# Help - Pacific Shores trying to force owners into sale



## VHSGreg

Hello, I just noticed after reading on this board, an email that was sent to my junk mail.

It turns out that Pacific Shores owners board would like us to take a vote to sell our units.  They say because the refurbishment to would be $2000 additional over the next few years per unit. 

As well they said this out of the blue and are wanting to do a vote in just 3 weeks, with a proposed sale in a couple of months.

Finally, they say the company Transtide who owns the strata lot of the commercial center (check in desk, pool and restaurant) will receive nearly 70% of the sale value, and the remaining about 30% for the 61 (2 bedroom units) .  It seems odd that the value of Transtide commercial center which is small per square footage would be worth so much more then half of the cost of the resort.

Personally,  the value of the commercial center owned by Transtide (pool, restaurant and chek in area) is rather small value to me.

As well it seems odd that they would try to force a sale so quickly, rather then wait until the October AGM and give owners time to figure this out. Also odd that the other areas of the resort would not be sold.

If the memorandum of understanding MOU, goes through, because the commercial center receives most of the sale value, owners would probably receive virtually nothing after they pay next years maintenance fees. and owners who don't pay would receive nothing I presume. So they are really trying to sell it from underneath many of us.

How can they sell my timeshare without my consent? They estimate the 61 units, and commercial center would sell for about $24 million. How can they value something so small such as the commercial center, and give them the majority of the money. Can the owners do anything legally? 

Any experiences from other US or Canadian resorts that could not manage the maintenance increases?


----------



## happymum

I am also an owner and am very pleased about the prospect of the units being sold. The board has sent out a summary letter explaining their reasoning for the sale. Currently there is no exit strategy for owners and with the amount of work needed to bring the units up to standard, the prospect of a large special assessment. I see this as a very positive opportunity.


----------



## VanIsland

I too am an owner at Pacific Shores PSOE.  The Board of Directors has a fiduciary responsibility to the owners and there isn't really enough information to understand the real state of the resort or the proposed sale.

Regarding the second owner (PSFRA), that was sold to Fisgard (holder of the 1st mortgage for the main area and units).  Transtide was spun off by Fisgard, then they (Transtide) gained control of the 200 block, reception area pools etc. 

Transtide is now looking to receive 55% for the first $5M and then 70% of anything above this for the sale of the entire property including properties owned by PSOE.

Questions that have not been answered;

Are there links between the PSOE Board and anyone from Transtide (Strandlunds)?
Is there a tentative purchaser?  If so, who, and is there a relationship with any of the PSOE Board or Transtide or Fisgard?
What is the purchase price of unit 200 and the main buildings?  How much would a new mortgage be and what would this mean for the 2,700 "active" owners.  Would the owners prefer to have a slight increase in their maintenance fees to secure the main building.
Someone is going to walk away with a lot of money here, and so far it looks like PSOE is loosing their shares.


----------



## moonstone

VHSGreg said:


> How can they sell my timeshare without my consent? They estimate the 61 units, and commercial center would sell for about $24 million. How can they value something so small such as the commercial center, and give them the majority of the money. Can the owners do anything legally?



Yes they can, and its been done by other companies before. Search the forums for more examples. A resort near my home (I wasn't an owner) just sold a few years ago to a developer who renovated and then sold the units as condos. There were a lot of delinquent maintenance fee issues and the remaining owners saw their maintenance fees take big jumps annually to cover the cost. Eventually the fees got so high (I had heard many thousands / year) that everybody stopped paying. I think that was the developers intention all along.

There were a lot of disappointed people (who bought 20-25 years previously for $15-20K) in our area who bought mostly for the day use feature.

At least it sounds like you'll be getting some compensation for your unit.


~Diane


----------



## VHSGreg

VanIsland said:


> I too am an owner at Pacific Shores PSOE.  The Board of Directors has a fiduciary responsibility to the owners and there isn't really enough information to understand the real state of the resort or the proposed sale.
> 
> Regarding the second owner (PSFRA), that was sold to Fisgard (holder of the 1st mortgage for the main area and units).  Transtide was spun off by Fisgard, then they (Transtide) gained control of the 200 block, reception area pools etc.
> 
> Transtide is now looking to receive 55% for the first $5M and then 70% of anything above this for the sale of the entire property including properties owned by PSOE.
> 
> Questions that have not been answered;
> 
> Are there links between the PSOE Board and anyone from Transtide (Strandlunds)?
> Is there a tentative purchaser?  If so, who, and is there a relationship with any of the PSOE Board or Transtide or Fisgard?
> What is the purchase price of unit 200 and the main buildings?  How much would a new mortgage be and what would this mean for the 2,700 "active" owners.  Would the owners prefer to have a slight increase in their maintenance fees to secure the main building.
> Someone is going to walk away with a lot of money here, and so far it looks like PSOE is loosing their shares.



Thanks for your insightful comment.  I wonder if there is a way to find out if there is a link between Transtide and PSOE board.  Also I would like to know if a purchaser is already in place and their relationship to Transtide, VI or 200 block owners.

Seeing how PSOE gets just over 30% and Transtide close to 70% valuation, makes me wonder if some sort of deal with Transtide is already in the works. 

I just read much of the thread at the Fairmont.  I see how a unscrupulous developer could inflate renovation needs and costs, force ridiculous maintenance fees which cause defaults and encourage owners to sell at low prices.  Then turn around and buy for themselves and redo the whole development on pennies on the dollar.  Hmmm, it sounds similar to what is happening here at Pacific Shores.

I go there every summer. It is a beautiful resort in a lovely condition. It is sad that many owners are led to believe that they will be better off with a sale, where the artificial value based on the biased report, where the amount they receive back will barely pay for the maintenance fees they will still be assessed in December. Meanwhile owners of the 200 block and Transtide look to make off like bandits.  Hmmm


----------



## Seenitall

I am an Owner of PSOE and last year I heard that the Owners of PSFRA (200 block) had been threatened with very high special assessments due to the Depreciation Report and Refurbishment Reports and, as a result, Transtide was able to buy the entire complex (relatively new) for 17 cents on the dollar.  It seems to me, Transtide is trying the same with PSOE; and why wouldn't they?  I too am surprised that the entire Strata Council is supporting this initiative.  
The 2016 AGM showed no sign of impending doom and there has been no lead up to this from an otherwise communicative Strata Executive.  I too ask myself what has gone on behind closed doors?

I'm still researching this but have this to say so far:

Our Strata Depreciation Report was commissioned and paid for by Transtide.  PSOE kicked in money after the fact to help pay for it.
There is no statuary requirement laying out when the repairs are to be made. The DR is to be used as tool, showing Owners and prospective buyers, the work that needs to be done on the property. The Refurbishment Report is the same, a company was hired to suggest a time-line for refurbishment- thats all ... a suggestion.  The Letter announcing the Special Meeting says "PSOE *must* raise $5.2 million over 4 years to refurbish, repair and maintain the interior of the units owned by PSOE."  This IMHO, is misinformation, designed to frighten Owners into voting yes at this meeting.

AFAIK there is no purchaser lined up for the Resort.  I suspect that a newly formed, Numbered Company may step in at the last moment and purchase for a real low ball figure. That's if the vote succeeds.  I intend to vote No.  The Commercial Centre has always been too big for the Resort.  We have never owned it although we are currently supporting it to the tune of 100's of thousands of dollars per year. This is money that could go to needed repairs.

I'm glad I stumbled onto this thread. Thanks VHSGreg for starting it.


----------



## VanIsland

A couple of interesting reads....one on the court case with Aviawest, and another outlining info on Transtide

http://www.grantthornton.ca/resources/creditor_updates/documents/Aviawest Group/Affidavit 1 of Rob DiCastri (filed)-2011-10-21.pdf

http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/ViewDocument.aspx?DocNum=E7VBR6J6R7R1J7FBU6O1G7EFK7L3


----------



## Seenitall

The pertinent area concerning Pacific Shores. 


" A description of the limited partnership investments held by the Issuer as at December 31, 2015 is as follows: (a) Transtide Investments Limited Partnership Transtide Investments Limited Partnership (“Transtide LP”) was formed on January 30, 2014 for the purpose of holding interests in certain foreclosed properties of the Issuer. The Issuer is the sole limited partner of Transtide LP and holds a 99.99% equity interest. The general partner of Transtide LP is Transtide Investments Ltd. (“Transtide GP”) and holds a 0.01% equity interest. Transtide GP has entered into an agreement with the Manager under the terms of which the Manager provides administrative services to Transtide LP. Transtide GP is owned by Rafer Strandlund. Until September 2014, Trevor Strandlund served as the President and sole director of Transtide GP. In September 2014, Trevor Strandlund resigned from these positions and Rafer Strandlund became the President and sole director. Trevor Strandlund is a brother of Wayne Strandlund. Rafer Strandlund is a son of Wayne Strandlund, the sole shareholder, the President and a director of the Manager and a shareholder, the President and Chief Executive Officer and a director of the Issuer. In 2015, Transtide LP paid approximately $400 in management fees and $1,000 in compensation to Transtide GP. Transtide LP acquired a foreclosed property located in Maple Ridge from the Issuer in 2014 for $1,600,000 (the “Maple Ridge Property”) in exchange for 1,600,000 limited partnership units. Subsequently, an additional 30,000 units of Transtide LP having a value of $30,000 were issued to the Issuer. The Maple Ridge Property was sold later in 2014 for $1,600,000, resulting in a loss on the sale of approximately $60,000 after deducting property taxes and real estate commissions. A net loss of $103,021 to Transtide LP for 2014, consisting of the loss on disposal of the Maple Ridge Property and administrative costs, including approximately $20,000 for management fees and $10,500 for compensation paid to Transtide GP, was allocated on a pro-rated basis (99.99%) to the Issuer. Transtide LP then redeemed 1,610,000 units held by the Issuer in the amount of $1,514,000. Since that time, Transtide LP held no properties and had limited capital until October 2015. In October 2015, the Issuer purchased 5,845,000 Transtide LP limited partnership units for $5,845,000 in cash. Transtide LP used those funds to purchase certain real estate assets, having an estimated fair market value of $5,845,000, from an arm’s-length receiver. The real estate assets were security for a mortgage loan receivable of the Issuer that was in default and under foreclosure. The receiver used the proceeds to settle the mortgage loan receivable by the Issuer. The Issuer realized a loss of $697,257, which was drawn from the Issuer’s provision for mortgage losses. The Issuer had a mortgage that was in foreclosure on certain residential condominiums and several fractional interests in Nanoose Bay, B.C. along with residual land (the “Nanoose Properties”). It was determined that the best course of action was for Transtide LP to acquire the Nanoose Properties to remove the assets from a receivership and in a distressed situation and permit the building to be consolidated to increase its value. The real estate market for fractional interests has declined significantly over the past few years so it was determined that the best way to maximize the value of the assets was to acquire a 100% interest in all units within that building, which included numerous individual owners. Transtide LP was successful in negotiating with all fractional owners to acquire their fractional interest. The ownership interest in the asset of Transtide LP is 100% of all units in the building. Having a 100% interest allows condominiums to be sold as ‘regular’ strata units and not fractional interests. Transtide LP has hired a property manager to manage the rental of the units on both a long term, and short term vacation rental basis to provide it with income. Transtide LP also owns a vacant parcel of land that can be - 20 - developed in the future but there is no intention at this point to develop the land. As the building can provide rental income, the building will be put up for sale, or individual units will be sold to individual buyers. Transtide LP issued an additional 70,000 units with a stated value of $70,000 to the Issuer since October, 2015 bringing the Issuer’s holdings to a total of 99.99% of the total outstanding units having a stated value of $5,935,000. As Transtide LP only recently acquired the real estate assets, there has been little financial performance. As at December 31, 2015 Transtide LP recognized a loss of $220,287 which resulted in the per unit value reducing from $1.00 to $0.96158. Transtide GP intends to wind up Transtide LP when a sale of all the Nanoose Properties has completed and any net income, capital gains or losses are distributed to the limited partners."

Our Resort IS a jewel simply due to its location.  Should we weather this attempt to sell off our property, we should expect another attempt down the road.  That's what this type of Corporation does. Buy low and sell high.


----------



## VanIsland

So I have some more info after speaking with members of the board.


No connection between board members and Transtide.  
Found out a little more on the history of the events - PSOE already did purchase the main entrance, pool etc but it wasn't able to make it work. (I remember the emails and almost losing access to the pool again, but didn't know the details).  As such, this option has been ruled out as has purchasing everything from Transtide (unit 200 etc)
Loss of the maint fund occurred during the previous owner (Aviawest) so the board has been trying to manage this over the past 5 years.
There is no tentative purchaser
the 70/30 split is for the amount over $20M.  There is a graduating scale for lower amounts.


----------



## Seenitall

I have been trying to substantiate the figures given in the PSOE Letter of June 08, 2017 with particular emphasis on the phrase,

"... we know that PSOE *must *raise $5.2 million over 4 years to refurbish, repair and maintain the interior of the units owned by PSOE."

In 2014, PSOE commissioned a Depreciation Report for the PSOE units (interiors) located at         -->   http://www.pacificshoresbc.com/owners-corner/docs/financial/2014-reserve-study.pdf

     Basically, this Depreciation Report (called a Funding Reserve Analysis - American Company) said PSOE was in good financial position.  They itemized all unit things like carpets, tv's, flooring, bedding etc and gave a longevity time-line for replacement.  For example, in 2014 the carpets in the 300, 600 and 700 blocks all had carpets with a life time in excess of 8 years.

Contrast this with the 1 page report from a company called Elements Hospitality which is titled 2017 Reno Budget  located at     -->  http://www.pacificshoresbc.com/owners-corner/docs/financial/2017-reno-budget.pdf

This paper says it will cost $4,021,584.14 to replace everything (yes, the carpets in 300, 600 and 700 block), in all the units, at one time.  Why would PSOE do that?  It is completely against the 2014 DR.

*Is this an honest mistake?  It seems to me to be the central argument offered by PSOE council to push the Owners to a Yes vote*_._

Also: I have gone through the budget reports for the last 4 years (including 2017 forecast)  PSOE has paid $1,492,080 for access to the Commercial Centre (I include the money lost in the failed attempt to work with Fisgard Investments)  I'm not too sure how accurate this number is as the budgetary item name changes,  sometimes it's access to pool, others its Commercial Centre and now its Amenities Access.

We have never owned that complex and I think it is too rich to try to keep access to it.  1.5 million goes a long way in repairs


----------



## happymum

If PSOE does not keep access to the Commercial Centre, would we not have to build/provide a new facility, albeit a much more modest one?


----------



## Seenitall

PSOE has never owned a Reception Centre/Pool complex.  Every time the Commercial Centre closes its doors to PSOE, we find an alternate.

In the past,  we've had Reception off site in the Industrial area about 3 miles from the Resort.  I didn't like it but it was necessary and lasted only about a year (if my memory serves).  We were then able to convert a unit in the 700 block into a permanent Reception Area and this worked very well.

Other resorts have pools which we've had access to in the past and the same for a gym ( Jim's Gym is located within about 1 mile).  I bought into our Resort for its location not because it had a pool or gym so they are not high priorities for me.  Obviously the Commercial Centre is a money pit that took the Site Developer down and is making Transtide very unhappy.  It's siphoned 1.5 million from us in the last few years and that's just so some people can go swimming or visitors can be over whelmed with its opulence when they check-in. The gym has hardly ever been functional (same for the tubs and pool for that matter).

If you every trade your week to other resorts you will see that many other resorts have 'off-site check-in'.  It's nothing new for the industry and only very large Resorts can provide a pool complex.

If this Resolution gets voted down, what do you think Transtide will do?  Try to sell the complex on its own?  Well,  I heard they got 17 cents on the dollar to the fractional owners of the 200 block.  Perhaps they think that is a fair price.


----------



## VHSGreg

The deal to sell they are offering us stinks.  With real estate prices on the rise here on Vancouver Island, and the beautiful location and generally well maintained resort, offering us basically just a refund on our maintenance fees for 2018 is a horrible deal for current PSOE owners. 

As Seenitall mentioned, we have paid 1.5 million to the commercial center in the past few years anyhow.  I am sure for 1.5 million we could have built a swimming pool and check in center that would have been just fine.  

The commericial property is certainly not worth near the 70% they claim it is (I think I worked out the math that at a $24 million sale, commercial center would get about 65% or about $15.5 million, and the 60 or so timeshare units about $8.5 million). That would be maybe $150,000 for each 2 bedroom unit.  Although the tax apprased value of each 2 bedroom is more like $350,000 or so I think that is closer to the true value. The waterfront property is very valuable, as is the buildings already built that we own.  I really hope they don't have the power to push us out.

The people who will really loose out are the owners who bought 1 prime summer week for $36,000 -->forced to sell for  $1000 (after maintenance fees paid), while those people who purchased a white season week for closer to $10,000 -->forced to sell for  $1000, will certainly be closer to getting the better end of the stick at 10 cents on the dollar.

If end up not selling, I sure would like to try to get onto the board to figure out ways to help owners.


----------



## bizaro86

Sounds to me like the timeshare owners would be better off selling separately. Those units could easily be sold as a whole ownership condo complex. Such a complex would have no need for a check in building, and would certainly still be saleable in that location even without access to a pool.


----------



## SheilaB

We have been owners since the resort was first built (so we managed for many years with no resort center, just a trailer on site for check-in!) and we are very conflicted about this. We still go most years (we own week 33 in one of the only 2 storey, sleeps 10 units, in the 400 block) We are planning to go to the meeting, but I really don't know what to hope for. We have really enjoyed our ownership and have a new grandchild that we hoped to take to Pacific Shores for many years to come, but we don't want to have a big increase in maintenance dues or special assessments since we are already paying enough. If the most we are going to get is a couple of thousand dollars, I don't know if we want to give it up. I agree it seems crazy that all that waterfront property is only worth 30% of the total property and the main building worth 70%. Something fishy there!


----------



## Seenitall

SheilaB said:


> We have been owners since the resort was first built (so we managed for many years with no resort center, just a trailer on site for check-in!) and we are very conflicted about this. We still go most years (we own week 33 in one of the only 2 storey, sleeps 10 units, in the 400 block) We are planning to go to the meeting, but I really don't know what to hope for. We have really enjoyed our ownership and have a new grandchild that we hoped to take to Pacific Shores for many years to come, but we don't want to have a big increase in maintenance dues or special assessments since we are already paying enough. If the most we are going to get is a couple of thousand dollars, I don't know if we want to give it up. I agree it seems crazy that all that waterfront property is only worth 30% of the total property and the main building worth 70%. Something fishy there!



I too am a long-termer.  We are currently paying $1000 per day to impress RCI guests with the Check-in Facility and offer access to a pool and an empty gym space (last time I looked).  I strongly feel that if we take control our our site and stop using the Centre, we can get back to financial health.  $1.5 million since 2014 is what we have paid to Fisgard/Transtide and that's why we have been asked to pay Special Assessments for other necessary items.  I will gladly go back to the 700 Block Check-in scenario.  I wouldn't offer free access to other pools/gyms either like the last time the Centre closed.  What other resorts do that?  If people can't come to a beautiful location on the sea, stay away!  Go to some other place if you need a spa/restaurant/gym/pool on-site.  Our Owners can't afford to supplement your vacation any longer!


----------



## Seenitall

I have made a mistake in posting that Transtide commissioned our Depreciation Report and that PSOE kicked in money after the fact.  Completely wrong and our Strata cannot work that way.
I have been in talks with our President and here is what actually occurred.

"The Strata Depreciation Report was commissioned by Strata VIS 2036 (Pacific Shores) as special assessed by Strata Council, passed at the 2015 Strata AGM, and legislated by BC Strata Property Act.


The DR was paid for by all Strata lots, including PSOE & Transtide, at Pacific Shores based on strata unit square footage, as all Strata fees are paid."

I also want to say that in speaking with Kate, I have full confidence in her as a person.  But we disagree on this Resolution.


----------



## happymum

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Seenitall

Out of curiosity,  I started researching when the future of our resort became questionable.

In a Strata Meeting on 2016JUN07  A sub committee was struck titled 'The Future of the Strata' whose goal to 'develop a road map for the corporation moving into the future.'  Assigned a working title 16.06.07-8.10  (like a job ticket so committees can follow a variety of tasks)

The next meeting, 2016SEP12, they duly reported and 8.10 was closed as finished.  Here's what they said:

Considerable discussion was had related to the depreciation report and the future repairs of capital assets of the Corporation over the past two years* which are greatly improving the property.* The proposed updates being considered in the AGM package being issued later this month will again see the Corporation move farther into completing the updates *bringing Pacific Shores back to its once highly desired community.*  As noted above, the intention is to form a Depreciation Task Force with whole owners, Council and owners representatives.  (I've bolded certained words)

To me, this is a positive comment on the overall progress of the resort - its from Strata Council.

However, 8 days after this meeting, Transtide receives HVS Report - an appraisal done to judge the suitability of the resort as a hotel. 

At a Regular Board Meeting of PSOE on Friday 2016OCT14

B "Pacific Shores Appraisal"

A motion was made and approved to pay 1/3 of the Pacific Shores Appraisal report that was commissioned by Transtide Investments...
-approved unanimously

In my error a few days ago,  I mixed up the appraisal report with the depreciation report.  This is what was in my mind.


----------



## Seenitall

Another mistake I've made.  In my posting on July 5th, I referred to just over $4 million being requested to completely refurbish all of the Units at the same time.  In fact, that single desire of refurbishment is responsible for the entire $5.2 million requisition.  If you have access to that report - the Elements-Hospitality page,  the number is located on the right side, 3rd line from the bottom Titled - Total Project Costs  $5,204,332.41


----------



## Seenitall

I am at  the resort this week.  None of the owners I've been talking to want to sell their weeks.  Some don't understand where this initiative is coming from and some  are confused by the $5.2 million dollars that they apparently must pay. I think that there is a good chance to vote this resolution down if enough owners attend this meeting.


----------



## Seenitall

From letter of June 08, 2017.  This is essentially the justification put forward to sell off our resort.

... we know that PSOE *must *raise $5.2 million over 4 years to refurbish, repair and maintain the interior of the units owned by PSOE.


Here is the actual number that PSOE budgeted to refurbish our units for this year.

 Reserve - Provision for Refurbishment     $183,790

PSOE OPERATING BUDGET BUDGET YEAR: 1/1/2017 - 12/31/2017    pacificshoresbc.com/owners-corner/docs/financial/2017-budget.pdf


----------



## VHSGreg

Seenitall said:


> I am at  the resort this week.  None of the owners I've been talking to want to sell their weeks.  Some don't understand where this initiative is coming from and some  are confused by the $5.2 million dollars that they apparently must pay. I think that there is a good chance to vote this resolution down if enough owners attend this meeting.



Well that is encouraging.  I too will be at the meeting.  Unfortunately I only know one other owner.  Will do my part to make sure they come and vote too.


----------



## Seenitall

Thanks VHSGreg
See you there.


----------



## Seenitall

Just a FYI

If any Owner is planning to speak at the Special Meeting 

The Information Circular concerning the Special Meeting of Shareholders has a section at page 6:

Right of Shareholder to Dissent

... In order to exercise that right,  the dissenting shareholder must provide to the chair, at or before the meeting, a written objection to the resolution in accordance with the procedures set out in the Business Corporations Act.


----------



## kaboom

VHSGreg said:


> Any experiences from other US or Canadian resorts that could not manage the maintenance increases?



I would start with reducing expenses . .. housekeeping seems way over the top and the amenities fee seem unusual as well.  Just just go through every line item and see where and why the checks are being written, and for what.  In the end, special assessments will probably be required depending on what is required and and what savings are brought to the table.


----------



## Seenitall

Disagree.
We are paying $800 per day for use of a pool which we do not own.  That's covered under Amenities.
This resort was built on its location.  If people need a swimming pool,  let them pay for it in a user fee.  PSOE cannot afford to supplement other people's vacations anymore.
We've paid $1.5 million over 4 years for this Very Unnecessary item.


----------



## Seenitall

96% in favour of selling.


----------



## SheilaB

Seenitall said:


> 96% in favour of selling.


That is really surprising! We could not go to the meeting, so would be very interested to hear whether there was discussion at the meeting along the lines of what posters have mentioned here - i.e., that the actual costs to refurbish and maintain the resort would likely be nowhere as high as the numbers being bandied about. I also feel, as was suggested, that if we were going to sell, that we would do much better to sell the units on their own, separate from the amenities building.


----------



## Seenitall

All that was mentioned.  Most people did not care to hear it.  The Owners are an aging group whose children, for the most part, do not want the burden of owning a time-share.  Those wishing to sell over the last few years had difficulty doing so.  I think this was seen as a convenient exit strategy for many people. It could also be an industry wide phenomenon.  A generation bought 30 years ago; the new generation don't like the concept and prefer to just Airbnb their vacations.  I can see it myself.  I wanted people to see all sides of this deal so they could make an informed decision.  At the end of the (3 hrs +) day, the people spoke.  There were almost 1000 people in attendance; so a good crowd. I think PSOE said they had 1600 proxies (yes votes) before the meeting so it was over before it started.  Actual score something like 2400 to 90 (lol).


----------



## gypsygirl1

I've never heard of a situation like this before!  I have had timeshares do refurbishing and we paid a slight increase in fees.  Before buying any timeshares in the future, I would sure take the time, whether the sales person liked it or not, and read every detail in the contract.  Unfortunately, with the high pressure sales tactics and the "this is your only chance for this deal" talk, it's hard to read all the fine print.  I did manage to do that once while still in the 3 day change your mind opportunity, and wound up cancelling the purchase. Time shares can be nice, and I still use two of mine because they have always been up front about everything, right from the start, and have kept fee increases, even through refurbishing, to small amounts. With my third timeshare, I am now in the process of deeding it back to them for a small fee.  They were horrid.  And now, I too use Airbnb and VRBO and get great deals all over the world.


----------



## Seenitall

I can see this place getting a complete make over and a new generation of buyers being sought.  It'll be interesting to see if the new generation go for a similar deal.  I'm sure the promises will be the same.  I think a more honest approach would be 'you have a 25 or 30 year lease on this place' as opposed to deed/title in perpetuity.  Whatever happens on land, the beach will remain a fantastic draw to people.


----------



## ecwinch

gypsygirl1 said:


> I've never heard of a situation like this before!  I have had timeshares do refurbishing and we paid a slight increase in fees.  Before buying any timeshares in the future, I would sure take the time, whether the sales person liked it or not, and read every detail in the contract.  Unfortunately, with the high pressure sales tactics and the "this is your only chance for this deal" talk, it's hard to read all the fine print.  I did manage to do that once while still in the 3 day change your mind opportunity, and wound up cancelling the purchase. Time shares can be nice, and I still use two of mine because they have always been up front about everything, right from the start, and have kept fee increases, even through refurbishing, to small amounts. With my third timeshare, I am now in the process of deeding it back to them for a small fee.  They were horrid.  And now, I too use Airbnb and VRBO and get great deals all over the world.



That is good advice, but I don't see how this advice would have prevented this situation. It's a situation a number of resorts are in.  Aging customer base wanting to get out from the burden of fees, owners giving away their interest for nothing, and a smaller group of owners who still enjoy using the resorts - but dont want to invest more to replace owners wanting to leave. 

As you imply - it is the downside to timeshare ownership - but I think it is a very natural life-cycle unless the resort has a viable strategy for replacing owners who want out.


----------



## barto

Thanks for the update on the meeting.  I personally wish it had gone the other way (96% voting "No" to selling), but I'm not an owner - just loved the property (one stay last June) and would have loved to see it continue as an option for exchanging or even buying into.

Good luck to all with the process!


----------

