownership has elements of real estate involved - certainly at the mortar and dirt level - but it doesn't translate out well to the 1/52 owner of a slice of a unit for a week within a much larger development.  Trying to apply traditional valuation and ideas to a sale or transfer isn't wrong but it has to take into account the strange nature of any deal.  I continue to feel that despite any flaws in the current proposal the membership at SB would be very shortsighted rather than astute business people to turn down what they have been offered. What comes behind it won't be as good despite the well meaning plans put forth here.  Should it be turned down the most likely outcome is a continued death spiral for the existing resort and no compensation for owners. The least likely is a much bigger payoff although this is Vegas so maybe its a gamble worth taking. Not in my book but I'm no gambler either.


----------



## Sandy

Paul, 

If you have some additional information, hopefully you will post it soon on this board. 

Also, given Mimi's comment, did you have a clue that something might be coming along last summer?  I am a late comer to SB, but looking forward to great thing ahead for this resort.  

While the dust is not settled on this deal, it seems a very good one.  I know you raise some very interesting points, but nothing is certain.  From following these threads, it seems that there might be greater risk in rejecting the deal at hand in the hopes of getting a better one.  

But I am listening and learning.  So, I await Paul's new information.


----------



## LilaG

Actually, the information about Harrah's controlling the redevelopment rights to the property was sent out in a letter to owners in December 2005.  I stayed at the property in February 2006 and asked Victor about the newsletter I had received from Summer Bay stating that Harrah's had gotten the redevelopment rights.  He said that the HOA was trying to work something out and would be meeting with Harrah's negotiators at the end of March 2006, and that the owners would get some information in April.  I called in May and was told that the Harrah's people never showed for the negotiation meeting, but that another one was being scheduled.  The Las Vegas Sun newspaper wrote an article in early summer of 2006 about Harrah's plans for developing the area from the strip to Koval.  So, it was pretty common knowledge the something would happen with the resort.  
Personally, I like the offer the HOA negotiated.  My timeshare will be nicer, larger, newer, and have more trading power with RCI.  I use my timeshare and the last time I stayed there, the unit I was in was a real dump with torn screens, hot water that didn't work, warped front door, and chipped fixtures in the bathroom.  I look forward to staying in the new Desert Club this year.  I also want to have something with trading power in RCI if I decide to space bank.  The last time I space banked my Las Vegas resort, I had very poor trading power, and was told by the RCI representative that the resort was so bad that it was hard to trade.  If we don't move, the existing timeshare has to be renovated.  That would mean a tremendous raise in maintenance fees or a special assessment.  I also own at Celebrity Resorts in Brigantine Beach (also a former Leisure Resorts property).  All of the owners just got hit with an average special assessment of $1000 for a one bedroom for renovations, and my maintenance fees there are up to $635.  
Everyone who has stayed at or visited the Las Vegas property knows what terrible condition it is in, and knows that it either has to be knocked down or fixed up.  The owners have to relocate if it's knocked down, or pay a lot if it's fixed up. 
I've been an owner in Las Vegas  since 1982 when it was Grand Flamingo Estates (PEC), then Ramada, then Leisure Resorts, and now Summer Bay.  I remember when the units were new and I was proud to take people with me on vacation.  Now it is an embarrassment to bring anyone with me to stay.  Most of us owners are just vacationers.  We did not buy with the idea that we would make a profit, just that we would have a nice place to stay while on vacation, and be able to trade into a nice place.  We don't have that now, but if we move to Desert Club, we will.  According to my deeds, I own only my timeshares, not part of the entire property.  The new Desert Club is bigger and has more units than the current resort.   After the owners all get their timeshares, the developer gets the rest to sell, rent, whatever.  That seems pretty simple and clear to me.  
As far as I know, the HOA was authorized to make the decisions for the owners (much like our elected politicians make decisions for us) and that it's a done deal.  We may own the timeshares, but it is Harrahs that owns the redevelopment rights to the land.  If we become too much of a problem, they could give our existing timeshare to the city of Las Vegas as a tax write-off.  It could be used for any number of things in which case eminent domain could be invoked and we could own nothing.
If we are going to play out a scenario of how much we might get by not signing the deed transfers, we should also play out how little we might get.


----------



## Sandy

Very good points Lila.  Nice to hear other owners submitting their thoughts on this matter.


----------



## LilaG

To further belabor my point and bore my readers:
I bought from the developer originally.  My original deed states that I own “an undivided one, six hundred twelfth (1/612) interest in that real property situated in the State of Nevada, County of Clark, more particularly described as follows:  Lot 51 in Block 3 of Flamino Estates, as shown by map thereof on file in Book 5 of Plats, Page 22, in the Office of the County Recorder of Clark County, Nevada.”………”EXCEPT all the gas, oil, coal, and other hydrocarbon substances and minerals ..." This deed was to the Winnick.  I have a similar deed to the Towers  with “an undivided one, four thousand seven hundred forty-third (1/4743) interest in and to that real property situated in the County of Clark State of Nevada, more particularly described as follows:  Lots 16 thrugh 20 in Block 2 of Flamingo Estates, as shown by map thereof on file in Book 5 of Plats, Page 22, in the Office of the County Recorder of Clark County, Nevada.  Excepting there from all oil, gas and miner rights, if any, together with water rights, as reserved.   It is a different fraction because there were more units in the Towers than in the Winnick.  
Also in my documents it says, “Preferred Equities Corporation is the developer of the Grand Flamingo Fountains, the Grand Flamingo Terraces, The Grand Flamingo Towers, The Grand Flamingo Villas, The Grand Flamingo Winnick, Reno Spa Resort Club and White Sands Waikiki Resort Club.  It is also the owner or beneficial owner of the unsold interests in those resorts.”
All of these parcels collectively are known as the Summer Bay Resort Club, but each owner owns a very small percentage of a very small parcel of the total.  We have absolutely no rights to anything other than our week (1/52 interest) in one unit in one of the areas of the whole development.  The rest belongs to the developer.  People who purchased resales are still bound by the terms of the original deed, even though they may not have all of the documentation, clauses, and exceptions that came with the original.
With the deal the HOA worked out, all of the owners are getting more than their share, and the developer gets what’s left.  It does not belong to us.  Check your original documents if you are an original owner.  If you bought on resale, you got a real bargain with the move because the new timeshare has got to have more resale value than the giveaway prices of a few years ago.


----------



## Mimi

LilaG said:


> With the deal the HOA worked out, all of the owners are getting more than their share, and the developer gets what’s left.  It does not belong to us.  Check your original documents if you are an original owner.  If you bought on resale, you got a real bargain with the move because the new timeshare has got to have more resale value than the giveaway prices of a few years ago.



My point, exactly! Thanks for sharing, LilaG  :whoopie:


----------



## roadtriper

LilaG said:


> To further belabor my point and bore my readers:
> I bought from the developer originally.  My original deed states that I own “an undivided one, six hundred twelfth (1/612) interest in that real property situated in the State of Nevada, County of Clark, more particularly described as follows:  Lot 51 in Block 3 of Flamino Estates, as shown by map thereof on file in Book 5 of Plats, Page 22, in the Office of the County Recorder of Clark County, Nevada.”………”EXCEPT all the gas, oil, coal, and other hydrocarbon substances and minerals ..." This deed was to the Winnick.  I have a similar deed to the Towers  with “an undivided one, four thousand seven hundred forty-third (1/4743) interest in and to that real property situated in the County of Clark State of Nevada, more particularly described as follows:  Lots 16 thrugh 20 in Block 2 of Flamingo Estates, as shown by map thereof on file in Book 5 of Plats, Page 22, in the Office of the County Recorder of Clark County, Nevada.  Excepting there from all oil, gas and miner rights, if any, together with water rights, as reserved.   It is a different fraction because there were more units in the Towers than in the Winnick.
> Also in my documents it says, “Preferred Equities Corporation is the developer of the Grand Flamingo Fountains, the Grand Flamingo Terraces, The Grand Flamingo Towers, The Grand Flamingo Villas, The Grand Flamingo Winnick, Reno Spa Resort Club and White Sands Waikiki Resort Club.  It is also the owner or beneficial owner of the unsold interests in those resorts.”
> All of these parcels collectively are known as the Summer Bay Resort Club, but each owner owns a very small percentage of a very small parcel of the total.  We have absolutely no rights to anything other than our week (1/52 interest) in one unit in one of the areas of the whole development.  The rest belongs to the developer.  People who purchased resales are still bound by the terms of the original deed, even though they may not have all of the documentation, clauses, and exceptions that came with the original.
> With the deal the HOA worked out, all of the owners are getting more than their share, and the developer gets what’s left.  It does not belong to us.  Check your original documents if you are an original owner.  If you bought on resale, you got a real bargain with the move because the new timeshare has got to have more resale value than the giveaway prices of a few years ago.



Lila, Believe me, You are not boring us!  it's refreshing to hear some reason from a 25 year veteran owner who has seen the highs and lows at the resort.
I purchased my units resale, but I do have an original PEC deed that came with one of my units. and it reads pretty much the same as yours.  I think over the years the wording on the deeds has changed somewhat and some of the resale deeds are pretty simple.  never the less...  your points are all valid and I agree with them totaly!     Thank you for the insight   Bob


----------



## spatenfloot

I'm glad to see that some people understand what they bought. Timeshares are not the same as real estate no matter what the salesmen try to imply.


----------



## NHRebels

Is Summer Bay a Gold Crown Resort RCI does not have it listed as such ?
Is this Resort really moving a 1/2 block closer to the strip and recieving a huge renovation ?  Is this a hidden treasure to be to exchange into in February 2009 ?


----------



## Sandy

Greetings, 

SB is definitely NOT a gold crown now.  The plan is to move the entire resort to another location, one block further from the strip into the Desert Club condo/apartment complex.  

There has been much discussion on this move, both pro and con.

As for exchangers, you will still be located in the old, current SB until the move is completed.  They anticipate this occurring once all of the units (Or some of them?) are fully refurbished and remodled. Maybe in late 2008....

You can see the new location and photos of the new units here: http://deedexchange.summerbayresort.com/IMI_1342_W1.html


----------



## janapur

So yes, 2009 would be a wonderful time to exchange into the new resort! You may be able to use a weak trader to request the exchange now before the GC status. Many new owners like myself, who purchased resale in anticipation of this move have space banked our weeks.

Jana


----------

