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

[timeos2]

Why have a third party control your common areas? Because the developer wants it!

So the net on the mystery of the "B" votes, is that Marriott retains ownership of certain common areas (like the Champions sports bar, etc.). So the "B" votes are based on ownership of those areas, and not that they lease them (as was originally reported and did not make sense).

Does anyone else read this differently?

This type of arrangement - ownership of common areas by the developer - can occur if it was originally set up that way. It is not a plus for the owners as that means the rights to use those areas do not belong to them - they are not transferred - and thus Marriott holds absolute control over them and can rent them out, sell the rights, etc with no control from the owners Association. A big negative. At some resorts - Bluetree in Orlando comes to mind - a "hostile" takeover of those common areas has actually meant the Association was thrown out of the check in desk and had to build their own new building on the property. It was (and continues to be) a big mess and a great reason to avoid ownership at that resort.

Naturally I prefer a true ownership of the resort by and for the individual owners. To me that should include all common areas. While there is most likely an easement or other usage right granted for some period of time to the developer to allow them to recover their investment through sales activities (which after all is why they build the place to begin with!) there should be an end date spelled out or negotiated at which point ownership and control moves to the Association. Once that happens they can collect rent or use the space for common good - but most importantly the Association has control. When the developer owns it there is an artificial and unnecessary permanent tie to a third party that hangs over the resort operation. As others have noted the potential income from those areas could help keep fees lower but, since the Association doesn't own or control it, instead any income (and to be fair potential losses) goes only to the developer or whoever they assign the use rights to. Not good for the unit owners.

The other problems it creates should be obvious as well. How do things like utility costs and cleaning get apportioned between the developer and the Association? Who pays for improvements and who approves them? How is it operated, what staff? It is a black hole and the answers can create riffs or worse for even the best run organizations. It is too bad that appears to be the setup that was put in place here. It is likely to be a thorn in the Associations side forever more.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Once Original Sales Are Complete, The Timeshare Company Should Bow Out.

How do things like utility costs and cleaning get apportioned between the developer and the Association?

Separate utility meters ?

Separate cleaning & maintenance contracts ?

I agree with the idea of the owners & not the timeshare company having complete control -- just 1 more reason I have such pride of ownership in my outstanding association-owned & owner-controlled Orlando timeshares.

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

 

[SueDonJ]

I like shared control between the owners, the development company and the management company. Specifically, I like what is offered at an MVCI property both as a purchaser and as a user. By purchasing any of their properties you can expect a certain quality standard as well as inclusion into an exchange pool that offers similar-standards resorts. In addition, when things go wrong (such as with the roof repairs at AOC that were not covered by warranty,) there is the possibility that Marriott as the parent company can step in with some financial relief.

The good thing is that there is enough general information out there so that each individual buyer can research how the big companies to the smallest resorts run their properties, which means that an educated buyer has the opportunity to recognize what s/he's buying before the purchase. And, there is enough variety for all of us to find what we want.

 

[timeos2]

Thr rights are absolute so its a problem

I like shared control between the owners, the development company and the management company. Specifically, I like what is offered at an MVCI property both as a purchaser and as a user. By purchasing any of their properties you can expect a certain quality standard as well as inclusion into an exchange pool that offers similar-standards resorts. In addition, when things go wrong (such as with the roof repairs at AOC that were not covered by warranty,) there is the possibility that Marriott as the parent company can step in with some financial relief.

But too many cooks can ruin the meal. There is nothing to say that everything you want can't be negotiated with the third party and in fact, since that group is usually the developer, it is. But having neither side have the final say leaves both in what can be a tough spot. One cannot control the other and may have mutually conflicting goals. The third party isn't likely to pay more than whatever THEY consider to be the fair share of any costs - and since there is no "club" to force them (they can be there no matter what as they OWN it!) the stage is set for exactly what we are witnessing. Threats, innuendo's, accusations of improprieties, self interest, etc etc. It isn't a good situation for either side but really works against the individual owners rather than the group that has rights they otherwise wouldn't hold.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Isn't That What This Whole Fuss Is All About ?

Marriott as the parent company can step in with some financial relief.

How's that working out for ya ?

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

 

[modoaruba]

So are the new chandeliers going up in the Marriott owned common areas or in the owner's area since we are paying for them?

 

[timeos2]

You pay but have no say. Why do developers do that?

So are the new chandeliers going up in the Marriott owned common areas or in the owner's area since we are paying for them?

See? Who pays for what? Improvements benefit who? Who has the final say? It is a nightmare scenario to have "two Chiefs" and no one have final say. Nothing like being on the hook for costs but no say in what they are (and I know that from experience at a resort. It's not a good spot to be in).

 

[modoaruba]

Not to sound redundant,but isn't this what I have been saying all along?
We pay the upkeep and at the end of the day Marriott retains ownership of a beautifully newly restored facility at our expense many times over.

 

[SueDonJ]

But too many cooks can ruin the meal. There is nothing to say that everything you want can't be negotiated with the third party and in fact, since that group is usually the developer, it is. But having neither side have the final say leaves both in what can be a tough spot. One cannot control the other and may have mutually conflicting goals. The third party isn't likely to pay more than whatever THEY consider to be the fair share of any costs - and since there is no "club" to force them (they can be there no matter what as they OWN it!) the stage is set for exactly what we are witnessing. Threats, innuendo's, accusations of improprieties, self interest, etc etc. It isn't a good situation for either side but really works against the individual owners rather than the group that has rights they otherwise wouldn't hold.

I'm not sure I understand how what's happening at Aruba Ocean Club is working against the majority ownership, though. Sure, this group here is not getting what they want from Marriott/MVCI, but if I were an owner there I wouldn't want this minority group to be successful in their demands. They are asking for things that do not appear to be supported by the contracts, and the contracts were what they stipulated to when they purchased. I would guess that the majority of the ownership wants their resort to be maintained as exactly it was purchased - and that's an MVCI-standard resort.

It appears at Aruba Ocean Club that for years the m/f collections were insufficient to maintain the resort to that expected standard, and this dispute began because finally steps have been take to increase the coffers. Yes, there are other issues that have been brought into the dispute since its inception, but do any of us think that it would have come this far if the m/f increases and special assessments had not been levied? I don't think so.

But beyond Aruba Ocean Club, opening the discussion to which timeshare model is the best, it's a personal preference. In an MVCI model it's understood that the majority owners do have a measure of control which will be balanced by the Management Company if the owners share the developer's goals, and which will be offset in the developer's favor if the owners disagree with Management Company actions. I purchased the MVCI model specifically because I want my home resort to maintain the standard which was purchased, and I want the ability to exchange into resorts which fit that same standard.

What's right for me certainly isn't what's right for everyone, but each of us needs to understand exactly what we've purchased.

 

[SueDonJ]

See? Who pays for what? Improvements benefit who? Who has the final say? It is a nightmare scenario to have "two Chiefs" and no one have final say. Nothing like being on the hook for costs but no say in what they are (and I know that from experience at a resort. It's not a good spot to be in).

Not to sound redundant,but isn't this what I have been saying all along?
We pay the upkeep and at the end of the day Marriott retains ownership of a beautifully newly restored facility at our expense many times over.

I guess that's what I expect of an MVCI property so I don't have a problem with owners paying for improvements, as long as the BOD takes the proper legal actions to support such things. Without evidence of illegalities, it can be said that the BOD is working in the owners' best interests, which is what they are supposed to do.

And again, in this particular case, I'm just not seeing that the Aruba Ocean Club BOD or Marriott/MVCI has acted illegally. The timing of the special assessment on top of the huge m/f increases is unfortunate, sure, but a review of the past m/f history supports the need for both. Maybe the special assessment could have been held off for a year or two to lessen the sting on owners' pocketbooks, but in the end it would have to be paid anyway to maintain the property standard.

 

[modoaruba]

But it's gotten to the point where you can rent at the AOC cheaper than the MFs.
You can now enjoy a soon to be remodeled,refurbished,new roof an windows,etc. Marriott facility without the ownership and fees.
You don't have to buy the cow for the glass of milk.

 

[modoaruba]

Sue,
Incase you have never been there
why don't you treat yourself to our resort.
I think I saw a week in November for $750.
Just thank us owners for the nice flat screens for your enjoyment.
(Frankly I would have spent the money on my personal flat screen for the other 51 weeks at home).

 

[SueDonJ]

But it's gotten to the point where you can rent at the AOC cheaper than the MFs.
You can now enjoy a soon to be remodeled,refurbished,new roof an windows,etc. Marriott facility without the ownership and fees.
You don't have to buy the cow for the glass of milk.

I think the risk of someday being able to rent for less than ownership costs is a risk inherent in every timeshare unit. The value in purchasing, to me, lies in being guaranteed that the type of unit you want to use will be available at some point during the season which you purchased. Renting doesn't offer that guarantee.

 

[SueDonJ]

Sue,
Incase you have never been there
why don't you treat yourself to our resort.
I think I saw a week in November for $750.
Just thank us owners for the nice flat screens for your enjoyment.
(Frankly I would have spent the money on my personal flat screen for the other 51 weeks at home).

Actually, your resort may someday be on our exchange list, and I'd be disappointed to get there and find that it's not been maintained to the brand standard. Is that really what you would want, for your resort to fall into disrepair because timely refurbishment is sacrificed for the dollar?

 

[modoaruba]

All 1BR and 2BR units are the same except for location.
Anytime we go to the AOC we are NOT guaranteed anything except for the type of unit.Owners end up fighting with the desk staff everytime for a desired unit. NO GUARANTEES!except a unit.

 

[modoaruba]

Actually, your resort may someday be on our exchange list, and I'd be disappointed to get there and find that it's not been maintained to the brand standard. Is that really what you would want, for your resort to fall into disrepair because timely refurbishment is sacrificed for the dollar?

There is a difference between timely refurbishment at the expense of the owners and excessiveness.
When it comes to Marriott calling the shots as to how and how much with disregard to the owners who will be shelling most of the cost is outrageous.
A BOD that has the interest of the owners in mind can evaluate what has to be done at the most reasonable expense.
I for one go to Aruba to enjoy the outdoors and the people.
I do not turn on a TV. I am only speaking for myself.
Marriott can make the AOC look like the Ritz for all I care,it would be nice,but don't give me the bill.
If you were to go there now you would not be disappointed.It's very nice and has a nice curb appeal.
I just think that the owners are being used to make everything look nice at owner's expense for Marriott,thereby forcing many owners to sell or rent.
As long as these selling or renting owners still own,they still must pay.
And again,at the end of the day Marriott still has a beautiful resort.

 

[SueDonJ]

There is a difference between timely refurbishment at the expense of the owners and excessiveness.
When it comes to Marriott calling the shots as to how and how much with disregard to the owners who will be shelling most of the cost is outrageous.
A BOD that has the interest of the owners in mind can evaluate what has to be done at the most reasonable expense.
I for one go to Aruba to enjoy the outdoors and the people.
I do not turn on a TV. I am only speaking for myself.
Marriott can make the AOC look like the Ritz for all I care,it would be nice,but don't give me the bill.
If you were to go there now you would not be disappointed.It's very nice and has a nice curb appeal.
I just think that the owners are being used to make everything look nice at owner's expense for Marriott,thereby forcing many owners to sell or rent.
As long as these selling or renting owners still own,they still must pay.
And again,at the end of the day Marriott still has a beautiful resort.

I think we want different things from our resorts. It's not that one or the other of us is correct in what we want, but only that we have different expectations of what Marriott's/MVCI's obligations are.

For example, Barony Beach is a very nice resort, certainly it makes for a very nice vacation, but it's a bit outdated and not up to the brand standard of newer MVCI resorts. I notice it especially when I compare it to the other resort we own, SurfWatch - the older TV's and non-granite countertops in the bathrooms really stand out. But I was happy to see that while we were there a few weeks ago, they were bringing in the new flat-screen TV's. I hope some of the older furniture pieces are next on the list.

I think a long time ago somewhere in the pages of this thread I mentioned that the latest GM's letter from Barony Beach made me think that a special assessment for refurbishment may be in the near future. If it's necessary to fund the things outlined in that letter, then I'm okay with it. (But I think their reserves and m/f's have accumulated at a greater rate than AOC's so it won't hit my pocketbook as hard as yours did.)

So, what's reasonable to you may not be what's reasonable to someone else. And above all else, the "brand standard" requirement in the documents will trump any individual owners' opinions about what's necessary to maintain the resort.

 

[SueDonJ]

All 1BR and 2BR units are the same except for location.
Anytime we go to the AOC we are NOT guaranteed anything except for the type of unit.Owners end up fighting with the desk staff everytime for a desired unit. NO GUARANTEES!except a unit.

I know every resort isn't the same, but Aruba Ocean Club doesn't have different seasons or view types? I don't know of any resort that honors requests for a specific-numbered unit, but owners always get what they purchased with regard to #BR, view and season.

 

[modoaruba]

I know every resort isn't the same, but Aruba Ocean Club doesn't have different seasons or view types? I don't know of any resort that honors requests for a specific-numbered unit, but owners always get what they purchased with regard to #BR, view and season.

That's true. You are guaranteed a unit and view.
What I was comparing it to is that if you rented you get the same guarantee.

 

[lovearuba]

Every resort is not the same

I know every resort isn't the same, but Aruba Ocean Club doesn't have different seasons or view types? I don't know of any resort that honors requests for a specific-numbered unit, but owners always get what they purchased with regard to #BR, view and season.

what are your maintenance fees?

 

[SueDonJ]

what are your maintenance fees?

Are you an owner there? I can send you a copy of the bills if you are.



HAHAHAHAhahaha....sorry, I couldn't resist the opportunity.

At SurfWatch it's $1,108.78 for a 3BR unit and at Barony it's $910.00 for a 2BR unit. But aren't these numbers meaningless to you without the context of geographical placement of the resorts, operating fees, historical data, reserve collections and anticipated needs, etc..? Without all of that relevant information you can certainly come back at me and say, "See! You have no idea what's going on at Aruba Ocean Club because you don't have the same bills we do!" But with all of the information, you could come to the same realization that I have about your resort - that fees are dependent upon the resort's specifications and it is imperative for the BOD to set realistic annual fees if the resort is to be maintained to the brand standard.

 

[modoaruba]

Are you an owner there? I can send you a copy of the bills if you are.



HAHAHAHAhahaha....sorry, I couldn't resist the opportunity.

At SurfWatch it's $1,108.78 for a 3BR unit and at Barony it's $910.00 for a 2BR unit. But aren't these numbers meaningless to you without the context of geographical placement of the resorts, operating fees, historical data, reserve collections and anticipated needs, etc..? Without all of that relevant information you can certainly come back at me and say, "See! You have no idea what's going on at Aruba Ocean Club because you don't have the same bills we do!" But with all of the information, you could come to the same realization that I have about your resort - that fees are dependent upon the resort's specifications and it is imperative for the BOD to set realistic annual fees if the resort is to be maintained to the brand standard.

You would be a great timeshare salesperson.
Sure you not a Marriott mole?
Let's say I am a potential buyer for the AOC.
Convince me to buy at today's current price through Marriott and convince me that the MFs are well worth it.
I'll let you know right off the bat that I am aware of rental options and buying options through other channels.

 

[SueDonJ]

You would be a great timeshare salesperson.
Sure you not a Marriott mole?
Let's say I am a potential buyer for the AOC.
Convince me to buy at today's current price through Marriott and convince me that the MFs are well worth it.
I'll let you know right off the bat that I am aware of rental options and buying options through other channels.

Hmmmm. I think you may have just given me the ultimate insult. A timeshare salesman? Aren't they considered to be the lowest of the low weasels on this message board? Hmmmmmph.

And no, I'm not a Marriott mole, although I can play one on here if they offer me the right incentives...

But honestly, and seriously, I wouldn't ever try to convince anybody to buy a timeshare, not at any resort! Even in the best economic circumstances it's a personal decision/lifestyle choice rather than a financial investment opportunity. But especially in this economic climate, I think anybody is taking too great a risk by purchasing any "luxury" item no matter which way they purchase. These days the best sale price isn't worth risking when the current climate dictates that we should all be doing our best to put any discretionary income into the most secure savings plans we can find.

So, I think that only the folks who have money to burn should be buying timeshares right now. And those folks? The timeshare model doesn't appear to be the way they vacation.

 

[modoaruba]

Hmmmm. I think you may have just given me the ultimate insult. A timeshare salesman? Aren't they considered to be the lowest of the low weasels on this message board? Hmmmmmph.

And no, I'm not a Marriott mole, although I can play one on here if they offer me the right incentives...

But honestly, and seriously, I wouldn't ever try to convince anybody to buy a timeshare, not at any resort! Even in the best economic circumstances it's a personal decision/lifestyle choice rather than a financial investment opportunity. But especially in this economic climate, I think anybody is taking too great a risk by purchasing any "luxury" item no matter which way they purchase. These days the best sale price isn't worth risking when the current climate dictates that we should all be doing our best to put any discretionary income into the most secure savings plans we can find.




So, I think that only the folks who have money to burn should be buying timeshares right now. And those folks? The timeshare model doesn't appear to be the way they vacation.

Great answer.
Didn't mean to insult you but you have been driving a hard line on us AOC owners as to why we should listen to Marriott and pay the MFs unconditionaly.
But what you have just stated as to why I should NOT buy at this time IS the reason that many owners are overwhelmed with the increase in fees.
A more conservative approach to refurbishment would have been more in line.
Let's take care of what NEEDS to be done and when things get better go for the Bling.

 

[SueDonJ]

Great answer.
Didn't mean to insult you but you have been driving a hard line on us AOC owners as to why we should listen to Marriott and pay the MFs unconditionaly.
But what you have just stated as to why I should NOT buy at this time IS the reason that many owners are overwhelmed with the increase in fees.
A more conservative approach to refurbishment would have been more in line.
Let's take care of what NEEDS to be done and when things get better go for the Bling.

But I haven't said at all throughout this discussion that Marriott's/MVCI's/the BOD's positions should be accepted unconditionally. Or at least, my understanding of the reasons for their positions shouldn't be translated to an unconditional acceptance of their actions.

Anyway, I agree and said above that possibly the special assessment/refurbishment could have been held off for a year or two in deference to the owners being hit with the m/f spike. I can speculate that it didn't happen because Marriott/MVCI wanted to make sure the refurbishment would happen and now is the time it has to, while the sitting BOD is in favor of it, but that speculation is only my opinion. The fact is, you owners were hit with unprecedented fee hikes and it's understandable that you're angry. Acknowledging that, though, doesn't alleviate the damage that's been done by way of insufficient collections at your resort.