Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners Being Ripped Off By Marriott - READ IF AN OWNER

[SueDonJ]

I dont owe you any evidence and almost feel like this thread has become a trial of everything the "real" Marriott Aruba Ocean club owners" have worked hard to change. What has happened with our timeshare is unfair and clearly abuse by Marriott. We are making change and it will be effective. It doesnt matter who gets elected to the board as long as they look out for the interests of the owners and cleary communicate the owners concerns and the actions they take on behalf of the owners. Cutting out communications to the owners is evident and totally uncalled for.

Once again I want to thank the Marriott Aruba Ocean club owners who have the strength to continue to post to this site and voice your concerns and your support of the actions of Marksue and your disappointment with the removal of Allan Cohen.



Thanks so much to the two Erics who have kept this thread alive, you are really helping our cause. Everytime you post to this site and interrogate Marksue you do a service by bringing additional attention to our plight. We love you.:whoopie:

Wow. Your last paragraph is combative, and the entire post is unnecessarily exclusive. Do you really not see that whatever actions you and others effect at Marriott Aruba Ocean Club might possibly have an impact at any or all of the other MVCI properties? Those of us who do not own at Ocean Club aren't exactly innocent bystanders here. For some of us, we most definitely do not want to see our fellow owners taking some of the measures against our resorts that you champion.

For the third time in this thread I want to point out that Barony Beach Club has instituted a similar communication method to that BOD. Namely, instead of releasing the email addresses of each member, as used to be done, we owners have been notified that we should direct BOD email to MVCIBBCOB@vacationclub.com. That is exactly what transpired at your resort, isn't it? What you call "cutting out communications to the owners" appears to me to be a simplification of communication - instead of my emailed concerns possibly sitting in one private emailbox unread, I'm guaranteed that any member of the BOD will at least see them.

That makes perfect sense to me, as does a whole host of the Ocean Club BOD's actions. Perhaps it's my vantage point.

 

[m61376]

Perhaps not germane to this topic, but many homeowner association Boards work in exactly this manner. We own an apt. in NYC, in a co-op. If I want to contact the Board, there is a generic e-mail. I cannot e-mail an individual member of the BOD. So what Marriott is doing is not unprecedented.

I, too, noticed that the SC now has a singular e-mail rather than individual BOD e-mail contacts, and I was wondering if that was a by-product of this thread or the actions here-in.

I am acutely aware that not only Marriott's actions at the OC have wide-standing implications, but how the owners handle their protest of the situation have the potential to impact how Marriott treats owners at other resorts. It works both ways. I agree that Marriott needs to recognize that owners deserve rational explanations for decisions made which impact their use or costs, but owners also need to deal respectfully with Marriott in order to maintain civility and a working relationship. Like it or not, however well intentioned, once lawsuits are mentioned an amicable relationship is hard to achieve. As the old saying goes: "you can win more flies with honey than with vinegar."

 

[Quilter]

It is up to the owners to decide what they want. There is enough distrust in the current board that over a thousand owners are supporting this effort. It is now open to the general owner population to decide what they want to do. We certainly hope for the best. There is certainly the chance we don't have enough support. If we do not succeed we have at least let the board know there are many people angry about the events over the last 6 months and that we want change and will hold whoever is on the board accountable.

ANy board member can be recalled so resigning and being replaced doesn't protect anyone if the owners want to recall the person. The new board member can be replaced in the same meeting.


I know not everyone supports this effort, but many do. There were some that were not in favor of this step but still support the effort of driving more transparency.

"Distrust by over a thousand owners--many people angry" sounds like a mob scene from an old Western. And anger over what? Board members not wanting to be lead into a legal battle? Or Mr. Marriott not giving an audience to an angry crowd? Well that one sounds like a tantrum scene from Nanny 911. Or is it anger because someone would rather see minutes of a meeting instead of progress from a meeting? Doesn't that ring of Dilbert?

No, I can't see supporting this effort as the foundation for the anger just doesn't feel right.

 

[tlwmkw]

The proof will be in the pudding

If you achieve the special meeting and have a vote then you will find out what the majority really does think about all this. At the moment we are getting a fairly one sided view of things from some very vocal owners. I think a lot of the shut down in communication may have occurred simply because of the threats and anger shown by some of the owners. Initially it seemed to be all about money but now it just seems to be more about communication. The recent messages from the board do seem to answer a lot of the questions about what is going on with the budget in an open and honest way.

I do want to know how you think Marriott is able to manipulate the board so easily- if the board members are picked from owners at the Ocean Club how could Marriott possibly know who will do their bidding (even if Marriott gets to pick and choose who will be on the ballot)? Are you saying that Marriott is planting people who will do whatever they want? It's a pity the board members don't have a forum like this to tell their side- I'm sure legal counsel has advised them to keep quiet. They have a pretty thankless job- and as far as I am aware they aren't paid to do it. Hopefully this will all work out for the best.

 

[AwayWeGo]

The Proof Is Not In The Pudding.

The proof will be in the pudding

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

You could look it up.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[ecwinch]

"Distrust by over a thousand owners--many people angry" sounds like a mob scene from an old Western.

My visual was always some scene out of the Frankenstein movie, where the villagers decide to go kill the beast. Pitchforks and torches, that type of thing.

"And anger over what?

Clearly the majority of the anger is over the spike in m/f combined with the special assessment. That the board does not publish their personal e-mails addresses and has Corey receive them is not the driving issue here. That is just a red herring.

The real issue is the removal of Alan Cohen as BOD President. That was the tipping point. And from everything I have heard, Alan was a very good BOD President. What has been reported here however is that Alan is at the end of his term limit.

So this vote can affect that outcome as much as it can reduce the 2009 m/f or special assessment. Which is probably what a number of supporters are thinking this action can do. What most probably do not realize is that it is increasing their 2010 m/f just a little.

Quilter - I told you to drink that kool-aid. ....Why do they never listen???

 

[Quilter]

My visual was always some scene out of the Frankenstein movie, where the villagers decide to go kill the beast. Pitchforks and torches, that type of thing.


Clearly the majority of the anger is over the spike in m/f combined with the special assessment. That the board does not publish their personal e-mails addresses and has Corey receive them is not the driving issue here. That is just a red herring.

The real issue is the removal of Alan Cohen as BOD President. That was the tipping point. And from everything I have heard, Alan was a very good BOD President. What has been reported here however is that Alan is at the end of his term limit.

So this vote can affect that outcome as much as it can reduce the 2009 m/f or special assessment. Which is probably what a number of supporters are thinking this action can do. What most probably do not realize is that it is increasing their 2010 m/f just a little.

Quilter - I told you to drink that kool-aid. ....Why do they never listen???

It's the transferral of the Presidency from one person to another that still gives me lots of questions. Why was it such an issue?

Owners run for the Board primarily to volunteer their time and expertise towards the maintenance of an investment they have made. While there is an element of control they are part of a team. When the time comes this responsibility will pass to another volunteer who becomes part of the team.

Yes, I appreciated the newsletter connection to the BOD. More important, though, for a Board is that each member work with the other members in the best interests of the owners. For the few years we've owned in Aruba I've felt the BOD ran smoothly and never had any qualms that it wasn't. Then we get to 2008 and this thread. All of a sudden the BOD has major issues to work on and at the same time there's this internal conflict.

What is producing this internal conflict in the BOD????

From the email I received from Mr. Cohen on 11/16/08 he said "I urge you to let Frank Knox, your new President know your concerns, if any and offer to work with him as these issues proceed to a resolution."

He didn't say to spend heaps of time and energy to oust the BOD and at the same time cause distrust, confusion and discouragement.

Was the transfer of Presidency for reasons that there needed to be a change so a new President could get comfortable with the position while the past President was still available for consultation? Or was it because of difference of personal agenda between the past President and the current BOD?

What's driving this major initiative to oust the current BOD? Is Mr. Cohen at odds with all the other BOD members? Does he support the efforts here? I don't get that message from the above quote.

According to his email he noted, "Thank you for your kindness in the past and although I am only one voice on your Board, I will continue to make your views heard."

Each member of the BOD is actually only one voice. But they work to put their voices together. Unless, of course, there is a conflict of opinion.

There may be a group of owners who just can't handle change but the reality is members of BOD's do change.

 

[ecwinch]

All of a sudden the BOD has major issues to work on and at the same time there's this internal conflict.

What is producing this internal conflict in the BOD????

According to his email he noted, "Thank you for your kindness in the past and although I am only one voice on your Board, I will continue to make your views heard."

The split clearly occurred when the BOD decided to not pursue litigation.

Then depending on your point of view, the BOD either implemented a succession plan as they said in this communication or a coup d'état occurred as MarkSue has indicated.

Just as the anti-Marriott faction takes liberties with BOD communication, it is easy to read from the above statement that Mr. Cohen felt he was the only pro-owner voice on the board. For me there are the seeds of discontent.

This event combined with the backdrop of a spike in m/f and a special assessment, created an environment that is very easy to sow those seeds of discontent. The following case is very is easy to make:

- Are you not concerned about the increase in m/f this year?
- Did you see the huge assessment - you know MVCI should be paying for that. They sold us a damaged building.
- And in this economy
- We have an out of control BOD. They need to be replaced
- Can you sign this recall motion

But as the BOD has communicated to the owners multiple times (LINK), the BOD had little ability to influence any of the events the led to the items above. They did not control the price of oil last year, or engineer the downfall in the economy, or the need for the refurbishment. And if they had seen those events coming, I doubt they would have decided to add the expense of a dedicated mgt team for the resort.

And we have no indication how Mr. Cohen voted on that issue. The decision was clearly made while he was still BOD President.

I still have a tremendous amount of respect for what Marksue has accomplished. For balance, I hope AOC owners will look at all the facts, and not vote simply based on the economic factors that the current BOD had little control over.

 

[m61376]

Also- a side note perhaps- but whether or not the OC has a dedicated management team is not entirely up to the OC's BOD. The OC and the SC, for various reasons, have decided not to share any physical resources. Keeping that in mind, it seems to be a natural extension that their management teams would be separate as well, so that each would work in their own resort's best interests.

Let's face it- whether or not you agree or disagree, each facility has its own positive attributes. For example, it seemed to me from various posts here and elsewhere and from hearing people talk while visiting, OC owners would have preferred to retain the right to use the SC's pool and were not happy that they no longer can use it. As a SC owner, I am glad to have a management team that essentially decided that only sharing the pools was not in the SC's best interests. Regardless of how OC owners feel, even if they were adamant about not having their own management team, the SC's BOD has the right to maintain a distinct management team. So changing that policy is not as easy as it might otherwise sound; even while it may make sense to OC owners, it likely may not make sense to SC owners, who have a larger resort to spread around the cost of such personnel making it less of an issue there.

While sharing costs may make sense as an OC owner, the sharing of facilities seemed somewhat one-sided beforehand and, as a SC owner, I personally am glad that we have our own management team advocating for the SC owners. I think that, in order to share management, the resorts would have to be willing to share all, and not just some, facilities. I think since many OC owners in particular objected to sharing all facilities, sharing none is the obviously fair solution to the issue.

 

[ecwinch]

Also- a side note perhaps- but whether or not the OC has a dedicated management team is not entirely up to the OC's BOD. The OC and the SC, for various reasons, have decided not to share any physical resources. Keeping that in mind, it seems to be a natural extension that their management teams would be separate as well, so that each would work in their own resort's best interests.

Good point.

I only brought that up, as it is one item that anti-Marriott group has raised as evidence of a BOD that is out of touch the economic situation. When you look at the history of the two resorts, I agree that this is a natural progression.

 

[Quilter]

I still have a tremendous amount of respect for what Marksue has accomplished.

Eric,

That's the one point where I cannot agree with you. This effort has all the markings of a mob that is out to destroy a BOD who protected the interests of their fellow owners. Not only that, but they've successfully stepped up to the trials of working through some major building and financial issues.

Good BOD's are not easy to come by. Lots of people offer to be on them but few are truly qualified. Our current one seems to be doing a decent job.

 

[marksue]

You can call us anything you want. But over 10% of the sold units and 1000 people agree with this effort. This is what makes this country great, if you do not agree with what is happening, you can lawfully try and make a change. This "mob" as you call us is taking lawful steps to address what we feel is a lack of transparency and truthfulness coming from the current BOD.

Now the owners can speak. If the majority agree with you then the BOD remains as is. If the majority does not agree with you then there will be a change. If there is a change and you disagree you too can lawfully fight for change.

It was not difficult to get people to agree to this effort. This effort started in October with my post here and the owners meeting, and by Feb we had over 1000 owners signed on. A few people took active roles in this effort and worked to get the word out. It is amazing what word of mouth can accomplish.

Thank you to all the people who worked hard on this effort. Do not be discouraged by the people who are against our actions. It is their right to speak out against us as we have spoken out about what we felt was wrong.

Good luck to everyone.

 

[lovearuba]

Marriott Aruba Ocean on Ebay: no reserve

Hi
I thought I would post this here because there are a lot of owners that look at this thread and you may want to take a look at the 1 bedroom ocean club on ebay, no reserve.

 

[ecwinch]

Hi
I thought I would post this here because there are a lot of owners that look at this thread and you may want to take a look at the 1 bedroom ocean club on ebay, no reserve.

Not sure if you are posting this as validation that the value of your ownership has fallen or as a suggestion that an owner would want to acquire another unit. Confusing.

On a side note, readers here might want to look at the Shell Island thread over in the Hilton/HGVC forum. While it has been steadfastly maintained that removal of MVCI as the mgt company is not an objective, it is interesting to note the power that a BOD has to make that change without the approval of owners. And how things like a roof issue can escalate in that direction. Other interesting parallels:

- BOD uses a common e-mail address
- Resort has roof problems with seem to be the point of contention
- BOD's legal representation has advised that BOD not communicate with members given the threat of future legal action

Any of this sound familiar?

 

[ecwinch]

Eric,

That's the one point where I cannot agree with you. This effort has all the markings of a mob that is out to destroy a BOD who protected the interests of their fellow owners. Not only that, but they've successfully stepped up to the trials of working through some major building and financial issues.

Good BOD's are not easy to come by. Lots of people offer to be on them but few are truly qualified. Our current one seems to be doing a decent job.

I respect that opinion.

To clarify, my respect is in the accomplishment of getting the special meeting called, and not in his objective or the actions he took to achieve the recall.

Despite significant criticism of his actions, MarkSue has been able to stay the course, and do something most of us thought would be difficult - - to get 10% of the owners to agree to request the recall of the board.

I do not respect the tactics he use to accomplish the recall, or that he is not evaluating the BOD on their individual merits. On that point I hope I have been very clear.

As he has noted - this is the right of the owners to request the recall, and I respect his perseverance in pursuing the exercise of that right.

 

[modoaruba]

ebay

I saw a listing for the Surf Club for a buy now for $15,000 with a fee of $1,100 annually.
Lets take 10 years multiplied by $1,100 plus $15,000 which is $26,000. That is $2,600/week barring no increase in fees.
Now take 20 years multiplied by $1,100 plus $15,000 which is $37,000. That is $1,850/week.
RedWeek has weeks renting for far less to a little bit more.
The average week rental could get you about 25 to 30 years of rental if not more without buying. That is just the Surf Club for example.
The fees have escalated to such a high cost in much of the timeshare community along with an over abundance that ownership is questionable.
Do you now blame the ebay listing without a reserve?
Marriott is now offering 25% off additional weeks for owners who want additional weeks. Use the new cost with the current fees. Do the math.
Still makes no financial sense.

 

[Luckybee]

It's the transferral of the Presidency from one person to another that still gives me lots of questions. Why was it such an issue?

Owners run for the Board primarily to volunteer their time and expertise towards the maintenance of an investment they have made. While there is an element of control they are part of a team. When the time comes this responsibility will pass to another volunteer who becomes part of the team.

Yes, I appreciated the newsletter connection to the BOD. More important, though, for a Board is that each member work with the other members in the best interests of the owners. For the few years we've owned in Aruba I've felt the BOD ran smoothly and never had any qualms that it wasn't. Then we get to 2008 and this thread. All of a sudden the BOD has major issues to work on and at the same time there's this internal conflict.

What is producing this internal conflict in the BOD????

From the email I received from Mr. Cohen on 11/16/08 he said "I urge you to let Frank Knox, your new President know your concerns, if any and offer to work with him as these issues proceed to a resolution."

He didn't say to spend heaps of time and energy to oust the BOD and at the same time cause distrust, confusion and discouragement.

Was the transfer of Presidency for reasons that there needed to be a change so a new President could get comfortable with the position while the past President was still available for consultation? Or was it because of difference of personal agenda between the past President and the current BOD?

What's driving this major initiative to oust the current BOD? Is Mr. Cohen at odds with all the other BOD members? Does he support the efforts here? I don't get that message from the above quote.

According to his email he noted, "Thank you for your kindness in the past and although I am only one voice on your Board, I will continue to make your views heard."

Each member of the BOD is actually only one voice. But they work to put their voices together. Unless, of course, there is a conflict of opinion.

There may be a group of owners who just can't handle change but the reality is members of BOD's do change.

For a myriad of reasons I have stayed out of this thread of late and I am not going to get involved in a debate with anyone. That said, we also felt as you do about our ownership which we had from inception at the MOC, and the manner in which the board use to be run . We no longer feel that way.If you are serious Quilter, and truly want to know how Mr Cohen feels about the situation I suggest you contact him off this board. He remains as he always has, available to all owners. As I indicated, if you really are serious about wanting facts and evidence I would be surprised if you were not enlightened , shall we say, by the conversation.

 

[Quilter]

You can call us anything you want. But over 10% of the sold units and 1000 people agree with this effort. This is what makes this country great, if you do not agree with what is happening, you can lawfully try and make a change. This "mob" as you call us is taking lawful steps to address what we feel is a lack of transparency and truthfulness coming from the current BOD.

Now the owners can speak. If the majority agree with you then the BOD remains as is. If the majority does not agree with you then there will be a change. If there is a change and you disagree you too can lawfully fight for change.

It was not difficult to get people to agree to this effort. This effort started in October with my post here and the owners meeting, and by Feb we had over 1000 owners signed on. A few people took active roles in this effort and worked to get the word out. It is amazing what word of mouth can accomplish.

Thank you to all the people who worked hard on this effort. Do not be discouraged by the people who are against our actions. It is their right to speak out against us as we have spoken out about what we felt was wrong.

Good luck to everyone.

Mark,

Getting a crowd to follow you isn't always impressive. Just step off the curb in Chicago against the don't walk light and you'll probably have a dozen people join you.

In February you contacted me with a private message and, in my opinion, stated your followers don't need much more than to give you their personal information:

Suzanne,

There is nothing for you to take on. All I would need from you, if you owuld liek to joint he 500+ owners is the number fo units you own, name and address. We are about to approach the board for a special meeting to recall the current board and put in place an owner friendly board. All I am asking is your support, nothing for you to do.

thanks

MArk


Do your followers really know your objectives? I've had one of them message me and she's under the impression you are going to reduce maintenance fees. Please be transparent and truthful and tell us how you plan to do this.

Please also be transparent and truthful and tell us if the replacement BOD has the objective of pursuing a class action against Marriott?

 

[Quilter]

For a myriad of reasons I have stayed out of this thread of late and I am not going to get involved in a debate with anyone. That said, we also felt as you do about our ownership which we had from inception at the MOC, and the manner in which the board use to be run . We no longer feel that way.If you are serious Quilter, and truly want to know how Mr Cohen feels about the situation I suggest you contact him off this board. He remains as he always has, available to all owners. As I indicated, if you really are serious about wanting facts and evidence I would be surprised if you were not enlightened , shall we say, by the conversation.

I have emailed him. We'll wait for an answer.

 

[marksue]

There is nothing for you to take on. All I would need from you, if you would like to joint he 500+ owners is the number fo units you own, name and address. We are about to approach the board for a special meeting to recall the current board and put in place an owner friendly board. All I am asking is your support, nothing for you to do.

Here is the rest of the email conversation you and I have had.

Suzzane,

Have you and I been in touch on what is going on with the OC and the efforts undertaken. We are in the process of getting enough names to call a special meeting and recall the board. I will be home this evening if you would like to discuss it.

If you haven’t given the information give me your email address and I will send you a form we are getting filled out to capture info on owners to present to Marriott when we request the meeting.

Hello marksue (which one am I talking to?)

Thank you for your recent help on the AOC maintenance fees.

No, we haven't talked regarding the Board issues going on at the resort. I've had some trouble since the fall learning how to manage stress and am steering clear of any extra items in that area right now. As much as we hope things will turn out right in the long run, we're not the ones to be taking on anything more at this time.

Suzzanne

I have been upfront. My message to you is exactly the message I have given everyone. I told you what we are trying to do. I did not promise you anything else. I never promised anyone nor will I that we would cut MF. I know you will not find where I have promised to cut fees. When people have asked me about reducing fees, I have told them there is nothing we can do this year, but looking at next years hopefully there is a board in place that will provide the financial responsibility we need. Additionally with the reduction in energy costs there should be a reduction in fees.

 

[Quilter]

Here is the rest of the email conversation you and I have had.






I have been upfront. My message to you is exactly the message I have given everyone. I told you what we are trying to do. I did not promise you anything else. I never promised anyone nor will I that we would cut MF. I know you will not find where I have promised to cut fees. When people have asked me about reducing fees, I have told them there is nothing we can do this year, but looking at next years hopefully there is a board in place that will provide the financial responsibility we need. Additionally with the reduction in energy costs there should be a reduction in fees.

There wasn't anything in the first part of our email exchange that is pertinent to this issue here. I didn't copy it to the message as I didn't really want the world to know I was having a problem with stress. Thank you for sharing

No, you didn't promise me anything and I didn't say you did. I was careful to even omit the word promise. The point I made was that one of your followers wrote to me saying: "I really thought that Marksue is after lowing our fees." So you have 1,000 people signed on, some of them believing you are after lowering the fees. Since you have your followers email addresses there's no telling what you have communicated to them off this message board. At least one of them has signed with you because he or she is upset with the maintenance fees and thinks your plan is going to fix that.

Do you care what they believe or were you just after their names and info for your own personal agenda of having the control to recall the BOD or initiate a lawsuit if you so desired? From Mr. Knox's recent letter, we have a BOD who is working responsibly to get our maintenance fees in control. They have been the ones making progress towards getting our building refurbished so energy costs will be lowered. They recognized a need to move forward and get the building up to speed with other properties as it was beginning to look tired. A lawsuit wouldn't have moved anything forward. It would have eaten time, energy and resources. Without moving forward and getting the roof and windows fixed, further energy loss and damage would have been the result of future storms, driving refurbishment costs/maintenance fees even higher.

You didn't answer my question regarding the "owner friendly" BOD you plan to put in place. Are you, and are they, planning to pursue a class action against Marriott?

 

[lovearuba]

Its not all about Marksue

This is a concerted effort, its not all about Marksue. Everyone that has opted to sign a letter is signing it because they have the same interest.

Getting owners on the board that believe the board actions should be transparent is the number one goal. Reducing maintenance fees should be a priority for the entire board and for Marriott. We are not looking to reduce fees by compromising quality. We want to know what those fees are being used for and ideally have a say in eliminating costs that are not in the best interest of the owners.

I dont understand why folks are opposed to having a board that will share information with the owners. Some posters have indicated that other timeshares are doing this. I'm not sure why that is important and why that's okay. Its not important to me, I own one timeshare and that's the one I want information about. I want to know where my money is spent and why I am paying maintenance fees that are higher than what I can rent the unit for. It just does not make sense. My fee went from $1100 last year to $1670.00 this year plus an expected $700 in a special assessment fees. I have a right to know why these fees are so high and want members on the board that have my interests in mind.

 

[marksue]

As I have stated previoulsy there is no intent to file a class action lawsuit. What we want in the BOD is an owner friendly board that will look after the owners rights, which we feel is not the case now. No where in the previous communication between us did I say we were pursing a class action suit.

I can not control what 1 individual thinks we are going to do. I have been quite clear with everyone I speak to regarding the groups intent. I had someone even write to me that now we will have lower fees and I stressed there is nothing that can be done with this years fees but with the reduction in energy costs we should see fees go down. There are certianly steps that can be taken to lower fees by getting Marriott to pay a fair share for space they utilize. Until we see the financials I cant tell you or anyone else where there could be additional savings.

 

[m61376]

There are certianly steps that can be taken to lower fees by getting Marriott to pay a fair share for space they utilize.

While I agree in principle that Marriott or any tenant should be paying their fair share for the space they occupy, depending upon the deal they gave themselves in the original documents this may or may not be possible, although logically and in fairness it should be. Has anyone poured through the original resort legal documents to see if Marriott was guaranteed usage of space and if a fee for such usage was set?

Unfortunately this issue exists not only with developers and timeshares but in many real estate developments as well. For example, in NYC when many buildings went co-op in the mid '80's corporate groups that bought blocks of apartments as sponsors also bought rental rights to retail space at a fixed price, many with long term leases. Twenty-five years later the fair market rentals of such spaces have multiplied, but there is nothing the co-op boards, however well intentioned, can do to break these iron clad agreements. Logically the retail space should be a big money maker, but the co-ops cannot reap the benefits. Although not perceived as fair, they're basically stuck.

Don't get me wrong- I agree that Marriott should pay its fair share. I'm just pointing out that they may have such a sweetheart deal and it may be something owners just have to swallow. Hopefully it not through that avenue there are other cost cutting measures that can be implemented.

 

[SueDonJ]

... I dont understand why folks are opposed to having a board that will share information with the owners. Some posters have indicated that other timeshares are doing this. I'm not sure why that is important and why that's okay...

If by "this" you mean that other timeshares have also changed their practice from releasing individual BOD members' email addresses to a single non-specific address, it's important because it might prove that it is not a single malicious procedure being implemented at only your resort in retaliation for some perceived wrong.

I don't understand how it translates to a BOD not sharing information with owners, though, because the communication is simplified, not stymied, and that's what makes it more than okay. Efficiency is a good thing.

Of course if by "this" you mean something totally different, nevermind.