Kingsgate Daily Fee?

[jp10558]

Not every owner who owns KG inventory uses points or ever stays at that resort. Should KG owners should pay that special add-on fee whether they ever use that resort or not?

Yes? Isn't that the point of owning somewhere, you pay for the stuff there?

The separate fee structure means that only guests who actually stay at that resort, and consume those benefits, pay the fee in question.

Well, I guess this really starts to make the idea of exchanges confusing - why not have separate fees for electricity? If I don't stay there, I'm never using electricity there right? Why would it make sense to pay less if you don't stay there? And by that logic, why would it be forced - if I stay there and don't use the pool, why am I on the hook when some owners aren't? This argument only works IMHO if it's an optional add on. (and even then, I think adding fees for pools and the like is junk fees as I've said before - it's part of owning the place, or it's part of the exchange, or it should be included in the rental. If you didn't want to pay for amenities, why are you staying at a resort in the first place?)

Should every guest pay it whether they use it or not? That seems to be the point of debate. There are arguments both ways. I agree price transparency is always a plus.

The point is to me - if it's charged to everyone, then it should be part of "renting the unit" however you do that. If it's optional, then sure, but I'd still complain if the only pool and hot tub access was an extra fee when they're commonly included. This is actually somewhat similar to my general feelings on these things - if you're going away from common recent history (say last 20 years or so) practice, you should make that pretty clear up front (like charging extra for any pool at a resort, or like the hotels with no bathroom door or separation at all). To me, this is like those restaurants that started just adding a 20% "service fee", not a tip or anything, just a fee ... for being a restaurant. That is asinine. NO, that should just be in the menu prices FFS - the entire point of the place is to serve you food in some manner. Are they going to IDK just let me have a dance party in the open spaces so then I wouldn't get a fee?

And what's crazy to me is this isn't a "impossible ask". We already see it with a lot of businesses with "free shipping" - of course they know they're selling online - shipping is generally required to fulfill a purchase. So they just build that into the cost they put on the item.

 

[Arimaas]

Not every owner who owns KG inventory uses points or ever stays at that resort. Should KG owners should pay that special add-on fee whether they ever use that resort or not? The separate fee structure means that only guests who actually stay at that resort, and consume those benefits, pay the fee in question. Should every guest pay it whether they use it or not? That seems to be the point of debate. There are arguments both ways. I agree price transparency is always a plus.

Yes, every owner at KG pays for the pool and any other resort amenities whether they stay there or not, why is this any different? And if it is different (I don't know first hand, I've never been there despite being a deeded owner at KG), why isn't it optional for whoever wants to use it? Like the waterparks at some places, or even the knock hockey table or coffee in Long Wharf? Charging guests at a timeshare, where I own for a reason - so that I am not paying these ridiculous fees (you know like the sales people say, to lock in the price of vacation forever) $7 as an owner and whatever they charge non owners for the arcade and "enhanced wifi" is ridiculous.

 

[chapjim]

The answer to that is a resounding YES in my opinion.

Just like the owners who own at Panama City Beach have to pay the special assessment for PCB, even if they never stay there.

Point is, some of these "optional" resort features add to the operating costs of the resort. And add negligible value to the owners. The owners at this specific resort, took the cheap way out and delegated the cost to others. This is literally the only resort which does this.

I don't consider a pool an optional resort feature. There's only a few resorts which have no pool whatsoever. Old Town Alexandria, Midtown 45 and Canterbury are the only ones which come to mind. And OTA used to have one (a shared pool with the Hilton, and they filled it in).

My recollection is that the pool wasn't much to begin with. More of a place for kids to splash around than anything.

 

[Arimaas]

BTW, at other locations, a lot of this stuff is included. What happens when every starts charging for gas grills (included at every other place I've been to), a movie theater (Long Wharf has a free one with popcorn), mini golf (Bonnet Creek has free mini golf), tennis (I am sure exists free somewhere, can't find one off the top of my head) and kid's activity (usually free or a some real cheap costs like $1 or 2)?

 

[HitchHiker71]

Yes, every owner at KG pays for the pool and any other resort amenities whether they stay there or not, why is this any different? And if it is different (I don't know first hand, I've never been there despite being a deeded owner at KG), why isn't it optional for whoever wants to use it? Like the waterparks at some places, or even the knock hockey table or coffee in Long Wharf? Charging guests at a timeshare, where I own for a reason - so that I am not paying these ridiculous fees (you know like the sales people say, to lock in the price of vacation forever) $7 as an owner and whatever they charge non owners for the arcade and "enhanced wifi" is ridiculous.

Because that resort also contains whole condo owners, townhome owners, and other non-Wyndham owners. If this were a Wyndham only resort, I'd surmise it wouldn't be structured the way it is, but it's not a Wyndham only resort. Obviously, the other owners disagree with everyone paying, otherwise it wouldn't be the way it is and has been at KG all along.

So, let's say 50% of those who stay at the resort in some way consume the $7/day/unit benefit. If you only charge those who consume it, the cost doubles to $14/day/unit - if it's only 25% of occupants, it triples to $21/day/unit on average. For an average five day stay, the cost goes from $35 per unit for the entirety of the stay, to $70-105 per unit for the entirety of the stay. The higher the price, the lower the demand (basic laws of supply and demand). Let's assume only 50% of folks would pay the higher price at double the cost, and only 25% at triple the price. That results in somewhere between 12.5-25% overall usage - or a 50-75% decrease in activity center usage. It's doubtful they would keep it open at that point. If it closes entirely, who wins exactly? Certainly not the guests or the owners.

 

[Arimaas]

Because that resort also contains whole condo owners, townhome owners, and other non-Wyndham owners. If this were a Wyndham only resort, I'd surmise it wouldn't be structured the way it is, but it's not a Wyndham only resort. Obviously, the other owners disagree with everyone paying, otherwise it wouldn't be the way it is and has been at KG all along.

So, let's say 50% of those who stay at the resort in some way consume the $7/day/unit benefit. If you only charge those who consume it, the cost doubles to $14/day/unit - if it's only 25% of occupants, it triples to $21/day/unit on average. For an average five day stay, the cost goes from $35 per unit for the entirety of the stay, to $70-105 per unit for the entirety of the stay. The higher the price, the lower the demand (basic laws of supply and demand). Let's assume only 50% of folks would pay the higher price at double the cost, and only 25% at triple the price. That results in somewhere between 12.5-25% overall usage - or a 50-75% decrease in activity center usage. It's doubtful they would keep it open at that point. If it closes entirely, who wins exactly? Certainly not the guests or the owners.

Well that's the answer. That it exists because of the unique setup there. The whole owners don't want to pay to have these features for the use of basically the timeshare guests.

I'm not here to debate economics, but if the cost if it would increase, and no one would use it because of that, so what is the value it brings? If it closes, would anyone truly miss it (are we talking just arcade here or the gas grills and tennis courts and all the other things this supports, supposedly)? I don't know. If they aren't willing to pay for it optionally, than I say no, no one would miss it.

 

[comicbookman]

KG is likely set up the way it is because it's not entirely owned by Wyndham, there are wholly owned condos/townhomes, and other non-Wyndham units, so it's not just Wyndham involved when it comes to the fee structure. I suspect this is, at least in part, why the activity center is carved out separately.

Also, originally when the game room was setup, people staying at Patriots Place could pay the fee and use the room. That only lasted a couple of years.

 

[comicbookman]

Yes? Isn't that the point of owning somewhere, you pay for the stuff there?

Well, I guess this really starts to make the idea of exchanges confusing - why not have separate fees for electricity? If I don't stay there, I'm never using electricity there right? Why would it make sense to pay less if you don't stay there? And by that logic, why would it be forced - if I stay there and don't use the pool, why am I on the hook when some owners aren't? This argument only works IMHO if it's an optional add on. (and even then, I think adding fees for pools and the like is junk fees as I've said before - it's part of owning the place, or it's part of the exchange, or it should be included in the rental. If you didn't want to pay for amenities, why are you staying at a resort in the first place?)

The point is to me - if it's charged to everyone, then it should be part of "renting the unit" however you do that. If it's optional, then sure, but I'd still complain if the only pool and hot tub access was an extra fee when they're commonly included. This is actually somewhat similar to my general feelings on these things - if you're going away from common recent history (say last 20 years or so) practice, you should make that pretty clear up front (like charging extra for any pool at a resort, or like the hotels with no bathroom door or separation at all). To me, this is like those restaurants that started just adding a 20% "service fee", not a tip or anything, just a fee ... for being a restaurant. That is asinine. NO, that should just be in the menu prices FFS - the entire point of the place is to serve you food in some manner. Are they going to IDK just let me have a dance party in the open spaces so then I wouldn't get a fee?

And what's crazy to me is this isn't a "impossible ask". We already see it with a lot of businesses with "free shipping" - of course they know they're selling online - shipping is generally required to fulfill a purchase. So they just build that into the cost they put on the item.

Kingsgate has had this fee for a very long time. It was added when the game rooms were renovated back about a decade ago (not sure of exact timeframe, but long enough ago that I can't remember) I believe it started at about $3 per unit back then.

 

[jp10558]

Because that resort also contains whole condo owners, townhome owners, and other non-Wyndham owners. If this were a Wyndham only resort, I'd surmise it wouldn't be structured the way it is, but it's not a Wyndham only resort. Obviously, the other owners disagree with everyone paying, otherwise it wouldn't be the way it is and has been at KG all along.

So, let's say 50% of those who stay at the resort in some way consume the $7/day/unit benefit. If you only charge those who consume it, the cost doubles to $14/day/unit - if it's only 25% of occupants, it triples to $21/day/unit on average. For an average five day stay, the cost goes from $35 per unit for the entirety of the stay, to $70-105 per unit for the entirety of the stay. The higher the price, the lower the demand (basic laws of supply and demand). Let's assume only 50% of folks would pay the higher price at double the cost, and only 25% at triple the price. That results in somewhere between 12.5-25% overall usage - or a 50-75% decrease in activity center usage. It's doubtful they would keep it open at that point. If it closes entirely, who wins exactly? Certainly not the guests or the owners.

My problem isn't in the $7/day fee, it's that it's a separate fee that is required so inherently a junk fee. And it doesn't cost more if a guest stays than an owner, it's just a money grab. And you're right, if the owners don't want to pay for it, and they don't think charging the cost for actual users is sustainable then yea, no one wants it for what it costs. How do the whole condo owners pay for it? Are they excluded, are they all charged $7 a day payable weekly on a credit card for living there? Part of their HOA fees? And if you're talking about spreading it wider to lower the per payer cost, aren't you basically removing ~20% of the available "spread" by putting it in MFs?

I'll just reiterate that to me so many of these arguments that "it shouldn't be in the MFs cause what if I don't want to use it" make me think that someday we'll end up talking about the specific path you walk over the floor and charging for the cleaning / repair / refurb just for where you walk, because why should you "pay" for a hallway you didn't use. It's absurd, and also reminds me of when we started doing timesheet accounting at work and now we spend 15% of our time filling out timecards and justifying and documenting why we're billing what for the labor. I would think if you asked the people so worried about "maybe paying for something they feel they shouldn't have" if that was worth constant 15% overhead they might rethink it, but no.

And that's the other part, by making it a fee payment at the resort, they're adding labor and credit card processing fees on another transaction, accounting overhead and on and on so it's worse than just spreading it over less people, taking each payment costs more too.

So I think this setup is the worst of all possible ones, for everyone.

 

[Floridaman76]

Or "kitchen use fee". Even though having a kitchen is one of the reasons a lot of people go the timeshare route.

The "resort fee" nonsense hit non-timeshare Vegas hotels/resorts in the 2000's, almost universally it's mandatory now, even if you don't use any of the amenities. Some even have a separate pool use fee above and beyond the resort fee.

 

[paxsarah]

Because that resort also contains whole condo owners, townhome owners, and other non-Wyndham owners.

Kingsgate does?

 

[HitchHiker71]

Kingsgate does?

Yes, that was my understanding, but perhaps I'm mistaken. I recall there were condos/townhomes back toward the rear of the resort that weren't part of the Wyndham timeshare system, but are a part of Kingsgate overall. That said, perhaps my recollection is in error, I may be confusing this resort with Patriot's Place - where I know it was a mixed ownership resort.

 

[Arimaas]

Yes, that was my understanding, but perhaps I'm mistaken. I recall there were condos/townhomes back toward the rear of the resort that weren't part of the Wyndham timeshare system, but are a part of Kingsgate overall. That said, perhaps my recollection is in error, I may be confusing this resort with Patriot's Place - where I know it was a mixed ownership resort.

Well, if this isn't the case, then the fee is even more ridiculous. And I say that as a deeded owner.

 

[comicbookman]

Yes, that was my understanding, but perhaps I'm mistaken. I recall there were condos/townhomes back toward the rear of the resort that weren't part of the Wyndham timeshare system, but are a part of Kingsgate overall. That said, perhaps my recollection is in error, I may be confusing this resort with Patriot's Place - where I know it was a mixed ownership resort.

I am pretty sure the condos at patriot place were not part of the resort. They had a deal with the resort to us some of the amenities, but were a separate entity, built much later than the resort. I believe the land they were built on was originally owned by the resort and marked for expansion, but that never happened.

 

[Floridaman76]

I didn't know there were wholly owned condos at Kingsgate. I'm not sure that's accurate. There weren't at Patriots Place either.

They built condo units where the hotel used to be at PP that were not part of the resort.