CAPE COD HOLIDAY ESTATES - Special Assessment

[ausman]

I have also found e. bram to be objectionable and mostly espousing nonsense.

However, the special assessment of $1900 per unit roughly equates to $100K per unit to renovate.

I think it is a fair question.

 

[e.bram]

Yeah, blame the messenger. The fact is with SA most of the units are unsalable. What is a dollar TS unit worth with a $2000.00 SA hanging over it's head. With no sales possible many units will be abandoned purposely or because of the economy and aging owners who no longer can use or afford the TS even w/o the SA.A death spiral will follow. Prime owners like Palmtree (with enlightened self interest)are trying to intimidate off season owners with threats of credit destruction and and law suits(the worst you can do is lose and if you pay you lost anyway). I don't think it will work with the aging and economically stressed owner population. Calling me names won't help or change the financial situation either. Besides it is not him I am preaching to anyway. So I really don't care if he(she) responds.

 

[timeos2]

Whatever the majority does will determine the result

Yeah, blame the messenger. The fact is with SA most of the units are unsalable. What is a dollar TS unit worth with a $2000.00 SA hanging over it's head. With no sales possible many units will be abandoned purposely or because of the economy and aging owners who no longer can use or afford the TS even w/o the SA.A death spiral will follow.

Based on the reported response from all owners to date this doomsday scenario will not play out. Instead the majority of owners seem to recognize the value of the use/vacation (what they actually purchased) at a greatly improved resort that the SA will give them. It can be said that the owners have spoken and they support the actions of the Board/management.

Of course there will always be a few that don't agree and they have every right to that opinion. Ultimately the majority will rule (it appears that has already happened) and that too is as it should be.

 

[e.bram]

"It ain't over till it's over" Y. Berra

 

[GordonH]

Any news from the annual owners' meeting which I believe was held yesterday (May 8th)?

 

[palmtree7339]

CCHE Annual Meeting, May 8th 2010.

The Annual meeting was well attended, and a thorough discussion of the
Renovation Program, as well as the S.A. was conducted.

The management company, VRI, presented a power point viewing of the before and after interiors of what was to be done in each cottage in the next few years. One third of the cottages will have completely new kitchens, and another one third will have completely new master baths, with brand new jacuzzi's. This will be completed prior to the end of this year. Next year, the same, until all 32 cottages are renovated by the end of 2012.

The SA was discussed at length. All questions were responded to in detail, by the BOD, as well as VRI.

All 4 incumbent BOD members were re-elected.

The owners appear to be satisfied that the actions taken to upgrade the Resort were necessary, timely, and fiscally well thought out.

All cottages now have internet access as well.

The Resort has just created its own website, whereby owners will receive updates on Resort information, as well as accessing the minutes of each BOD meeting.

The next BOD meeting is scheduled on Thursday, Sept. 16th at 10:00AM, at the Resort. All owners may attend.

 

[e.bram]

How many have bailed already? Hard numbers. Nobody is saying.Why keep it a secret?

 

[palmtree7339]

CCHE Annual Meeting, May 8th 2010.

Ebram,

There are no secrets. Any owner can request and receive information. They can also attend BOD meetings, to obtain any info they desire.
I do not understand where you are coming from, as a non-owner at Cape Cod Holiday Estates.
What is your point, or your objective?
Please reply.

Palmtree7339

 

[e.bram]

Palmtree: answer my question 1st.

 

[theo]

For what it's worth...

The management company, VRI, presented a power point viewing of the before and after interiors of what was to be done in each cottage in the next few years. .

I have no dog in this fight at all; I don't own at this facility and I don't know (or claim to know) a single thing about this facility.

That much clearly stated right up front, I have owned (and still own now) a number of weeks at several different VRI managed facilities --- for several decades now. I have been (and I remain) consistently impressed with VRI's competency, management expertise and fiscal responsibilty.

I don't claim to know (...or need or want to know) the background behind this huge, unexpected and sizable special assessment, but I'd be willing to bet that VRI has not been the management entity at this facility for too many consecutive years now, as this kind of "surprise" development simply does not fit their historical pattern of behavior, at least in my own experiences with VRI over the past 25 years or so.

Take heart, CCHE owners. I frankly find it hard to believe that VRI would be imposing any such financial burden unless it was absolutely necessary to do so. VRI manages over 125 facilities in the U.S. alone. Their track record speaks for itself. In my opinion, they are the best around.

For the record, I have absolutely no affiliation of any kind with VRI, past present or future --- beyond that of being a satisfied and experienced owner of several weeks at a few different facilities capably and responsibly managed by VRI.

 

[Shiz]

eBram perhaps you should worry about your own resort before meddling in the affairs of others. InnSeason so badly managed their Cape properties that they looked to VRI to bail them out. I highly doubt (and it has been stated by many different Tug users here) that VRI's vast experience in the timeshare industry would have them suggest a plan of action for CCHE that would result in massive delinquency.

If you would like information on non-performing weeks, you can simply look to the Barnstable County clerks office as the deeds are public record. Instead of being lazy and combative with your own personal agenda use some of those keyboard skills to do some actual investigating, if so you desire.

 

[e.bram]

Shiz(11 posts):
The purpose of these boards is not for self interest but to help others. I am simply trying to make interested parties aware of the situation as if may exist and help them obtain the facts which may govern those interested parties decisions.
Your suggestions for obtaining the facts cannot provide a real time analysis as foreclosures may take years(if ever) to show up and be an indication of the bailers numbers.

 

[ace2000]

To answer the OP's original question... a SA of $1900, in this economic climate, is way too high, and reflects some very poor decision making along the way. Either the annual fees have been too low for years, or there has been gross mismanagement of the spending. Everyone can draw their own conclusions...

 

[palmtree7339]

To answer the OP's original question... a SA of $1900, in this economic climate, is way too high, and reflects some very poor decision making along the way. Either the annual fees have been too low for years, or there has been gross mismanagement of the spending. Everyone can draw their own conclusions...

To ACE2000,

You appear to be another example, (like E.Bram), of someone who makes allegations based only on assumptions, without any shred of evidence to support their statements.

The owners, in May, 2010, (last month), supported and reelected the CCHE Board members, in total. The owners were fully informed, and at the Annual meeting, there was a total absence of any expressed objections re: the SA.

If you were a CCHE owner, you would know better, and not assume "gross mismanagement", or insufficient annual maintenance fees in past years.

CCHE is a Resort with 33 stand alone cottages. The expenses to maintain and renovate cottages cannot be compared to the average hotel-like timeshare units.

If you have evidence of any mismanagement at CCHE, please advise.

Thanks, Palmtree 7339

 

[e.bram]

Palmtree:
The question is not a matter of mismanagement or not, but whether it makes sense for a nonprime(all except weeks 25-34) CCHE owners to invest $2000.00 into something that will have negative value(look at Ebay sales) even AFTER the contribution.

 

[palmtree7339]

Palmtree:
The question is not a matter of mismanagement or not, but whether it makes sense for a nonprime(all except weeks 25-34) CCHE owners to invest $2000.00 into something that will have negative value(look at Ebay sales) even AFTER the contribution.

To E.Bram & Ace 2000,

Apparently, the vast majority of CCHE owners have answered this question of yours already, by overwhelmingly supporting the CCHE Board & its managment company, VRI.

The SA payments by the owners, to date, are amazingly high, as they are spread over a 5 year period, in order for the Resort to renovate each cottage completely, from the interior walls inward. This is a major interior construction project, not a minor tinkering, as you may have imagined.

I believe that if either of you were current CCHE owners, which apparently you both are not, you would not be taking the stance that you have chosen to portray to all interested Tuggers.

I welcome your responses.

Palmtree7339

 

[e.bram]

Palmtree:
What is and will be the resale value of a non-prime CCHE week? That is all one has to know to determine whether to throw good money after bad.

 

[palmtree7339]

E.Bram,

Apparently you believe that the paramount concern of owners at CCHE should be the resale value of their units.

CAN YOU NOT ACCEPT THE OBVIOUS, THAT THE OWNERS HAVE OVERWHELMINGLY ACCEPTED THE SA, AND HAVE APPROVED OF THE EXTENSIVE IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH WILL BE IMPLEMENTED OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS?

The resale value of these units is NOT the important factor here, although you seem to think that it should be. A satisfied owner enjoys the usage each year, and is willing to financially support this ongoing renovation program, and not "bail", as you have previously recommended.

The resale value affects only those timeshare owners who are interested in
the sale of their unit, not the satisfied owner who has no interest in the divesting of timeshare ownership which meets their vacation needs.

Apparently you cannot see, or will not accept, this clear-cut distinction.

But, please try.

Palmtree7339

 

[Shiz]

Shiz(11 posts):
The purpose of these boards is not for self interest but to help others.

How ironic.
e.bram

BBS Reg. Date: Jun 6, 05
Location: Fort Lee, NJ
Posts: 1,571

Resorts: Surfside resort(MA) 3 weeks OceanCliff I&2 (RI) Newport Overlook(RI) 2weeks

For $2795.00 you canbut a TS on the ocean, not miles away.

Now is the time to cut bait. Use the SA and MF to buy an oceanfront TS and let CCHE go belly up. It probably will anyway if many of the dog weeks(most is seasonal Cape Cod) don't ante up.

BAIL!!! No sense putting good money after bad especially if you don.t have a prime red week. You can take the SA moiney and buy an oceanfront T^S. See if the BOD will tell you how many units the HOA now owns and what it will own after SA. All thev money in the world will not put the TS on the ocean where the value of Cape Cod lies.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Only smoke and mirrors can give value to off season non oceanfront Cape Cod.

You say you don't have self interest, but most of your argument revolves around the same point: That a timeshare on Cape Cod is completely worthless unless it overlooks the ocean. Oddly enough, you yourself happen to own at a competing resort not too far away from CCHE, that is on the water. Of course, if CCHE went out of business, it would obviously benefit your resort greatly if those owners migrated, wouldn't it?

I don't need to post a lot to see you have a personal agenda, and that most likely it doesn't involve "helping others" as much as spreading negative thoughts and ideas. It would be one thing if you were an actual owner at the resort, but your soapbox ranting is repetitive, offensive, and uneducated. (as observed by many)

Look at it this way - if I were to say that buying into a TS on the ocean is stupid because of the danger of flooding and disaster, what would you say? Do you know what your delinquency rates are and how well funded your reserves are at Surfside? How the resort would recover if faced with a major problem that wasn't covered under insurance? Would you pay a S/A if need be in order to keep your resort up to the standards of the current times?

Different people have different opinions and values. Just because you aren't one for CCHE doesn't mean there isn't those out there who are. I know for a fact their board and management goes far beyond what most would expect from a resort in terms of owner and guest service which is why most people see value where you don't. (just look at the S/A payment plan.. $2000 over 5 years with the work done in 24 months? That's a new one for me)

Timeshare will never be a "good" investment. You won't make your money back, and most likely, there's going to be someone out there who paid less then you did to get the same product. (welcome to America) At the end of the day as long as the resort remains open and successful it is a good thing for the industry as a whole.

 

[e.bram]

Been there, done that with my Oceancliff(managed by VRI) with a huge SA.
My advice to CCHE owners is bail and buy for $1.00 on Ebay. I shold have done that with Oceancliff.

 

[Shiz]

Been there, done that with my Oceancliff(managed by VRI) with a huge SA.
My advice to CCHE owners is bail and buy for $1.00 on Ebay. I shold have done that with Oceancliff.

Your advice is flawed.

These are non-profit organizations. Maybe you don't' fully understand the concept. Every single dime of a maintenance fee or assessment is budgeted and spent. If a majority of owners "bailed", like you suggested, there would be no resort to buy back units from. They would also do a number on their credit (for those who still care about that) and risk the chance of costly legal fees. There are resorts out there who employ attorney's to handle debt collection for owners who are significantly behind in dues. In these cases a lawyer well versed in real estate law can easily win judgments to levy wages, place liens, etc. Even if a person attempts to transfer a unit into a shell corporation in order to escape a m.fee, if it can be proven the transfer was done to defraud the association it can revert back to the original owner

The point I'm trying to make is that the "easy way out" that you continually suggest is in fact not as beneficial or as simple as you make it sound. The wise choice would be to work with the management company to make the payments while attempting to move the unit and use the renovation as a selling point. (one of the main reasons for renovations in the first place is to modernize a TS in order to attract "new blood." original owners from 30 years in the past are fine with the status quo, but eventually the interval will need to change hands to a younger generation who expect more modern facilities)

Before you argue that non-prime weeks are worth nothing, remember that this is strictly your opinion based on zero experience or knowledge of the resort itself. CCHE used to (and as far as I know, still does) utilize a resort exchange program where for a nominal fee owners can switch weeks based on availability. Also, for those that can do it, the "fringe" weeks in May/Sept/Oct are also nice as the weather is usually pleasantly cool and there is not a lot of traffic or annoying tourists. November brings Thanksgiving, December has Xmas and New Years, February, March, and April have school vacations for the various New England states. Some people just like to get away, regardless of what time of year it is, and in CCHE's case instead of being stuffed in a tiny unit they are in a two bedroom home that I believe has roughly 1600sq. feet.

So again, your advice is flawed and based on opinion, assumptions, and limited experience.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Shiz, I can empathize! You are experiencing the same frustration many of us have had with e.bram and his negativity and general lack of understanding. Ignore him. I am so much happier now.

 

[e.bram]

The corp might be non profit, but not the parasites that suck off it.(Remember United Fund chairman making millions salary).
To wit Oceancliff(managed by VRI(not non profit)) collected $2200.00 per week ($104,000.00 per unit) and did little more than cosmetic improvements. Oceancliff units by an large(except weeks 25-34) CAN'T even be sold for a dollar with free closing and a weeks use.(after the SA).
The same will be true for CCHE after the SA is paid and the work is done. And now with the SA hanging I would say they are unsalable, even to a PC company.

 

[e.bram]

Rickandcindy23:
You think I am negative now , can you imagine how negative I would be if I lived in the middle of nowhere miles from the ocean.

 

[Shiz]

The corp might be non profit, but not the parasites that suck off it.(Remember United Fund chairman making millions salary).
To wit Oceancliff(managed by VRI(not non profit)) collected $2200.00 per week ($104,000.00 per unit) and did little more than cosmetic improvements. Oceancliff units by an large(except weeks 25-34) CAN'T even be sold for a dollar with free closing and a weeks use.(after the SA).
The same will be true for CCHE after the SA is paid and the work is done. And now with the SA hanging I would say they are unsalable, even to a PC company.

As an owner, you should be able to get a detailed budget which lists exactly how your $2200.00 special assessment was spent. Also, is the resort 100% sold with no delinquency? You cannot just multiply a special assessment by the # of intervals and figure out the cost. Budgeting for those who don't pay, or for non-performing (unsold) inventory can increase the cost of a s/a dramatically.

Inferring that VRI inflated the cost in order to profit is irresponsible unless you have documentation to prove it. There are management companies that do charge a fee for work such as that, but from my experience VRI is not one of them. (I believe Marriott Vacation Club charges 10% on top of the bill for any renovation work done, for instance)