Bluegreen stopping owners from renting?

[BocaBum99]

Excellent. This is exactly the type of resolution that I expected. Bluegreen is the most owner friendly developer I have encountered.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Several years ago, Wyndham and WorldMark had to address the issue of rentals. Even though they are both managed by Wyndham, they ended up taking very different paths to address the issue of rentals....

With Diamond's Club by-laws say that any posting of availability in a public location or forum (including on the internet) is prohibited commercial activity.

But what happens then is that you are booted out of the Club. You still have your base ownership, and at that point rental policies revert to whatever is contained in that underlying ownership. And most of those do not prohibit rentals.

 

[SueDonJ]

I am confused so will ask questions, but PLEASE, anybody who knows the answers can feel free to tell me that this is none of my business and I need to quit butting in! Like I said to Jeff, this is a fascinating technical discussion and I'm curious.

It still seems that the problem BG had wasn't that rental activities were happening, but that they were happening to such an extent that they could be considered a "commercial" venture. I don't understand now if that's been defined here specifically? Was Jeff's client singled out because of the numbers? The way she used the reservation system? The overuse of copyrighted materials? Something else?

Jeff, it's good that your client was able to resolve things through a phone call - you can practically "hear" her relief through the email message you posted. When she says, though, that a new BG rule is coming, "... which will take place in 30 days, each owner up to 100 reservations at one time. For example, March 6-March 6 2014 etc. ...," does that mean that every owner will be limited to 100 reservations within a year-long period? Every owner will only be able to make 100 reservations in a single phone call to whoever the reservations agent is? Something else?

Boca, I don't know if or how your websites/rental business differ from Jeff's client's, but I suspect there must be some differences because otherwise I would think you'd have some concerns that the "new rule" will impact you as well. So, can you explain why they're able to enforce whatever limitation they're enforcing against her, yet you don't seem to be worried that they'll be coming after you as well?

Thanks for at least considering the questions.

Joe, specific to Marriott here - as far as I can tell, Marriott's "commercial" restriction is as vaguely defined as Bluegreen's. But there's not simply a "minimal reference" to it in my Marriott docs. There's related language in the Contracts for Purchase, the Master Deeds, the Management Agreements, the Time Sharing Plans and various amendments to all of those docs. Granted, we haven't heard of Marriott enforcing it on a mega-renter but if I was involved in substantial rental activity I'd make sure that I at least knew where the relevant language could be found. (I'm not singling out your rental activity here, just directing it in response to your comment and putting it out there for any Marriott mega-renters. Honestly, I don't know if one of those is even participating on TUG.)

 

[geekette]

I am confused so will ask questions, but PLEASE, anybody who knows the answers can feel free to tell me that this is none of my business and I need to quit butting in! Like I said to Jeff, this is a fascinating technical discussion and I'm curious.

It still seems that the problem BG had wasn't that rental activities were happening, but that they were happening to such an extent that they could be considered a "commercial" venture. I don't understand now if that's been defined here specifically? Was Jeff's client singled out because of the numbers? The way she used the reservation system? The overuse of copyrighted materials? Something else?

Jeff, it's good that your client was able to resolve things through a phone call - you can practically "hear" her relief through the email message you posted. When she says, though, that a new BG rule is coming, "... which will take place in 30 days, each owner up to 100 reservations at one time. For example, March 6-March 6 2014 etc. ...," does that mean that every owner will be limited to 100 reservations within a year-long period? Every owner will only be able to make 100 reservations in a single phone call to whoever the reservations agent is? Something else?

Boca, I don't know if or how your websites/rental business differ from Jeff's client's, but I suspect there must be some differences because otherwise I would think you'd have some concerns that the "new rule" will impact you as well. So, can you explain why they're able to enforce whatever limitation they're enforcing against her, yet you don't seem to be worried that they'll be coming after you as well?

Thanks for at least considering the questions.

Joe, specific to Marriott here - as far as I can tell, Marriott's "commercial" restriction is as vaguely defined as Bluegreen's. But there's not simply a "minimal reference" to it in my Marriott docs. There's related language in the Contracts for Purchase, the Master Deeds, the Management Agreements, the Time Sharing Plans and various amendments to all of those docs. Granted, we haven't heard of Marriott enforcing it on a mega-renter but if I was involved in substantial rental activity I'd make sure that I at least knew where the relevant language could be found. (I'm not singling out your rental activity here, just directing it in response to your comment and putting it out there for any Marriott mega-renters. Honestly, I don't know if one of those is even participating on TUG.)

Sue, I don't pretend to know exactly, but, to me, the difference between Jim's company and all these other websites around is that Jim will accept inventory from owners while the others don't do that, they merely rent what they can get with their own points. Further, Jim went through Bluegreen in setting up his business with their full endorsement. most other BG-laden sites do not have that permission. His timing was good as BG no longer wanted to offer renting out owner points as it certainly conflicted with their need to rent out their own inventory.

Jim may be a megaowner, I don't know, but I know that most of what is available on his site is from Other Owners. I really think these 2 items are what differentiate Jim's "commercial venture" from the others.

I believe that 100 ressies is an annual limit, which sounds reasonable to me, and is extremely generous. It does allow for fulltime ts'ing so long as you don't need to move more than every 3 days.

BG mgmt is awesome, I am not surprised at a peaceful, acceptable outcome.

 

[SueDonJ]

Sue, I don't pretend to know exactly, but, to me, the difference between Jim's company and all these other websites around is that Jim will accept inventory from owners while the others don't do that, they merely rent what they can get with their own points. Further, Jim went through Bluegreen in setting up his business with their full endorsement. most other BG-laden sites do not have that permission. His timing was good as BG no longer wanted to offer renting out owner points as it certainly conflicted with their need to rent out their own inventory.

Jim may be a megaowner, I don't know, but I know that most of what is available on his site is from Other Owners. I really think these 2 items are what differentiate Jim's "commercial venture" from the others.

I believe that 100 ressies is an annual limit, which sounds reasonable to me, and is extremely generous. It does allow for fulltime ts'ing so long as you don't need to move more than every 3 days.

BG mgmt is awesome, I am not surprised at a peaceful, acceptable outcome.

That, what I bolded, would certainly answer things, I didn't realize that Jim's site is an owner outlet. I guess it's similar to David's, the guy who began a site that facilitates DVC rentals between owners and rentees that complies with the new rules Disney implemented related to associate members/transfers/rentals?

Yep, that's a big difference.

 

[Rent_Share]

No dog in this fight

 

[JudyS]

Excellent. This is exactly the type of resolution that I expected. Bluegreen is the most owner friendly developer I have encountered.

...
BG mgmt is awesome, I am not surprised at a peaceful, acceptable outcome.

A question for both of you (and any other Bluegreen owners out there). Do you think Bluegreen Vacation Club is awesome & owner friendly, Bluegreen Corporate is awesome & owner friendly, or both are awesome & owner friendly?

I am asking because I own at a Bluegreen resort (Christmas Mountain Village), but not in BG Points. The resort is having a large special assessment to do a major renovation of the units. Some of the owners are unhappy because BG is using a building contractor that BG owns (or at least has a special agreement with, or something) rather than getting competitive bids. These owners feel BG is ripping them off. I'm not thrilled about using BG's own contractor for the renovation, but the price (about $51,000 total per condo) doesn't seem all that out of line to me.

 

[geekette]

A question for both of you (and any other Bluegreen owners out there). Do you think Bluegreen Vacation Club is awesome & owner friendly, Bluegreen Corporate is awesome & owner friendly, or both are awesome & owner friendly?

I am asking because I own at a Bluegreen resort (Christmas Mountain Village), but not in BG Points. The resort is having a large special assessment to do a major renovation of the units. Some of the owners are unhappy because BG is using a building contractor that BG owns (or at least has a special agreement with, or something) rather than getting competitive bids. These owners feel BG is ripping them off. I'm not thrilled about using BG's own contractor for the renovation, but the price (about $51,000 total per condo) doesn't seem all that out of line to me.

To me they are one and the same. I twice ran for the board, have gone to annual meetings and Met Management. Absolutely reasonable and decent people. Few execs anywhere would hand out biz cards like candy and mean it when they say "call me with any questions."

I can't say as to contractor bids and such, but if BG owns the company doing the work, that would imply lower costs and better oversight (in theory). I'm not sure how well a Florida company could otherwise manage a Wisconsin project with local contractors and figure that maybe this is the same group tapped for other remodels around the network, and are fully aware of BG quality standards, etc. ?

If it were me, I would prefer to do this kind of business with A Known Quantity as anyone else is more risk than I would want to take on, especially being far removed from the actual site.

 

[akp]

Another major difference

That, what I bolded, would certainly answer things, I didn't realize that Jim's site is an owner outlet. I guess it's similar to David's, the guy who began a site that facilitates DVC rentals between owners and rentees that complies with the new rules Disney implemented related to associate members/transfers/rentals?

Yep, that's a big difference.

Another HUGE difference is that the site referenced by the OP hammered availability at one Bluegreen resort. Even a few mega renters operating full-bore across the whole club won't affect availability that much.

But a mega-renter focused exclusively on one high-demand resort...that's a different story. Summer availability at Big Cedar has gotten really, really bad, even using the wait list as a Platinum. (As in, I didn't get a single wait list request filled for summer 2013, and I asked for 3 different sets of dates.)

Honestly, I wish Bluegreen would also stipulate that of the 100 reservations, no more than 25 of them can be at any single resort.

If these folks choose to keep working Big Cedar with their 550,000 points, they could pull 30 full weeks of cabin availability out of summer inventory. I hope the OP's clients will consider the effect they're having and balance the desire for profit carefully.

Anita

 

[geekette]

Another HUGE difference is that the site referenced by the OP hammered availability at one Bluegreen resort. Even a few mega renters operating full-bore across the whole club won't affect availability that much.

But a mega-renter focused exclusively on one high-demand resort...that's a different story. Summer availability at Big Cedar has gotten really, really bad, even using the wait list as a Platinum. (As in, I didn't get a single wait list request filled for summer 2013, and I asked for 3 different sets of dates.)

Honestly, I wish Bluegreen would also stipulate that of the 100 reservations, no more than 25 of them can be at any single resort.

If these folks choose to keep working Big Cedar with their 550,000 points, they could pull 30 full weeks of cabin availability out of summer inventory. I hope the OP's clients will consider the effect they're having and balance the desire for profit carefully.

Anita

Awesome point, Anita.

I would only add that this practice of 'hammering availability at one resort' leaves a bad taste in the mouths of others. Now that your client is square with Bluegreen, she may consider trying to repair the ill will that this practice has created with the other owners. Maybe that doesn't matter to her, maybe all her renters are John Q Public, but it's not just in this thread that her practice has been discussed. There are plenty of angry owners that, like Anita, cannot get into that resort at Prime Time, and much of the reason is because of Your Client.

Doing something Just Because You Can doesn't make it the right thing. Hogging Big C ressies is appallingly greedy and seriously inconsiderate of the other club members. It flies in the face of the intent of the club and is frankly not very nice.

Granted, I will never be in the market for summer at Big C, but if I was, just because of this practice I would absolutely NOT rent from your client, I would simply Go Elsewhere and use my points.

 

[Carolinian]

A question for both of you (and any other Bluegreen owners out there). Do you think Bluegreen Vacation Club is awesome & owner friendly, Bluegreen Corporate is awesome & owner friendly, or both are awesome & owner friendly?

I am asking because I own at a Bluegreen resort (Christmas Mountain Village), but not in BG Points. The resort is having a large special assessment to do a major renovation of the units. Some of the owners are unhappy because BG is using a building contractor that BG owns (or at least has a special agreement with, or something) rather than getting competitive bids. These owners feel BG is ripping them off. I'm not thrilled about using BG's own contractor for the renovation, but the price (about $51,000 total per condo) doesn't seem all that out of line to me.

If CMV has a member controlled board, then there is a neutral party to evaluate and approve the transaction, and it is probably kosher. If, on the other hand CMV has a developer/management controlled board, then that transaction would positively reek of conflict of interest, and certainly should have been put up for bids.

 

[Carolinian]

While the immediate problem seems to have been solved, there also seems to be a pending rule change that may or may not adversely impact some people. Since issues of consumer protection law are potentially involved, I thought I would mention a possible source of information.

There is a US consumer protection attorney who seems to concentrate on timeshare. He has been active on two other timeshare sites, and has offered free initial consultation. His contact info is on this board:

http://www.timeshareforums.com/foru...-Ask-A-Timeshare-Consumer-Protection-Attorney

I do not know him, so I cannot personally recommend him, I have been told by one of the principles at another timeshare site that he had helped him out of a timeshare jam a couple of years before he started appearing on timeshare boards. He says he gives a free initial consultation, so it may be worth a shot if BG or any other developer tries to rain on your own parade through new rules.

I think BG is on some very shaky ground when they hire Choice Hotels to rent out their own timeshare inventory and allow RCI to rent their inventory to the general public, and then turn around and put substantial restrictions on their own members renting.

 

[geekette]

While the immediate problem seems to have been solved, there also seems to be a pending rule change that may or may not adversely impact some people. ...
I think BG is on some very shaky ground when they hire Choice Hotels to rent out their own timeshare inventory and allow RCI to rent their inventory to the general public, and then turn around and put substantial restrictions on their own members renting.

I don't see it that way. BG has always allowed rentals, and they have their own inventory to do with as they see fit, also. They rent space that is not in the vacation club, so it doesn't remove inventory from my usage. In theory, their rentals boost club membership, which brings more unit weeks into the club that I can use.

Further, 100 reservations in a year, if that is the rule, is not going to end owner rentals, and have no impact to most owners, except that it will keep the big dogs from taking everything first. However, 100 reservations x 14 days max res is 200 weeks out of inventory. For One Owner.

If the new rule does not sufficiently allow "regular owners" to get actual vacations to the places they want to go, and it's found that mega owners doing mass rentals is the reason, it will likely get more restrictive. Could be waitlist restrictions next. Implemented in such a way to have no impact to regular owners but instead to limit the megas again.

As these things go, BG is not what I would call 'heavy handed'. Note that they didn't tell this woman she Could Not Rent Again nor yank her membership or anything of the kind. This is a gentle slap on the wrist, and it shows that they are paying attention. And that they care about All of their owners.

 

[JudyS]

If CMV has a member controlled board, then there is a neutral party to evaluate and approve the transaction, and it is probably kosher. If, on the other hand CMV has a developer/management controlled board, then that transaction would positively reek of conflict of interest, and certainly should have been put up for bids.

Well, regarding owner control, the good news is that the HOA Board at CMV is owner-controlled. The bad news is that Bluegreen Vacation Club is by far the biggest owner.

I'm not sure exactly how many votes Bluegreen has, but it appears nothing gets passed without their votes. At the time the Special Assessment was approved, I believe the HOA Board was made of three Bluegreen employees and two independent owners. Only the Board voted on the Special Assessment -- it was not put to a general vote of the owners. (There are actually several HOAs at CMV; the one I'm talking about is called the Campground HOA.)

Currently, there are two Bluegreen employees on the HOA Board, two owners who are not Bluegreen employees, and one vacant seat. The Board has invited owners to apply for the vacant seat -- it will be interesting to see if Bluegreen lets an independent owner get the seat!

One unusual factor at CMV is that there are multiple forms of ownership, not just timeshares, within the resort. Of the two independent owners on the Board, one owns timeshare and the other owns a full-year RV site. The RV owners and timeshare owners often have opposing interests, so that makes it even more difficult for the timeshare owners to have a say. Only the timeshare owners, not the RV owners, have to pay the special assessment, since it is only the timeshare units that are being renovated.

I really have no way to tell whether the renovations could have been done at a lower cost. Therefore, I'm relieved to see votes of confidence here for Bluegreen.

 

[JudyS]

...
Further, 100 reservations in a year, if that is the rule, is not going to end owner rentals, and have no impact to most owners, except that it will keep the big dogs from taking everything first. However, 100 reservations x 14 days max res is 200 weeks out of inventory. For One Owner...

I would guess that rental reservations are generally 7 days or less. Not many renters want longer than that, and it wouldn't be practical to put two separate renters onto the same reservation -- there would be no way to track which renter made charges to the room or damaged something. So, we are probably talking 100 reservations = no more than 100 weeks.

How many units are at Big Cedar Wilderness? If one owner booked 10 units for each of the 10 "peak" units in summer, that might be a substantial part of inventory or a small part, depending on resort size.

...If the new rule does not sufficiently allow "regular owners" to get actual vacations to the places they want to go, and it's found that mega owners doing mass rentals is the reason, it will likely get more restrictive. Could be waitlist restrictions next...

Ah, good point! Around the time DVC limited GCs to 20 a year, DVC also limited waitlist requests to 2 a year. I hadn't thought of it at the time, but that also might have been intended to let inventory go to owners who used time themselves, rather than letting the best reservations get snatched up for rentals. (Waitlisting at DVC is especially important if you own at a lower-demand DVC resort and are trying to book a higher-demand DVC resort, which is a profitable way to do rentals.)

 

[rapmarks]

Judy in your discussion of the special assessment, you don't mention that some owners have contacted the state's attorney about the matter. The charge of $51,000 is for interior work only on 600 square foot cottages, no local bids were sought, in fact no bids were sought. the hoa will let owners deedback at a cost of $250, and are moving the cottages that were deeded back into the vacation club program. the assessment is $3100 per UDI owner.

 

[geekette]

I would guess that rental reservations are generally 7 days or less. Not many renters want longer than that, and it wouldn't be practical to put two separate renters onto the same reservation -- there would be no way to track which renter made charges to the room or damaged something. So, we are probably talking 100 reservations = no more than 100 weeks.

How many units are at Big Cedar Wilderness? If one owner booked 10 units for each of the 10 "peak" units in summer, that might be a substantial part of inventory or a small part, depending on resort size.

Ah, good point! Around the time DVC limited GCs to 20 a year, DVC also limited waitlist requests to 2 a year. I hadn't thought of it at the time, but that also might have been intended to let inventory go to owners who used time themselves, rather than letting the best reservations get snatched up for rentals. (Waitlisting at DVC is especially important if you own at a lower-demand DVC resort and are trying to book a higher-demand DVC resort, which is a profitable way to do rentals.)

Agree that most renters probably don't want to go for 2 weeks but consider that the Mega Owner is probably wanting to vacation themselves, as well, so could also book plenty of 2 week stints for personal use.

Not familiar enough with BC to comment on # units, but others that track availability will likely chime in on that.

Part of the problem in the BGVC is that when resale prices plummeted, some that picked up cheap points already had "status" from a dev-purchase or conversion (a few years ago the window closed on being able to convert cheap resale points into, er, "approved" points, so one could have reached the highest status available at that time on the cheap).

There is no restriction on Which Points you can use once you have status, the cheap points or the expensive points - Points Are Points. This is all to say that maybe the Mega in this thread bought a token amount from Bluegreen yet can use the 'cheap points' for whatever benefits their status brings. this is a slap in the face to those that attained 'status' with all purchases from Bluegreen. I'm glad that BG pointed this out to the Mega - You Didn't Get Those All From Us, but Others Did.

I would support waitlist restrictions on those whose Mega Pot O Points was mostly resale after the conversion window. I would also limit their number of 'free' cancellations. This should allow those that mostly paid full freight to get a shot at the high demand weeks and the ability to cancel free of charge when their plans change, vs, Oh Crap, No Renter For This Week! Guess I'll let it go here at the 11th hour ...

The last minute cancellations by the Megas prevent those who would have booked months ago from being able to get in short notice and may end up creating empty units that would have been fully booked had All Owners had a shot at those ressies. It's an all-around distasteful situation.

Please note, the owner in this thread is not the only Mega Owner/Renter. She got singled out and I'm afraid I keep singling her out, but do remember, It's Not Just Her. If there are a dozen Megas hogging choice reservations, the problem greatly compounds against the own-to-use people. I do not know how many megas there are.

 

[akp]

Availability

Unfortunately I didn't systematically track availability at bcl this past summer the way I did the previous year, so my only objective data point is the fact that I didn't get any of my three bcl summer wait list requests filled.

I won't post details so as not to empower people, but if I had 500k to play with at bcl, I could screw up a substantial (say 10-25%) of summer inventory in cabins. That's pretty significant. If I were to instead go for a mix of unit types across a mix of dates, it would have a pretty small impact on general availability.

And as geekette says, this is not the only mega owner. To my knowledge it is the only one who explicitly went after bcl. I can't imagine Johnny Morris loved that.

Anita

 

[Carolinian]

This is certainly a problem with points clubs or sometimes developers themselves being bully boys.

A good solution is what they did at Stouts Hill in the UK. They amended the bylaws so that each owner got one vote in the AGM no matter how many weeks they owned. That kept the bully boys at bay.

If Bluegreen is management as well, then it is a huge conflict of interest for their employees to serve on the board.

Well, regarding owner control, the good news is that the HOA Board at CMV is owner-controlled. The bad news is that Bluegreen Vacation Club is by far the biggest owner.

I'm not sure exactly how many votes Bluegreen has, but it appears nothing gets passed without their votes. At the time the Special Assessment was approved, I believe the HOA Board was made of three Bluegreen employees and two independent owners. Only the Board voted on the Special Assessment -- it was not put to a general vote of the owners. (There are actually several HOAs at CMV; the one I'm talking about is called the Campground HOA.)

Currently, there are two Bluegreen employees on the HOA Board, two owners who are not Bluegreen employees, and one vacant seat. The Board has invited owners to apply for the vacant seat -- it will be interesting to see if Bluegreen lets an independent owner get the seat!

One unusual factor at CMV is that there are multiple forms of ownership, not just timeshares, within the resort. Of the two independent owners on the Board, one owns timeshare and the other owns a full-year RV site. The RV owners and timeshare owners often have opposing interests, so that makes it even more difficult for the timeshare owners to have a say. Only the timeshare owners, not the RV owners, have to pay the special assessment, since it is only the timeshare units that are being renovated.

I really have no way to tell whether the renovations could have been done at a lower cost. Therefore, I'm relieved to see votes of confidence here for Bluegreen.

 

[lindner]

Jeremy Speigel, Legal Counsel was extremely pleasant and discussed a new rule which will take place in 30 days, each owner up to 100 reservations at one time. For example, March 6-March 6 2014 etc.

Some key words here are "at one time". Those who own CMV UDI know that up to 3 or 4 reservations are allowed "at one time". This means that if you make reservations a year out, you will only get 3 or 4 reservations in a year. However, if you book 3 or 4 reservations a week out, then you can get many, many reservations in a year (when each reservation starts, you are once again below 3 or 4 reservations "at one time" and can make another reservation to get up to that limit). Most Bluegreen owners don't book a full year out, so they would be able to get more than 100 reservations, and thus would not be as restricted as mega-owners who are trying to get prime weeks and thus must reserve a year out. Thus, this proposed policy hits hardest at those megarenters who book prime weeks as opposed to owners who often look for things for friends, etc. perhaps a few months in advance.

 

[JudyS]

Thanks for the replies to my posts!

Judy in your discussion of the special assessment, you don't mention that some owners have contacted the state's attorney about the matter. The charge of $51,000 is for interior work only on 600 square foot cottages, no local bids were sought, in fact no bids were sought. the hoa will let owners deedback at a cost of $250, and are moving the cottages that were deeded back into the vacation club program. the assessment is $3100 per UDI owner.

All of that is true, other than I think the special assessment also covers the cost of at least a little exterior work. (I know that some exterior work is being done, like deck repair. Also, my figure of $51,000 per cottage was an estimate. The more precise value is $52,581 per cottage -- $3093 per owner times 17 owners per cottage.)

There are definitely some unhappy owners at CMV, and some are talking about legal action. I didn't want to get into all that here, though, because it really deserves its own thread. I just wanted to ask about people's perceptions of Bluegreen and give some context for my question.

 

[JudyS]

...Most Bluegreen owners don't book a full year out, so they would be able to get more than 100 reservations, and thus would not be as restricted as mega-owners who are trying to get prime weeks and thus must reserve a year out. Thus, this proposed policy hits hardest at those megarenters who book prime weeks as opposed to owners who often look for things for friends, etc. perhaps a few months in advance.

I agree, the restriction would impact people reserving to rent more than it would impact people reserving for private use.

 

[rci124]

In my opinion I don't think it will have much of an impact on the owners (2) with 2 million points or more when they start new corporations. The ones that will suffer are the owners (8) around 1 million points or give or take. Setting up new corporations will be the key to renting and making money. The owners owning for the vacation experience still lose. Do the commercial renters have input on my thoughts. Be brave commercial renters speak up.

I agree, the restriction would impact people reserving to rent more than it would impact people reserving for private use.

 

[lindner]

Where have you heard there are only 8 owners with one million points?

In my opinion I don't think it will have much of an impact on the owners (2) with 2 million points or more when they start new corporations. The ones that will suffer are the owners (8) around 1 million points or give or take. Setting up new corporations will be the key to renting and making money. The owners owning for the vacation experience still lose. Do the commercial renters have input on my thoughts. Be brave commercial renters speak up.

 

[travelplus]

Although I'm not so familiar with points but isn't a timeshare like owning a home which you can rent like a vacation rental? I thought you own it like real estate as its recorded in the county. I guess points run differently in that its not recorded and you don't own a home resort.

Either way I thought you could just rent the week and purchase a guest certificate(and include it as part of the rental cost) and let the renter check in to the resort. I thought its only illegal to rent an exchange week.