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

[ecwinch]

Why is it you can get away with swearing and insulting folks on this site? Why is it you can ask any question you see fit and take issue when anyone else asks a simple question? Why is it that you expect people that post to this site to remember every comment made in previous pages?

I apologize if I offended you with my strong use of a word that is commonly heard on network television.

I am just extremely tired of this question being asked of everyone who voices an opinion that does not support the cause. The question keeps getting asked, and answered, and then we point out how it does not matter. But you keep asking that question as if it does matter. If it really helps you in some fashion, then might I suggest that you PM the individual and ask it.

Sometimes, I feel like I am in that Groundhog Day movie with Bill Murray.

 

[AwayWeGo]

At Least It's An All-Time Great Movie.

Sometimes, I feel like I am in that Groundhog Day movie with Bill Murray.

That's 1 of my favorite movies. Truly great.

Your point about the repeated question (mox nix whether it's relevant or irrelevant) reminds me of 1 of my late father's observations about life -- It's Not One Thing Right After Another, It's The Same Blasted Thing Over & Over Again.

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

 

[ecwinch]

No one has to address anything here...that is my point . Perhaps you didnt read my post...I didnt say there was any hidden info...matter of fact I said Marriott was well aware of the issues . So are the owners who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity. My point was that neither Mark nor anyone else needs to provide nor justify info to anyone who has no interest in the OC. What info he does provide is up to him and the others involved in organizing the efforts.
As an fyi.. I have had a great deal of litigation experience, and am well aware of evidentiary rules ...I suspect a great deal more than most here

Given your litigation experience, when you have a petition before a decision making body, what would you expect to happen if information was offered that endorsement of the petition was solicited under false pretenses?

I do not think anyone is saying that Mark is obligated to post any information here. Just that in making his request for support on this board, he has failed to articulate his plan for addressing the problems. It certainly would be helpful.

For instance, I think if he had fully disclosed that he was just gathering owner names, someone might have suggested that a higher standard might need to be met.

Of course that would probably have been viewed by some as just criticizing the crusade.

And I have elevated this to crusade status now. I used to think it was just a "cause".

 

[Dean]

As much as I've vowed to stay off this board because quite frankly I personally find it silly to debate with someone who has no personal interest in the Ocean Club(yes ive heard the arguement that this affects all Marriott owners but quite frankly I think that many have nothing better to do)I find some comments so outrageous I just cant help myself. It isn't a matter of cloak and dagger, rather it is because of legal reasons that many things cannot be dealt with on a public forum , moreover, if you read back in this diatribe you'll find that Mark, many moons ago was criticized for tipping his hand too much on this very board. Marriott is well aware of the issues at hand, no one has to justify why the many owners feel as they do to anyone on this board. If it wasnt for the fact that this board is a good way to keep the issue out there Im sure that no owner would even bother wasting their time providing any info here. The information that many of the owners are privy to, is available to all owners. I can personally say that I am aware of a number of owners who once they had an opportunity to be , shall we say , enlightened, feel pretty strongly about the need for a vote, that is certainly the situation we found ourselves in. Matter of fact...Im not aware of any owner who once they have spoken to those who have info, came away with any confidence in the way the board is operating.
As an aside we've paid our assesment, we're not worried about our assesment, we are however worried about the manner in which our current board is operating.

I think all Marriott owners, those that belong to II as a minimum, have a vested interest in all of the Marriott resorts, particularly the better ones. However, that interest is somewhat different for those that own elsewhere than it for the owners. Aside from measuring Marriott as a management company (different company technically than the developer), the more top Marriott resorts the better so I can possibly trade in to them. No one is forcing anyone else to respond, or not to. I am personally offended at the implication that I shouldn't post on this thread or this topic because I am not an owner there.

As an fyi.. I have had a great deal of litigation experience, and am well aware of evidentiary rules ...I suspect a great deal more than most here

Which I believe means very little unless that experience is in the area of timeshare or Condo law or the Aruban courts as a minimum. I have posted a number of times over the years that an experienced timeshare person is far more knowledgeable on timeshare law than is a non timeshare experienced attorney. In addition I've experienced quite an awakening over the years as to how Aruba is quite the good ole boy network when it comes to such matters.

 

[Luckybee]

Dean...I only mentioned it because of the question posed to me which was whether I "had any experience with litigation"...dont wish to get into "my father is bigger than yours" if you understand my meaning

 

[SueDonJ]

No one has to address anything here...that is my point . Perhaps you didnt read my post...I didnt say there was any hidden info...matter of fact I said Marriott was well aware of the issues . So are the owners who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity. My point was that neither Mark nor anyone else needs to provide nor justify info to anyone who has no interest in the OC. What info he does provide is up to him and the others involved in organizing the efforts.
As an fyi.. I have had a great deal of litigation experience, and am well aware of evidentiary rules ...I suspect a great deal more than most here

You're right, no one is required to post anything here. But some folks have obviously chosen to do so, you included, and anyone's posts are up for discussion. That's the nature of a message board - would you have us change the message board nature to suit you?

As far as your contention that Marriott is aware of all of the information that your group is holding, I think that you might want to check with everyone else in the group to verify that. There have been posts here alluding to information being held back from Marriott - where do you think your critics got the idea that such a thing was happening? Not only that, members of your group have used Private Messages here to contradict your words. I got one just the other day and among other things, the writer states, "... when folks ask us to respond to things we cannot because we really dont want to give Marriott everything. They read this post ..." and "... We cant post [those] here because they give up too much."

There have been other posts here in which the lack of communication among the members of your group is apparent - one person posted about an email she'd received in which another owner stated that she thought Mark's efforts were going to result in lower fees, and another posted about meeting someone at the resort who was shocked to learn that the list they added their names to might be used to recall the board. Your non-Ocean Club owner critics are not making this stuff up - those two posts were made by owners. After all of the contradictions that we see right here in this thread, is it really any wonder that any individual statement made by an owner in support of this crusade, can be considered suspect?

Finally, perhaps you might want to offer the benefit of your extensive legal knowledge to Marksue (or maybe you should have before this, in order to prevent that petition/list of names debacle.) He is having apparent difficulties with the simplest of legal procedures.

 

[SueDonJ]

Great point. Those who somehow think Marriott (or Disney, Hilton, et al) are benevolent grandfather types looking out for their beloved grandchild owners are sadly mistaken. They couldn't care less about the buyers - they are in it as a money making corporation period.

They have guidelines - 15% return on whatever they put in. 15% profit on contractors, and more. They build it to a certain look, put their name outside and then sit back to rake in the management fees PLUS healthy profit. As long as the Associations go along and pay the going rate the name stays and the management stays. The minute a Board or resort starts to question the fees, wonders why only specific contractors can be used, why items have to be purchased from XX source only then the pressure starts. It's our way or the highway and they will walk away if things get challenged. They have no loyalty to a location/resort, no grand plans to protect owners or prop up resale prices. They simply want a way to make the preset profit with as little effort as possible through automatically inflated fees and overhead. If they don't get it say goodbye.

The buyers into those types of branded properties have to realize they are paying homage at every turn to keep the corporate beast around and happy. If they don't want to the beast will lumber down the road and start all new again. The owners are not the focus only the bottom line. Associations either kowtow or move to another management. End of story.

I agree with this. I think it can be said, though, that it's not only the Marriott brand name on or the quality standard of the resorts that distinguish a Marriott property. Marriott has built a reputation in the hospitality industry that has earned the company a high customer service rating, and I think it matters to the company to continue to receive those high ratings. Of course probably the most important reason is the bottom line profit margin, no doubt, but it's not the only reason.

That said, I expect a high level of customer service from the front-line employees who staff the resorts because that's their job. Not so much from the executives - their job is to walk the tightrope between the financial details and the contractual obligations.

 

[SueDonJ]

I agree that the developer has a profit motive. And I agree with your other points regarding very strict operational standards, even a bit of highhandedness in their approach to certain issues. But I believe it is a bit harsh to say that "they couldn't care less about the buyers". Great companies care very much about their customers. The customer is their source of existence.

I can't speak for others, but the Marriott reputation and brand is why I own MVCI (and Disney for that matter). I'm a platinum rewards member because I am a regular fixture in their hotels and resorts. Why? I get consistently good service and product at a reasonable price. I prefer them over Hilton, Starwood and the others because they set higher standards and strictly enforce them.

Ah, see, I should have read a little further. Nice post.

 

[SueDonJ]

Given your litigation experience, when you have a petition before a decision making body, what would you expect to happen if information was offered that endorsement of the petition was solicited under false pretenses?

I do not think anyone is saying that Mark is obligated to post any information here. Just that in making his request for support on this board, he has failed to articulate his plan for addressing the problems. It certainly would be helpful.

For instance, I think if he had fully disclosed that he was just gathering owner names, someone might have suggested that a higher standard might need to be met.

Of course that would probably have been viewed by some as just criticizing the crusade.

And I have elevated this to crusade status now. I used to think it was just a "cause".

And again, I should have read further. You people are quick!

 

[SueDonJ]

Dean...I only mentioned it because of the question posed to me which was whether I "had any experience with litigation"...dont wish to get into "my father is bigger than yours" if you understand my meaning

So your "...I suspect a great deal more than most here" was posted for what reason, exactly?

 

[ecwinch]

Susan,

Are you trying to beat me to 1000 posts? Do I need to hit you with the multi-quote button?

 

[SueDonJ]

Susan,

Are you trying to beat me to 1000 posts? Do I need to hit you with the multi-quote button?

Dang, my plan is foiled.

Hey, wait, there's a multi-quote trick to upping the post counts? I never considered that strategy. Hmmmmm.

 

[Dean]

Dean...I only mentioned it because of the question posed to me which was whether I "had any experience with litigation"...dont wish to get into "my father is bigger than yours" if you understand my meaning

I understood exactly what you did and what you were responding to. However, you were insinuating you knew more than they did in this area and more than you'd let on previously which may or may not be the case in this instance. My statements were to point out that being an attorney doesn't automatically mean much and in this situation, MOST attorneys really don't have a clue when it comes to timeshares and Aruban Law. I'm not saying I do especially either but I've learned it's different in Aruba and different with timeshares where you have a significant body of legal paperwork that the owner signed they accepted.

That being said, my first statement was more the meat of my post. Suggesting that one should not post unless they own at the OC or they agree with you and a few others (implied but not stated) I find insulting in this context.

 

[Luckybee]

I understood exactly what you did and what you were responding to. However, you were insinuating you knew more than they did in this area and more than you'd let on previously which may or may not be the case in this instance. My statements were to point out that being an attorney doesn't automatically mean much and in this situation, MOST attorneys really don't have a clue when it comes to timeshares and Aruban Law. I'm not saying I do especially either but I've learned it's different in Aruba and different with timeshares where you have a significant body of legal paperwork that the owner signed they accepted.

That being said, my first statement was more the meat of my post. Suggesting that one should not post unless they own at the OC or they agree with you and a few others (implied but not stated) I find insulting in this context.

Didnt say you shouldnt post, rather I simply indicated that it makes no sense to me why those who have no personal interest are involved...and btw it isnt a "few" others...may be on this board but by far isnt a few

 

[Dean]

Didnt say you shouldnt post, rather I simply indicated that it makes no sense to me why those who have no personal interest are involved...and btw it isnt a "few" others...may be on this board but by far isnt a few

I was referring to those on this thread, I don't know how many others are or are not involved and if I did, I wouldn't know how many truly feel the same way as those who have posted unless they posted themselves. True you didn't say no one could post but you certainly implied they shouldn't or it was somehow inappropriate or in your words "silly". No real difference in how I look at it. In my estimation some of those non owners have added as much or more to this thread in terms of substance of the discussion than have owners and some of that substance should be helpful to those interested in pushing forward. In the long run this thread is a "tale ... full of sound and furry, signifying nothing". I left out the "told by an idiot" part because it's not applicable. Ultimately this is going to blow over or go to court, those are the only 2 legitimate outcomes I can see. I don't see one being able to substantiate most of the names that have been collected based on what's been posted on this thread. It should cont to be interesting for a while.

 

[Eric]

Didnt say you shouldnt post, rather I simply indicated that it makes no sense to me why those who have no personal interest are involved...and btw it isnt a "few" others...may be on this board but by far isnt a few

yeah, I agree. That freedom of speech thing on the internet is way to liberal. I think if you don't own at a resort, you should have no opinion about that resort. yeah, that sounds right.

 

[lovearuba]

I apologize if I offended you with my strong use of a word that is commonly heard on network television.

I am just extremely tired of this question being asked of everyone who voices an opinion that does not support the cause. The question keeps getting asked, and answered, and then we point out how it does not matter. But you keep asking that question as if it does matter. If it really helps you in some fashion, then might I suggest that you PM the individual and ask it.

ECWINCH, I ask the question and will continue to ask the question if the persons profile name appears new to me. I dont think I've asked the same person more than one time. I know you don't own at the ocean club and now I know that Dean doesnt either. I am not sending them private messages because those are truly not private as you know. You yourself have offered to share yours on a a previous post. I believe that if you own at the ocean club your view is likely to be different from someone who does not. That's it. I'm not suggesting that others don't post. I was curious as why they took so much interest in it and that question has been answered. As I've said before, I am glad that folks continue to post here. It keeps the thread alive, its an important topic and the way it ends is also important. Lately, when I post I think to myself before I hit the submit button, am I offending anyone? I cant always know that for sure because there are so many different people in this world that can and will take offense to anything that is posted. And since I am quoted so often, I can see offense is often taken. There are also people that just want to respond to any and all posts. So before I submit this response I want anyone reading it to know, I am not trying to offend anyone just working for a cause I truly believe in. If you are offended I apologize in advance so dont swear at me when you read this. Please don't tell me to stop asking questions because that is offensive, as you know we do have freedom of speech. It really doesnt matter whether people agree with each other. What's important is that we are keeping this thread alive.

 

[tlwmkw]

Lovearuba,

You say you believe in this cause- what do you believe will be accomplished as a result of a recall of the BOD? This has been asked by many others, as well as myself, and neither you nor Marksue have really told us how you will change things. The transparency issue seems to be resolving (if not yet fully resolved), the roof will be almost half paid for by Marriott, the only thing left will be reducing the maintenance fees and special assessments- is that your goal? From the explanation given by Marriott it may be difficult to reduce the fees.

I think everyone who has offered advice on this topic feels that you won't get anywhere unless you know where you are going and what you wish to accomplish in getting there. So far the only goal has been to unseat the BOD with no real goal beyond that- that may give you some satisfaction because you will feel that someone has paid for what was done to you (even though it is a volunteer who probably didn't cause this situation since it is the result of many years of planning) but it won't really do anything to solve the issues that you are upset about.

Marksue and Luckybee claim to have information that will prove that Marriott/MVCI/the BOD has been up to no good, and that for legal reasons they cannot reveal this information- why is that? Wouldn't it be better to use this information to get Marriott/MVCI/BOD to give you whatever it is that you want rather than keeping it secret? As I said before this isn't a poker game- Luckybee says she has more experience in legal issues than most people on this bulletin board- if so she must know that there is no benefit to waiting for a lawsuit and trying to surprise MVCI with the mystery information- use it now and get what you want without getting expensive lawyers involved.

You seem to dodge these questions whenever anyone brings them up and then simply ask whether the poster is an owner or not. You say that they cannot understand how it feels to get a large bill from a resort unless they own there. This negates the value of the comments and that is why people get offended when you ask that. More to the point- why not address the issues and answer the difficult questions?

We're all trying to help you and understand the situation and are giving advice and suggestions in a spirit of help-

tlwlmkw

 

[SueDonJ]

... And since I am quoted so often, I can see offense is often taken.

lovearuba, the one and only thing that you've posted that "offended" me, I questioned immediately. All of the rest of your posts, even the ones which ask if someone owns at the Ocean Club, prove that you believe in your cause and want the issues to be resolved with the best possible outcome for owners - an MVCI resort which is maintained and managed jointly with the owners to an expected quality standard. The reason I quote you so often isn't because your words offend, it's because your posts leave me with more questions than answers.

... Please don't tell me to stop asking questions because that is offensive, as you know we do have freedom of speech. It really doesnt matter whether people agree with each other.

Couldn't these words be posted by anyone in this discussion, with the same meaning applied by folks on either side of the issues? All of the questions are valid, it seems to me, and anyone can choose whether or not and how they want to answer. It just seems to me that if this is truly a discussion of the issues, rather than a sounding board for owner-only grievances, there's no point in leaving unanswered questions.

Of course, if what you want is simply to have your vague unexplained owner grievances at the top of the list on this discussion board, then you should specifically state that. Because if that's the case I think you'll lose your critics' contributions. As has been said many times over, that's not our purpose for adding to this thread.

 

[SueDonJ]

... I believe that if you own at the ocean club your view is likely to be different from someone who does not. ...

Several Aruba Ocean Club owners have posted to this thread that they do not agree with the opinions and actions of your group. Do you consider their opinions any more or less relevant than those of your non-owner critics?

 

[lovearuba]

Several Aruba Ocean Club owners have posted to this thread that they do not agree with the opinions and actions of your group. Do you consider their opinions any more or less relevant than those of your non-owner critics?

I consider the opinion of ocean club owners regardless of their position with a little more weight than non-owners. This applies to this thread.

 

[ecwinch]

As I said before this isn't a poker game- Luckybee says she has more experience in legal issues than most people on this bulletin board- if so she must know that there is no benefit to waiting for a lawsuit and trying to surprise MVCI with the mystery information- use it now and get what you want without getting expensive lawyers involved.

Oh come on. I see this happen all the time on TV. All those shows - Law and Order, Perry Mason, L.A. Law, et al.

What universe do you live in? Do you even watch TV? Do you OWN a TV?

I am worried that next you are going to tell me something bad about Santa Claus.

 

[lovearuba]

lovearuba, the one and only thing that you've posted that "offended" me, I questioned immediately. All of the rest of your posts, even the ones which ask if someone owns at the Ocean Club, prove that you believe in your cause and want the issues to be resolved with the best possible outcome for owners - an MVCI resort which is maintained and managed jointly with the owners to an expected quality standard. The reason I quote you so often isn't because your words offend, it's because your posts leave me with more questions than answers.



Couldn't these words be posted by anyone in this discussion, with the same meaning applied by folks on either side of the issues? All of the questions are valid, it seems to me, and anyone can choose whether or not and how they want to answer. It just seems to me that if this is truly a discussion of the issues, rather than a sounding board for owner-only grievances, there's no point in leaving unanswered questions.

Of course, if what you want is simply to have your vague unexplained owner grievances at the top of the list on this discussion board, then you should specifically state that. Because if that's the case I think you'll lose your critics' contributions. As has been said many times over, that's not our purpose for adding to this thread.

Sue, the issues have been written to Marriott, nothing about them was vague, they were very specific. I am not going to repost any of the issues or repost letters written to Marriott nor go back through their responses which you have already stated you feel are adequate. . I am signing off for the day but am sure you will find time to leave additional posts. I'm not on trial here and I'm not going to continue to respond to non-owner criticism. For the owners of the ocean club, feel free to do what you feel is in your best interest.

 

[ecwinch]

I consider the opinion of ocean club owners regardless of their position with a little more weight than non-owners. This applies to this thread.

Because our opinions are objective, and based on the facts of the issue and are not colored by the emotion you felt when you got the bill.

I respect your right to have that opinion. If you want to discount mine accordingly that is your right also.

Likewise, I think you can see a pattern emerging whenever that question is asked of someone. Just as is the mood of the crowd.

Your fear of asking that message in private does not make sense to me, but that is your right also. I think you might be reading too much into the word "Private" in Private Message.

 

[Luckybee]

Because our opinions are objective, and based on the facts of the issue and are not colored by the emotion you felt when you got the bill.

I continue to be amazed by the fact that there are those non owners here on this board who think this is just "about the bill". For me the bill has little to do with it ! Now back to real life...lol