# Possible Starwood Listing of Starwood’s Voluntary Resorts



## nodge (Nov 12, 2006)

Hey Starwood Tuggers,

I was hanging around the Sheraton Desert Oasis’ (a Starwood voluntary resort) last week using the for-fee WiFi in the lobby and stumbled onto a document titled:  “2006-C Supplement to Sheraton Desert Oasis Owner Information,” Version R-14, dated Sept. 6, 2006.   Page One says “Owner Information Pages 240 through 261 (the Starwood Vacation Exchange Company Disclosure Guide for Members of the Starwood Vacation Network (R-12)) are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the attached Starwood Vacation Exchange Company Disclosure Guide for Members of the Starwood Vacation Network (R-14).”

Section III (“Membership in SVN”) of this document includes the familiar terms that make SDO a voluntary resort.  Namely, “[m]embership in SVN automatically terminates if the SVN Member voluntarily or involuntarily transfers the SVN Member’s VOI [“Vacation Ownership Interest”] and owns no other VOI, or if the SVN Member’s VOI ceases to be an SVN Resort.  SVN Membership is not transferable.” 

The most interesting thing in this document is its file name.  It is printed at the bottom of each page as follows:

F:\SVEC\Registrations\Docs\GUIDE R-14 (9-6-06 – CAS LKS LST PGA WMH SMV SDO SBP CAN POR BV AR).doc

It would appear that this Document R-14, which includes the SVN voluntary resort language, applies to all of the resorts listed after “9-6-06” in the file name.  If so, the file name serves as a list of SVN’s voluntary resorts and here they are:

Starwood Voluntary Resorts in SVN

CAS – Sheraton Vistana Resort – Cascades Section 
LKS – Sheraton Vistana Resort – Lakes Section 
LST  - Sheraton Lakeside Terrace
PGA – Sheraton PGA Vacation Resort 
WMH – Westin Mission Hills 
SMV – Sheraton Mountain Vista
SDO – Sheraton Desert Oasis
SBP – Sheraton Broadway Plantation
CAN – Westin Lagunamar (Cancun)
POR – Princeville Ocean Resort (Kauai)
BV – Westin St. John – Bay Vista Section
AR – “Amelia Resort” (listed as being located at Vistana Village’s address with an “estimated completion date for Phase 1 [of] June, 2007.”

Starwood Mandatory Resorts in SVN

By elimination, the following remaining resorts identified as SVN resorts in Document R-14 must be “mandatory” resorts that are not subject to SVN Document R-14’s “voluntary” membership provisions:

Vistana Villages – Original “Bella” Phase
Vistana Villages -  Key West Phase
Westin St. John – Original Phase referred to in Document R-14 simply as “Westin St. John.”
Harborside Resort Phases I and II
Westin Kaanapali Ocean Resort Villas
Westin Kaanapali Ocean Resort Villas North
Westin Kierland Villas

Interestingly, Harborside Resort Phase III is not listed in the list of SVN resorts provided in this document and I’ve never heard of “Amelia Resort” purportedly located at 12401 International Drive, Orlando, Florida 32821 (Vistana Villages’ address).  Can anyone shed some light on this?  

Since I’m assuming this list based solely on the file name of the document, I could be wrong.  Does anyone have any info to challenge these designations for any particular resort?  

-“Gumshoe” Nodge


----------



## vic714 (Nov 12, 2006)

Nodge,

Nice work. I'm really suprised that Starwood is able to break up Vistana Villages into sections that are mandatory & voluntary. If I remember from my owners update in March at VV the 3 bedroom units were going to be in the Amelia section of the resort.

I'm hoping that when Aurba starts selling it will be a mandatory resort. It really seems that Starwood is moving more towards voluntary resorts. The last few resorts have all gone this way with the exception of WKORVN.

Victor


----------



## bward (Nov 13, 2006)

So, should we as owners at mandatory resorts be concerned that Starwood might  want to do away with the mandatory concept? Can the company unilaterally do this on its own? Or do we have a voice? 

The way I see it, if this trend continues, the more desirable resorts will be not necessarily the resorts in the primo locations, but the ones that have the ability to trade in SVN after a resale. 

I understand why Starwood would want to make SVN membership an exclusive right to people who buy from the developer; it protects the developer's price. But it does nothing for the value of the what the customer buys. Look how affordable Vistana Resort resales are compared to Vistana Villages, for example. Not that VV is pulling in big bucks, but there is a difference in price on the resale market, and that difference is probably SVN. 

Someday I will no longer own my measly week at Vistana Villages in Orlando. I would like to think that when the time comes to pass it along to my kids, they'll be able to enjoy the same benefits I once did, and see other parts of the world though SVN (which we love). I don't think they'll want to go to Orlando every year, as much as they love it now. 

I know I'm getting ahead of myself here. Likely being an alarmist. From what we know there are no plans to do away with the mandatory resort concept. 
I do believe if Starwood wanted to protect its developers price, it would be better served to institute and implement a right of first refusal, which would set a low end for the price of our timeshares on the open market. I'm not an economist, and I'm sure there are good reasons against this, but from where I stand, it seems a workable solution.

Looking forward to any thoughts on this,

bward


----------



## stevens397 (Nov 13, 2006)

bward-

If your concern is losing SVN after passing it on to the kids (rather than selling it to a stranger for a better price), rest easy.  If the situation in NJ is any indication, there should be no problem.  I'm told that some of the season ticket holders for the football Giants are over 120 years old!  They simply never send in any kind of transfer and just keep paying the bills when they come.

The only thing I'm sure of is that whatever Starwood decides to do, it will be in THEIR interest rather than that of the existing owners.  Most of us had never even heard of mandatory/voluntary when we made our first developer purchase.  I have a patient who owns 10 weeks - 8 at Mission Hills and 2 at Kierland.  He has not idea of what I'm talking about and probably won't until he decides to sell.  If he did, he would probably have bought 8 at Kierland and 2 at Mission Hills.


----------



## bward (Nov 13, 2006)

Hi stevens,

Thanks for your post, you make some great points. 

My concern is that whatever I do with my Vistana Villages Starwood timeshare when I can no longer use it, it'll be worth considerably less if the mandatory concept goes away. In other words, it won't be the same thing that I bought. We're already seeing the switch to II from RCI, afterall. 

I know owning a timeshare is not a money making proposition, that's not what I'm talking about. I just want to know that when the day comes to sell, or give it way (and I'm not planning to get rid of my Starwood), that what I paid for is the same thing that I'm passing on. In my case, I bought mandatory, and I  think it should stay mandatory forever. After all, this isn't a car, or a computer that depreciates over time. That's all. 

Again, I figure I'm getting way ahead of myself. But it is interesting to see the trend of more voluntary resorts. 

Or, complete speculation, off the top of my head, I wonder if Starwood is prepping for the day when, like the new Disney passes, if the buyer pays extra (say another $10k), SVN doesn't expire on resale. Hmmmm.

bward


----------



## nodge (Nov 13, 2006)

So far (at least) Starwood hasn’t changed a mandatory resort into a voluntary resort, so that is good news.

The larger short-term concern for Starwood purchasers (either resale or from the developer) is to understand exactly what they are buying.  The greatest potential for purchaser confusion would appear to now be at Vistana Villages, where if you buy a Vistana Villages “Key West” phase, you are buying a mandatory resort, but if you buy at Vistana Villages “Amelia” phase, you are buying a voluntary resort.  I bet that developer prices do not differ significantly between the two phases, but the resale value difference between the two will likely be dramatic.  I bet that Starwood’s salespeople don’t even tell potential customers about this issue.

This information could also swing a potential purchaser one way or the other if they are on the fence over whether to buy in Maui (WKORVN – a mandatory resort) or Kauai (WPORV – a voluntary resort).  Again, I bet the salespeople don’t even mention this issue to their customers.

It would appear Starwood is banking heavily on its relatively new “requalification” plan, that allows a voluntary resort resale to be requalified into SVN if the new owner purchases an additional unit from the developer.  Otherwise, as voluntary resort owners sell or die, fewer and fewer units will be available for trade within SVN, eventually rendering the program worthless.

Buyers beware!

-Nodge


----------



## malex2 (Nov 13, 2006)

nodge said:
			
		

> It would appear Starwood is banking heavily on its relatively new “requalification” plan, that allows a voluntary resale to be requalified into SVN if the new owner purchases an additional unit from the developer.  Otherwise, as voluntary resort owners sell or die, fewer and fewer units will be available for trade within SVN, eventually rendering the program worthless.
> 
> -Nodge



Nodge,

I agree with your concerns for both mandatory and voluntary resort buyers.  Most people buy into a "club" program for the internal trading priority (some for the points conversion for hotel access).  If internal trade options diminish, everyone loses; there is no more "club".  Creating two classes of Starwood owners benefits no one.  Allow owners to opt-out, but don't push them out.

malex2


----------



## vacationtime1 (Nov 13, 2006)

malex2 said:
			
		

> Creating two classes of Starwood owners benefits no one.



Creating two classes of Starwood owners benefits Starwood.  In several ways:

1.  By lessening the utility of purchases on the secondary market (because the resales will come without StarOptions), Starwood reduces the resale value of those units.  In situations where Starwood has a right of first refusal (Princeville for example, probably others), it can exercise its ROFR, buy those units at a relatively distressed price, and resell them as "new" (with StarOptions) at probably 2-1/2 - 3 times its purchase price.

2.   "nodge" suggests that not permitting the transfer of the right to StarOptions will encourage additional developer sales because when the purchaser of a resale later buys a developer unit, the resale may be "requalified" and get StarOptions.  

3.  "bward" suggests a one-time $10,000 charge to make the developer-granted StarOptions transferrable.  But why would Starwood limit themselves to charging this only once?  Starwood could charge this each time the unit transfers.

4.  By minimizing internal exchanges with StarOptions, Starwood can make more money on rentals.  My understanding is that Starwood maintains a "pool" of exchange units at II which do not necessarily correspond with units being deposited for exchange (owner relinquishes a platinum week; Starwood deposits a silver or gold week).  That gives Starwood a prime rental week.

The good news in this is that Starwood cannot change mandatory resorts into voluntary resorts; the transferability of StarOptions is part of the project documents.  All of this will continue to make interests in mandatory resorts relatively more valauble and interests in voluntary resorts relatively less valuable (as is the observation of those writing about the resale values of Vistana Villages vs. Vistana Resort).


----------



## malex2 (Nov 14, 2006)

Although I can't argue with some of your points, I would suggest that Starwood will not benefit if potential new buyers of voluntary resorts catch on to the fact that these units will depreciate much more than mandatory ones due to the expiration of SVN status on resale.

The response could be that there will always be uninformed buyers and salesmen who will neglect to educate them about this feature.  But, these new resorts (Princeville, etc.) are expensive and those who have the means to buy them should not be presumed to be clueless.

As a business model, I'd rather appeal to people's intelligence and ability to discern value, rather than their ignorance.

Starwood may expand further its willingness to requalify voluntary resales since there is money to be made here.


----------



## Henry M. (Nov 14, 2006)

A couple of years ago when I was looking at WMH, the sales person said SVN was voluntary but she claimed that you could buy back into SVN for something like $599 or $699. At the time I didn't pursue it since I wasn't looking at resales. I'm also not sure if this applied to resale units or if she meant that you could opt out of SVN buying from the developer and then buy in later on.

Does anyone know if it is possible to buy into SVN with a voluntary resort and what the details are?


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 14, 2006)

emuyshondt said:
			
		

> A couple of years ago when I was looking at WMH, the sales person said SVN was voluntary but she claimed that you could buy back into SVN for something like $599 or $699. At the time I didn't pursue it since I wasn't looking at resales. I'm also not sure if this applied to resale units or if she meant that you could opt out of SVN buying from the developer and then buy in later on.
> 
> Does anyone know if it is possible to buy into SVN with a voluntary resort and what the details are?



I own a resale at Sheraton Desert Oasis and contacted Starwood requesting to buy-in and they said no.  They do offer this to owners who purchased there before Starwood bought the property.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Nov 14, 2006)

This thread covers two distinct, but overlapping issues -- (1) our lack of accurate information about Starwood's rules, and (2) Starwood's desire to maximize its profits.  The overlap happens whenever we stumble because we have inaccurate or incomplete information.   

I am not suggesting that Starwood *intentionally* puts out inaccurate information; I am stating that timesharing is inherently so complicated that misinformation happens.  During the two months I have been trolling this BBS, I have read numerous threads about which Starwood resorts are mandatory vs. voluntary.  If we have trouble figuring out this stuff, how can a newbie vacationer sucked into a presentation, totally unprepared, be expected to ask the right questions?   And even if they (we?) ask the right qustions, we read of numerous situations where the salesperson is clueless about the correct answer.  (Note: any newbie reading this should locate "seenett"'s sticky for the best information we do have.)

Starwood takes care of Starwood.  It is struggling with the correct "mix" of incentives to maximize its profits -- both short-term and long-term.  The financially sophisticated but timeshare newbie purchaser of Princeville is told that s/he can transfer within the system using StarOptions; s/he doesn't know to ask why this right is transferrable for Maui purchases but not for Kauai purchases.  Perhaps Starwood thinks it can sell more units by charging less less now and pick up additional fees/profits later by selling additional units to permit requalification (or by permitting requalification for a fee).  Remember that just because Starwood does something doesn't make it the correct decision even for Starwood; American corporations routinely fail due to poor business decision making.

The only antidote for the consumer is to exchange information.  Nodge does us an enormous service by finding and posting the initial item in this thread.


----------



## nodge (Nov 14, 2006)

DeniseM said:
			
		

> I own a resale at Sheraton Desert Oasis and contacted Starwood requesting to buy-in and they said no.  They do offer this to owners who purchased there before Starwood bought the property.




Hi DeniseM,

I was told the same thing for my SDO resale.   

However, my notes from these discussions with SVN folks suggests that a special situation MAY exist for Vistana Resort Cascades and Lakes Section resale purchasers.  In particular, at least one person within SVN’s “contracts” department told me that resale purchasers of Vistana Resort Cascades and Lakes units can “buy-in” to SVN simply by paying a $599 “enrollment fee.”  However, before anyone gets too excited over this, several other folks within SVN told me that Vistana Resort resales can “never” be brought back into SVN either through a straight buy-in or even through a requalifcation coincident with a new developer purchase.  It was all I could do to get to the bottom of my SDO resale issues, so I never pursued getting a straight answer on this potential special situation with Vistana Resort resales.  

Hey Vistana Resort Cascades and Lakes resale owners!  Have you ever tried to “buy-in” to SVN?  If not, are you willing to try?  Rather than just calling and asking SVN if you are eligible, I suggest that you request a copy of the SVN enrollment fee form, which is titled “Starwood Vacation Network Enrollment Fee Acknowledgment and Disclosure Statement” for “Florida Projects.”  SVN will either send it to you (and take your $599, and you’ll owe me a dinner) or tell you why you are not eligible to receive it.  Either way, you’ll get a more formal and well reasoned answer from SVN than you would get simply by rolling the dice with whoever answers the phone at SVN.

If you are up for the challenge, please post what you find out here.

Good Luck,

-Nodge


----------



## rfb813 (Nov 14, 2006)

We own at Vistana (Cascades) and were looking to buy additional weeks but after learning about the Mandatory and Voluntary resort situation felt that there was too much inconsistency with Starwood. With Marriott, Hilton and Hyatt you know where you stand with a developer purchase and a resale. Starwood has to get its act together and decide where they stand with this issue.


----------



## arlene22 (Nov 14, 2006)

nodge said:
			
		

> Interestingly, Harborside Resort Phase III is not listed in the list of SVN resorts provided in this document and I’ve never heard of “Amelia Resort” purportedly located at 12401 International Drive, Orlando, Florida 32821 (Vistana Villages’ address).  Can anyone shed some light on this?
> 
> Since I’m assuming this list based solely on the file name of the document, I could be wrong.  Does anyone have any info to challenge these designations for any particular resort?
> 
> -“Gumshoe” Nodge



Hey, Nodge-- Great detective work!

The only thing I have to add is that my understanding is that "phase III" is _Atlantis_ phase III, not Harborside phase III. The units being built for Atlantis phase III are very high end fractional/rental apartments. They will not be a part of SVO. I am not aware of any plans to build more at Harborside after phase 2. My guess is that Starwood will eventually build timeshares to go with their Cable Beach development in Nassau, but these will not have an Atlantis tie-in.

Again, great info! Thanks for posting.


----------



## armlem2 (Nov 14, 2006)

Could it simply be a matter of supply and demand that dictates what is mandatory and what is voluntary.  It appears to me, they might have made the most demanded resorts mandatory.  By doing so, it ensures that all mandatory owners whether or not it was a resale or developer purchase will always have an easier time to trade out internally.  Thus making more units at the high demand resorts available for everyone else to trade into and at the same time they are lowering the number of people allowed to trade in by taking away the internal trades on resales. 

Most buyers wouldn't ask the developer about transferring of options when they sell.  It also eliminates the problem Marriott has with everyone at 50 resorts trying to trade into Maui and alot of people getting upset.  It strikes me the Hilton has tried to resolve the same issue by building multiple resorts in the same high demand places as Marriott has done with Hilton Head and Orlando.   These are solely attempts to keep traders happy and hence not kill their reputations and ability to sell more units.  JMHO


----------



## grgs (Nov 14, 2006)

armlem2 said:
			
		

> Could it simply be a matter of supply and demand that dictates what is mandatory and what is voluntary.  It appears to me, they might have made the most demanded resorts mandatory.



That's what I used to think was the case.  But with Princeville and the latest phase of St. John not mandatory (as far as we can tell), I don't think that logic holds.  

Glorian


----------



## DavidnRobin (Nov 15, 2006)

grgs said:
			
		

> That's what I used to think was the case.  But with Princeville and the latest phase of St. John not mandatory (as far as we can tell), I don't think that logic holds.
> 
> Glorian


I agree.

In my post on the WKV ROFR -
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=246025#post246025

Heres is text from a SVO Resale Information sheet that I have (Nov 06) that discusses the ROFR (not required for WKV) - Section E:

(Voluntary Resorts) Starwood Vacation Network and Vistana Plus Disclosure Statement:
Membership in the Starwood Vacation Network (SVN) or Vistana Plus is a benefit unique to the seller's ownership. Under the SVN Rules and the Owner Membership Agreement, membership in SVN or Vistana Plus, the Starpoints associated with the Gold Level Memberships in the Starwood Preferred Guest Program (SPG), and access to the SPG Conversion Program cannot be transferred to the purchaser.

(Club Resorts) Starwood Vacation Network Disclosure Statement:
Membership in the Starwood Vacation Network (SVN) must transfer with ownership,* however, the benefit of Gold Level Membership in the Starwood Preferred Guest Program (SPG), and access to the SPG Conversion Program are not transferrable.* Starpoints deposited in the seller's account will remain there and cannot be transferred.


----------



## Fredm (Dec 15, 2006)

vacationtime1 said:
			
		

> Creating two classes of Starwood owners benefits Starwood.  In several ways:
> 
> 1.  By lessening the utility of purchases on the secondary market (because the resales will come without StarOptions), Starwood reduces the resale value of those units.  In situations where Starwood has a right of first refusal (Princeville for example, probably others), it can exercise its ROFR, buy those units at a relatively distressed price, and resell them as "new" (with StarOptions) at probably 2-1/2 - 3 times its purchase price.
> 
> ...


I just came across this thread, and would like to resurrect the discussion of voluntary and mandatory resort classifications.

It appears as if Starwood's latest moves toward Voluntary resorts has us all in a spin trying to guess the rationale and implications of it. Funny how we proceed in our thinking. We have given the terms Mandatory and Voluntary a definition that is technically inaccurate, but until now descriptive of how the system  works. I have read every document I can put my hands on, and none of them say that a resale buyer of a Volunary resort cannot be an SVN member. Yet, the entire discussion of Mandatory vs Voluntary has revolved around this premise. So much so, that we are prognosticating resale values of Voluntary resorts based on it. Disclosure documents all say the same thing: A Voluntary resort owners membership in SVN terminates upon sale, and is not transferrable. Mandatory resort owners SVN membership is attached by deed and is inseperable from it. It transfers automatically to the new owner. This is from memory, so somewhat paraphrased, but accurate.
Original owners of Voluntary resorts are,of course, SVN members. That is because they were enrolled by the sales rep at time of purchase. A membership application was completed and signed. Terms of that membership agreement state that membership is volunary, and it terminates upon sale, and is not transferrable. No more, no less.
It is and has been starwood's POLICY to be restrictive in accepting membership applications to SVN. Nothing prevents them from becoming less restrictive, or non-restrictive, except their view of their best interests.
So,WHAT IF Starwood has decided that everyone should be SVN members? They currently have an established enrollment fee of $599 for those who apply and are accepted.  Did you know that since there is no prohibition on applying for membership if a voluntary resort resale owner (it just does not happen automatically), some have applied and were accepted?The term which accurately describes Starwood's policy in this regard is "highly restrictive". But there is a huge, did I say HUGE, difference between prohibited and "restrictive'.
Nowhere in this thread, or any other that I have followed, has there been raised the possibility that the term "Voluntary" means other than a resale buyer cannot get StarOptions.  Funny how we proceed in our thinking.
Starwood could make a lot of easy money by taking in application fees of , say, $1,000, $2,000, maybe $3000, for each voluntary resort owner sale. Especially if almost all resorts were classified as such. More SVN inventory as well. Doesnt make sense to have Princeville, a part of St john,etc off line from the network, does it? It would also go a very long way to calm the waters with owners who just might feel they have been, shall we say, finessed on the issue when they initially purchased. Indeed, lots of reasons to think that it may possibly be an answer. It would at least be consistent with what the disclosure documets really say.
I am not predicting that this is the "answer" which explains Starwood's moves.
I am pointng out that it is an alternative that thus far has not been considered bacause we insist on defining "voluntary' differently than the dictionary does.
Funny how we proceed with our thinking. Just imagine what THAT will do to the secondary market price of Voluntary shares.  One could currently buy a Platinum at Mission Hills for 16k. Not bad for 148,100 Options.


----------



## myip (Dec 16, 2006)

Fredm said:
			
		

> They currently have an established enrollment fee of $599 for those who apply and are accepted.  Did you know that since there is no prohibition on applying for membership if a voluntary resort resale owner (it just does not happen automatically), some have applied and were accepted?The term which accurately describes Starwood's policy in this regard is "highly restrictive". But there is a huge, did I say HUGE, difference between prohibited and "restrictive'.


   Are you saying that any current resale owner can apply for membership for $599.  Starwood may allow the owner to join SVN.  Who do you ask to apply for membership?


----------



## oneohana (Dec 16, 2006)

myip said:
			
		

> Are you saying that any current resale owner can apply for membership for $599.  Starwood may allow the owner to join SVN.  Who do you ask to apply for membership?



When I called SVN regarding requalifing a resale, they said that they do not allow requalification of a resale. The person I talked to was under the impression I was just trying to requalify the resale on its own without a developer purchase. I guess if you can get a manager to sign off on it it will go through.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Dec 16, 2006)

To the point raised about the definition of 'Voluntary' and 'Mandatory' - it is from the perspective of SVN and owners within SVO.

There is SVN documentation that for a 'Voluntary' resort - membership into SVN is voluntary and the 'SVN Club' is not transferred upon resale. A 'Mandatory' resort owner has to pay to be in the SVN Club - it is mandatory, and it is transferred to the resale buyer.

As to paying the SVN fee - if I only owned WSJ and WKORV (OF) - I would like opt-out from paying the ~$130 per year fee as I would never exchange.  With WKV - the SVN exchange option is useful.

As to paying $600 to be in the system... hard to say whether it would be worth it or not - I guess it would if you could make it work for you.

As to what SVO/SVN intent is... well, they will make a decision that best meets their perceived business needs (whether correct or not),a nd the SVO owners will have to go along for the ride.


----------



## Fredm (Dec 18, 2006)

myip said:
			
		

> Are you saying that any current resale owner can apply for membership for $599.  Starwood may allow the owner to join SVN.  Who do you ask to apply for membership?


 
I am glad I checked back here. At my transmit the bbs returned a message saying I could not post to a "something or other "  thread. 

I am saying that Starwood' policy is restrictive toward secondary market buyers of voluntary resorts. Nothing prohibits it. The restriction is a policy matter. As such, policy can change. I am simply making an observation. One that has not been considered before. While trying to find rational explainations for why new resorts are being classified as voluntary, my speculation is possible. Ownership of a voluntary resort does not unto itself preclude membership in SVN. Discussions on the matter, heretofore, presume that it does.  The fact of the matter is it could change tomorrow. I am not saying that is will, but it could. So, if that variable is tossed into the stew, one can arrive at other reasons for the latest round of classifications. I have long held that their restrictive SVN policy hurts them more than it helps. I see the potentil of a policy change in them. It could easily be accomplished,without admitting a thing, simply by being accomodating rather than restrictive toward membership applications. A good money maker too, from transactions they excluded themselves from before. In this context, the latest resort classifiction s make rational sense. It depends on how Starwood views its self nterest.
Since application for enrollment in SVN is not prohibited, one could complete and submit a membership application, just as the original owner did. It will very likely be rejected while policy is so restrictive. Then again, it may be accepted. That, fellow tuggers, would signal Starwood's maturity in deling with the mess its misplaced policy has caused. Reclassified weeks are a step in that direction, as well imho. 

How to apply?  Good question. The Starwood Vacation Exchange Company Disclosure Guide says:  "A purchaser at a non -Club Resort is not automatically a member of SVN.
To use and enjoy benefits of mmbership in SVN , such purchaser must be enrolled by SVN Operator,which will require the execution  of an Owner Member Agreement, and the payment of any applicable fee, as determined by SVN Operator..."
The SVN Operator is Starwood Vacation Exchange Company. Principal offices are at 8801 Vistana Centre Drive, Orlando, FL 32831,. Last I heard, the "applicable fee" was $599.  

Fredm


----------



## Bill4728 (Dec 18, 2006)

Here in this thread  TUG thread there is a lot of confusion about WKORV-N and if it is voluntary or mandatory. But, in this thread the OP says it will be mandatory. 

The thing that makes me crazy about Starwood is that we (some of the best informed timeshare owners) can't find a solid answer to this question. WHY IS THAT?


----------



## steve1000 (Dec 19, 2006)

FredM thanks for your excellent post. It is valuable perspective. As an owner at WMH who bought before the mandatory/voluntary issue became apparent I would certainly like to see Starwood relax its restrictive position on permitting resale purchasers at voluntary resorts to be able to be admitted into the SVN network. I think you are correct that at some point Starwood may recognize the wisdom of relaxing their policy.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Dec 19, 2006)

Bill4728 said:
			
		

> Here in this thread  TUG thread there is a lot of confusion about WKORV-N and if it is voluntary or mandatory. But, in this thread the OP says it will be mandatory.
> 
> The thing that makes me crazy about Starwood is that we (some of the best informed timeshare owners) can't find a solid answer to this question. WHY IS THAT?


I even asked a SVN saleman directly this question (month ago while at WKORV) - he said M, but he said that all resorts being built are M - and we know this is not true for WPORV - but WKORV-N is M.

No wonder many owners are so misinformed - SVO/SVN misdirects, but I believe they are misguided.


----------



## nodge (Jan 9, 2007)

*Vistana Villages – Amelia Phase*

Starwood has recently updated the StarOptions chart on mystarcentral.com to include the “Amelia” phase of Vistana Villages (Thanks for letting us know Blujahz).  It shows a 3 bedroom during peak season in the “Amelia” phase being worth 125,000 StarOptions, while a 3 bedroom in the “Key West” phase being worth 139,700 StarOptions.  (Smaller sized units between the phases have the same StarOptions, only the 3 bedroom units have differing StarOptions).

Soooooo fellow consumers, it would appear that not only is the “Amelia” phase a voluntary resort, 3 bedroom units in the “Amelia” phase are also worth fewer StarOptions than their sister 3 bedroom mandatory resort units in the “Key West” phase at the same resort.

Assuming Starwood is still selling 3 bedroom units in both phases, does anyone know if Starwood is discounting the developer pricing on 3 bedroom units in the “Amelia” phase accordingly, or is it just hiding the ball on this issue with its customers?

Then again, maybe there are structural differences between the phases, like the 3 bedroom in the Key West phase is really a 2 bedroom with a connecting 1 bedroom unit, while the Amelia phase units are true 3 bedroom units.  Any thoughts?

-Nodge


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 9, 2007)

nodge said:


> Starwood has recently updated the StarOptions chart on mystarcentral.com to include the “Amelia” phase of Vistana Villages (Thanks for letting us know Blujahz).  It shows a 3 bedroom during peak season in the “Amelia” phase being worth 125,000 StarOptions, while a 3 bedroom in the “Key West” phase being worth 139,700 StarOptions.  (Smaller sized units between the phases have the same StarOptions, only the 3 bedroom units have differing StarOptions).
> 
> Soooooo fellow consumers, it would appear that not only is the “Amelia” phase a voluntary resort, 3 bedroom units in the “Amelia” phase are also worth fewer StarOptions than their sister 3 bedroom mandatory resort units in the “Key West” phase at the same resort.
> 
> ...



Why do you say the Amelia phase is Voluntary?  Is there documantation that states that SVN privledges are not transferred upon resale to the buyer?  The new phase at WSJ has different SO allotments and even different seasons.

Anybody out there bought the new Amelia VV or BayView WSJ phases?


----------



## tomandrobin (Jan 9, 2007)

blujahz said:


> Why do you say the Amelia phase is Voluntary?  Is there documantation that states that SVN privledges are not transferred upon resale to the buyer?


 
The first post by the OP lists Amelia as a voluntary resort.


----------



## nodge (Jan 9, 2007)

blujahz said:


> Why do you say the Amelia phase is Voluntary?



Available data "suggests" that Amelia Phase is voluntary, but then again, the data suggesting it is rather limited: 

1.  See the first post in this thread.  Amelia phase is listed in the file name of a Starwood document containing familiar "voluntary" resort limitations, while known mandatory resorts (Kierland, WKORV) are omitted from that file name.

2.  Duke's sleuthing found a document that lists "Key West" and "Bella" phases of Vistana Villages as being members of the mandatory "club," but "Amelia" phase is NOT listed, even though the document Duke found was updated on 11-17-06, well after "Amelia" phase units began sales.  See post #29 of this thread: 

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38235&page=2

3.  A potential developer purchaser of new Vistana Villages units (with Amelia being the newest phase) was told by her salesman that Vistana Villages is a voluntary resort.  See post #1 of this thread:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35337

Sure this data is flimsy, but until someone who purchased Amelia VV looks at their paperwork and reports what they find (or Starwood steps up to the plate and officially publishes this info somewhere), it's all we've got.

-Nodge


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 9, 2007)

tomandrobin said:


> The first post by the OP lists Amelia as a voluntary resort.



Oops - maybe should read the first post of a thread - actually I did before, but I was also going off of the other thread.

Nodge - yes - looks as if Amelia is V, but until someone produces an OM - I will take that with about 90% confidence. Thanks for the update - there goes my whole mystery 'Club' and SVN Mandatory theory.


----------



## Stefa (Jan 9, 2007)

So what about the Palm Beach section of VV?  Is this M or V?   In the StarOptions chart that was posted here awhile back it was listed with Bella.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 9, 2007)

I just noticed from the 1st post that Westin St John Bay Vista units are Voluntary.  If correct, I wonder if that will have impact on the WSJ Virgin Grand (Hillside) units that are Mandatory.

Any WSJ BV Owners out there?     I wonder if any have come upon TUG? 

Anybody have a WSJ Owners Manual for either VG or BV?

I checked for the WSJ VG Owners Manual on MyStarCentral - and nothing really was listed (except for a few docs).  Who does one contact to get a Owners Manual?


----------



## duke (Jan 10, 2007)

nodge said:


> Available data "suggests" that Amelia Phase is voluntary, but then again, the data suggesting it is rather limited:
> 
> 2.  Duke's sleuthing found a document that lists "Key West" and "Bella" phases of Vistana Villages as being members of the mandatory "club," but "Amelia" phase is NOT listed, even though the document Duke found was updated on 11-17-06, well after "Amelia" phase units began sales.  See post #29 of this thread:
> 
> ...



Excellent analysis Nodge!

The quotes I listed are directly from the Purchase Documents and Calif Dept of Real Estate filings for VV-Key West.  They do NOT list Amelia as being part of the CLUB.  The locations listed for VV were Bela and Key West which we know are Mandatory.  The other SVO locations that were listed as being part of the club we also know are Mandatory (harborside, St John).  So, assume those not listed are Voluntary.

Regarding the 3 br SO's from the new SO listing that blujahz found.........I was also surprised at the difference in SO's, so I looked again at the Purchase Docs and Calif Dept of RE filing.  They clearly state that the 3 br is made up of a 1 br and a 2 BR - HOWEVER, the 2br on one location is a lock off and the other location is a regular 2br.  --> If you then add up the SO's for a 2br L/O and a 1br THEN compare to a 2br (not l/o) and a 1br you will see that the number of SO's for the 3 br's, at each resort, add up.  How 'bout that?

Duke


----------



## Richard D (Jan 25, 2007)

All I can say is "Wow".  How is the average buyer of a time share supposed to know all of the information needed to make an intelligent decision?  
I own two lock-offs at Vistana Villages and I just got off the phone with them after reading the threads about voluntary and mandatory ownership.  According to the customer service rep "Key West" and "Bella" phases of Vistana Villages are members of the mandatory "club," but "Amelia" phase is not.  However, something I didn't see in any of the postings is if the owner wills the deed to his children all privileges continue.  Sound right?


----------



## tomandrobin (Jan 25, 2007)

Richard D said:


> All I can say is "Wow".  How is the average buyer of a time share supposed to know all of the information needed to make an intelligent decision?
> I own two lock-offs at Vistana Villages and I just got off the phone with them after reading the threads about voluntary and mandatory ownership.  According to the customer service rep "Key West" and "Bella" phases of Vistana Villages are members of the mandatory "club," but "Amelia" phase is not.  However, something I didn't see in any of the postings is if the owner wills the deed to his children all privileges continue.  Sound right?



If its a mandoatory resort, yes. Can't answer if its a Developer purchased mandatory purchase and is willed to a spouse after death.


----------



## nodge (Feb 18, 2007)

Richard D said:


> However, something I didn't see in any of the postings is if the owner wills the deed to his children all privileges continue.  Sound right?



Hi Richard D,

The short answer is:  Probably 

Your original purchase documents will tell you for sure (. . .maybe).  

Here is what my Westin Kierland Docs say on the subject:

STARPOINT (SPG hotel point) BENEFITS 

“Starpoints Disclosure Statement – Non-Florida Projects” (VR!DA151 (Rev. 2-28-06))

General Terms and Conditions – Paragraph 1

“… With respect to the Resort, only Owners of Vacation Ownership Interests in the Resort who acquire their Vacation Ownership Interest directly from the Seller of the Resort or from resales brokered by an authorized resale company, a subsidiary or affiliated company of such seller, or transferees of such Owners by will or intestate succession, or present or future children of such Owners who have otherwise succeeded to their parents’ interest (collectively, “Eligible Owners”) are eligible to participate in the Starpoints Conversion Program.”

SVN ELITE BENEFITS

“Starwood Vacation Network Elite Level Enrollment Form” (VO!DA045 (Rev. 7-11-05))

Paragraph 6

“I understand that only authorized SVN Resorts may offer or enroll SVN Members into SVN Elite. SVO Interests purchased through an unauthorized third party broker or on the resale market do not qualify for SVN Elite Membership. I understand that my SVN Elite Membership and related benefits are not transferable.”

STAROPTION (Internal SVN trading currency) BENEFITS

Since the Westin Kierland is a mandatory resort (meaning all StarOptions transfer to the new owner, even a resale purchaser), the issue of what happens to the StarOptions when transferring ownership to a child is moot for Kierland and other mandatory resorts like Vistana Villages Bella and Key West Phases.  The StarOptions transfer.  

This issue is still up in the air for volunatary resorts like Vistana Villages Amelia Phase.

These documents suggest that I can transfer the SPG (hotel points) benefits to my children, but I can’t transfer my elite status to them (unless of course one interprets the SVN elite paperwork to conclude that I’m not actually “transferring” my interests to them, because my children are already “eligible owners” as defined by the “General Terms and Conditions” of the “Starpoints Disclosure Statement.") (Thanks SVN for making everything so clear  )

Regarding VV Amelia Phase, it has now been further confirmed 1) that it is indeed a voluntary resort (See Post # 1 of this link); and 2) SVN salesfolks don't go out of their way to let potential customers know this and the fact that mandatory VV Key West Phase units are still available for about the same price (See Post #12 of this link).

FYI,
-Nodge


----------



## RoverJohn (Feb 18, 2007)

As somebody who just purchased Vistana Villages Amelia stage and thought that it was a mandatory resort, I am now considering rescission. A major impetus for my decision was to retro a unit I already owned that is not in the SVN system, Desert Oasis. I still have a few days to decide whether to go forward or back out, but I believe that purchasing a voluntary unit is potential money lost at resale. I have a call into the salesperson and manager - they better have a good answer - assurance that any future buyer of my unit has written permission to be accepted into SVN and receive Options and use points. A problem will be this – I received a return of my money used on an Explorer Vacation to lower the price and this will probably be lost. Any ideas on how I should proceed?

John


----------



## nodge (Feb 22, 2007)

*New SVN Salesperson Spin*

A potential Starwood purchaser has been private messaging me for help as they are pursuing their developer purchase in order to requalify a prior SVN resale property.  I’ll encourage this person give us all the juicy details themselves after the dust settles, but this person reports that at least three different SVN salesfolks have made the following argument in response to the Voluntary vs. Mandatory resort issue.

Basically, these salesfolks are saying “go ahead and buy the voluntary resort because any potential resale purchaser can always get their resale unit back into SVN simply by paying a $599 fee (or the current SVN enrollment fee at the time of the re-enrollment attempt.)  Making our new resorts voluntary means that you and any future purchasers of your property don’t HAVE to join SVN, but of course you and any future purchasers of your property can always VOLUNTARILY join SVN if they want so long as you/they pay the nominal SVN enrollment fee.”

If true (and I doubt it is), the salesfolks argue that buying a voluntary resort is better than buying a mandatory resort because ALL SVN benefits transfer (StarPoints, Elite Status Qualification, StarOptions) to resale purchasers of the voluntary resort (upon re-enrollment and payment of the fee) vs. only the StarOptions transferring to resale purchasers of a mandatory resort.  

With respect to resale purchasers, this is contrary to everything I have ever read in any document that I have ever received relating to my voluntary resort (Sheraton Desert Oasis).  (In response to this, the salesfolks told this potential customer that the resale purchaser being able to buy their way back into SVN only applies to the new voluntary resorts (VV Amelia, Princeville, etc.).  Accordingly, does anyone have any paperwork from one of the new voluntary resorts (VV Amelia Phase, Princeville – Duke: didn’t you buy at Princeville?, etc.) that can confirm or (as I suspect) kill these salesfolks’ new spin on this issue?

Thanks in advance.

-nodge


----------



## myip (Feb 22, 2007)

I won't trust what the salesperson say unless it is written in the sales contract.  I learned my lesson.:annoyed:


----------



## Henry M. (Feb 22, 2007)

I was told the same story a couple of years ago at Westin Mission Hills. I wasn't really interested in the areas where there were voluntary resorts and it was only a part of a conversation (i.e. it wasn't an issue that I was needed to be swayed on one way or the other). It was mentioned in passing rather matter-of-fact. I have never pursued it with Portfolio Services but if I owned a voluntary resort I'd call (look under Contacts in MyStarCentral.com) and ask, saying I have a voluntary resort and would now like to buy back in as I was told I could.

I'm not saying you should believe the salesperson! Don't buy anything if you can't get the details in writing. However, if you already own a voluntary resort it might be worth a call. It could be that something like SDO, that wasn't originally a Starwood property, is not elegible but something like WMH is.


----------



## nodge (Feb 22, 2007)

*SVN Salesperson Spin - Update*

When pressed to produce paperwork, the SVN Saleperson pointed out the following language in the "Statement of Amelia Resort Condominium" paperwork (dated 10/9/06) to this potential purchaser:

“Your membership in SVN cannot be transferred to your resale buyer. Membership in SVN may not be available to your resale buyer or may be available for a fee as determined from time to time by SVEC.”

So, whether resale buyers of the new voluntary resorts can just buy their way back into SVN is completely at the discretion of SVN.  This doesn't appear to be any different than what current voluntary resort owners have now.  They're all just waiting for that "time to time" period that may never come, and is certainly under no legal obligation to ever come.

Beware of this new sales spin.

-nodge


----------



## duke (Feb 22, 2007)

nodge said:


> Duke: didn’t you buy at Princeville?, etc.) that can confirm or (as I suspect) kill these salesfolks’ new spin on this issue?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> -nodge



Nodge:

It still amazes me that people don't read the posts.

The policy is the policy.

I still have not read of anyone actually requalifing a resale except as I have ACTUALLY posted the ACTUAL results of my experience.

Come on, read the sticky.

Duke


----------



## Henry M. (Feb 22, 2007)

In this other thread someone was told they could buy into SVN, and was even told he'd get the paperwork. In the end he was finally told it was not possible. An actual experience to confirm what others are saying here.


----------



## nodge (Feb 23, 2007)

duke said:


> Come on, read the sticky.



Hi Duke,

I just didn't think 3 different salespeople from two different SVN resort's sales groups would say the exact same lie without having at least some foundation for it, but I was wrong.  They ALL lie very effectively. 

-Nodge

PS. I posted my requal details in your sticky too.


----------



## duke (Feb 23, 2007)

nodge said:


> Hi Duke,
> 
> I just didn't think 3 different salespeople from two different SVN resort's sales groups would say the exact same lie without having at least some foundation for it, but I was wrong.  They ALL lie very effectively.
> -Nodge
> .



From my experience, I don't think they are lying.  I just think they are trying to be helpful but don't have all the facts.  Requalifing is a complicated process.  It is not what SVO does as a regular course of business.  

In each case I have had to walk the salespersons and the salesmanagers through the process.  Based upon this, I strongly recommend that anyone here who wants to requalify a resale not call and ask SVO salespersons if it can be done.  They should demand it as a condition of purchase and follow the steps in the sticky.

Duke


----------

