If you read the definitions in the legislation, developers and ''management entities'' are specifically excluded from the provisions of the bill.
Reading definitions in legislation is important, because they can define terms in much broader or much narrower fashion than the same term may be generally used by the public. For example, the definition of a timeshare developer (who has to be licensed by the state Real Estate Commission and pay an annual fee) in North Carolina is anyone who sells a timeshare week located in North Carolina, but then excludes those who sell a week owned by themselves which has been used for personal use. That is pretty darn broad, and would include eBay sellers, for example, and I suspect not a one of them has complied. Of course, that gives good leverage with eBay sellers for a buyer to demand that they back off of some of their crap like requiring a buyer to use their closer at an inflated cost.
While I understand the intent of the law in NC, I think it is too broad as written. By their definition, if I purchase a timeshare, and rent it the first year, then decide it doesn't fit my needs, if I try to sell it without using it myself, I am a developer. That doesn't make sense (and I'm assuming exchanging it would still be considered personal use). I realize the distinction can't just be ownership, but if you purchase it to rent out, but not with the intent to sell, you're not really a developer.
Not to argue the law, it's written the way it's written for a reason, I just think it's too broad. There are better ways to write it, that would still classify most of the eBay sellers you're referring to as developers, and would still classify even those who purchase to flip.
Wyndham applauds this bill? That definitely concerns me.
What's more unethical... taking a thousand from someone for offering to falsely sell a timeshare, or a developer selling something for tens of thousands that is worth pennies the day after the sale? And then throw in the lies and misrepresentations. It seems like our anger on TUG is more focused on these resellers, but the developers are committing a far greater crime.
There are already laws to cover those developers - whether they are enforced is a whole other question. Part of the problem is that resales by traditional definition (what a willing buyer is willing to pay) may be worthless, but in reality they are not. They are still a share of real estate with underlying value. It is the encumbrances and restrictions that reduce the perceived value.
From Wyndham's perspective this protects their members, and the integrity of their system. That Wyndham is in favor doesn't make it bad for those members. It means that in some ways the resellers have to play by the same rules as them. Legitimate resellers should have little problem playing by these rules.
