Jeff From Salem
newbie
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 151
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 28
- Resorts Owned
- Kauai Beach Villas, Samoset Resort (in ME), The Harborside Inn (Edgartown, Martha's Vineyard, MA)
Wha? THE Official KBV Owners Forum? Okay, well I'll quibble with that one, Jack.
I still invite any KBV owners not aware of the Yahoo group to be part of that as well. You can subscribe by sending an email to
kbvowners-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Anyway, Aloha All!
I just got and filled out the KBV survey followup.
The first part, including the request to prioritize the upgrades in terms of owner preference, gave my wife and I pause for thought. I say that positively, because we may need to pick and choose. For the most part, the model of the upgrades was really impressive, but we may not be able to afford everything, although the units certainly need an facelift.
The 2nd part, about what to do with the non-used deeds, poses questions that are much more complex than can be answered with simple yes or nos, even with the box for adding thoughts.
1) Would I be willing to have a vacation or timeshare company take on many currently unowned deeds if they guaranteed to pay the maintenance fees? That sounds good on the surface, as that would be income into the IOA and other board's coffers. But if we don't do it right, we'd end up with another Wyndham situation where you'd have two corporate interests having a vast majority of voting power. You'd have a further reduction in potential voting power for individual owners. And for further thoughts, see #3 below.
2) How much would I pay to keep another corporate company from owning a block of the deeds? Gee, the list of options is sort of funny money. $10? $50? $300? In the context of approaching $1600/2BR maintenance fees for the week, $50 may not be the biggest deal. But we already pay a relative lot of money, although Hawaii is expensive, and comparing what we get to equivalent suites at hotels, we still get a good deal. But I have no reference with the options. $10? $50? $100? Gee, I'd prefer to choose $10. But again, I have no reference, so that question doesn't mean a lot to me.
3? Would I be willing to consolidate unit deeds into single apartments so that they can be sold to full-time owners? At first glance, again, this might sound like a good idea. But this is a more complex question than can just be answered by the survey. If you consolidate apartments and remove them from our market, then the number of potential individual owners is reduced, and total number of units available to be used by owners is reduced. The result would be more difficulty in reserving a week, as well as limiting the number of individual owners who can potentially vote down the road. Right now, with Wyndham owning over 20% of the deeds, that gives them massive voting power. IF we were full at capacity with individual owners right now, we'd actually potentially be able to outvote Wyndham. If you were to reduce the number of potential individual owners, you may permanently give Wyndham a great power advantage. It's like the desired result of gerrymandering districts in a state in order to keep the other side from getting elected. In the 2016 election, factually far more voted for Democrats across the board in Federal congressional elections than for Republicans, yet Republicans won more seats and won the office of the president. You can have that sort of result with gerrymandering. With our case, you have one entity, Wyndham, that has such an overwhelming advantage in voting, it makes it difficult for individual owners to make the massive difference they should be able to make. So I'd personally be for legislating that no corporate entity can serve on a board, and that no owner can have more than a certain amount of voting power. For example, if no owner could vote more than three deeds worth of votes, it would keep any individual, including a corporation, from having more than 6 votes. It would make things more equitable for all.
So these questions pose some things that sounds like a good idea, but they're not necessarily good ones in the long run. They need further discussion, and not answered by generally yay or nay responses.
Jeff
I still invite any KBV owners not aware of the Yahoo group to be part of that as well. You can subscribe by sending an email to
kbvowners-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Anyway, Aloha All!
I just got and filled out the KBV survey followup.
The first part, including the request to prioritize the upgrades in terms of owner preference, gave my wife and I pause for thought. I say that positively, because we may need to pick and choose. For the most part, the model of the upgrades was really impressive, but we may not be able to afford everything, although the units certainly need an facelift.
The 2nd part, about what to do with the non-used deeds, poses questions that are much more complex than can be answered with simple yes or nos, even with the box for adding thoughts.
1) Would I be willing to have a vacation or timeshare company take on many currently unowned deeds if they guaranteed to pay the maintenance fees? That sounds good on the surface, as that would be income into the IOA and other board's coffers. But if we don't do it right, we'd end up with another Wyndham situation where you'd have two corporate interests having a vast majority of voting power. You'd have a further reduction in potential voting power for individual owners. And for further thoughts, see #3 below.
2) How much would I pay to keep another corporate company from owning a block of the deeds? Gee, the list of options is sort of funny money. $10? $50? $300? In the context of approaching $1600/2BR maintenance fees for the week, $50 may not be the biggest deal. But we already pay a relative lot of money, although Hawaii is expensive, and comparing what we get to equivalent suites at hotels, we still get a good deal. But I have no reference with the options. $10? $50? $100? Gee, I'd prefer to choose $10. But again, I have no reference, so that question doesn't mean a lot to me.
3? Would I be willing to consolidate unit deeds into single apartments so that they can be sold to full-time owners? At first glance, again, this might sound like a good idea. But this is a more complex question than can just be answered by the survey. If you consolidate apartments and remove them from our market, then the number of potential individual owners is reduced, and total number of units available to be used by owners is reduced. The result would be more difficulty in reserving a week, as well as limiting the number of individual owners who can potentially vote down the road. Right now, with Wyndham owning over 20% of the deeds, that gives them massive voting power. IF we were full at capacity with individual owners right now, we'd actually potentially be able to outvote Wyndham. If you were to reduce the number of potential individual owners, you may permanently give Wyndham a great power advantage. It's like the desired result of gerrymandering districts in a state in order to keep the other side from getting elected. In the 2016 election, factually far more voted for Democrats across the board in Federal congressional elections than for Republicans, yet Republicans won more seats and won the office of the president. You can have that sort of result with gerrymandering. With our case, you have one entity, Wyndham, that has such an overwhelming advantage in voting, it makes it difficult for individual owners to make the massive difference they should be able to make. So I'd personally be for legislating that no corporate entity can serve on a board, and that no owner can have more than a certain amount of voting power. For example, if no owner could vote more than three deeds worth of votes, it would keep any individual, including a corporation, from having more than 6 votes. It would make things more equitable for all.
So these questions pose some things that sounds like a good idea, but they're not necessarily good ones in the long run. They need further discussion, and not answered by generally yay or nay responses.
Jeff
Last edited: