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

[Luckybee]

Im buying the popcorn

 

[Eric]

[From the TUG Posting rules:]

Be Courteous
As we read and respond to others, disagreements are inevitable. Differing points of view are welcomed, and indeed the bbs would be a dull place without them. All users are expected and required to express their disagreements civilly. Refrain from name calling and behavior lectures. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and repeated offenses could get you banned from the bbs. Lively discussion is what the board is all about, but that is no excuse for boorish behavior or bad manners. We are assumed to all be adults. If you don't like a particular thread, stop reading it!

 

[modoaruba]

Hello,

I'm new to this web site and found it from a fellow owner at the Aruba Ocean Club. I read a little of the information here but gave up because it is just far too long. I tried to get into the other web site but I'm not giving out all the information that they're asking for (paranoid New Yorker I guess). Can anyone summarize the information for me in a non-biased way? I would like to see lower fees but I don't want to create a huge mess with a law suit. The Ocean Club is looking really good since the up-dates and I can see where our money has gone and don't understand the goals of the group who started all this. Seems like if they try to squeeze Marriott for money then our fees will only go up more than they already are. I feel like Marriott has explained the extra charges, and i could easily see where the money went at the resort.

Read #2095 &2129 t o get the gist.

 

[ecwinch]

Again,I am speaking of principle for the right to exist without condemnation which I am getting through inference.

Which is a right that I agree with - except for one caveat.

When you set forth to influence other people to join your group, then I think you have to accept that your actions will receive public comment. The cornerstone of free speech is that you have be willing to accept that others will also exercise that right to oppose you.

So if the crusaders want to form a website, and operate there without condemnation - that is all good and fine. All the more power to them.

But when they seek to use TUG to recruit other owners to join them, then I they have to accept that others will point out the pitfalls and history of the group, and how their current actions are just the electronic version of the beach clipboard.

 

[ecwinch]

Hello,

I'm new to this web site and found it from a fellow owner at the Aruba Ocean Club. I read a little of the information here but gave up because it is just far too long. I tried to get into the other web site but I'm not giving out all the information that they're asking for (paranoid New Yorker I guess). Can anyone summarize the information for me in a non-biased way? I would like to see lower fees but I don't want to create a huge mess with a law suit. The Ocean Club is looking really good since the up-dates and I can see where our money has gone and don't understand the goals of the group who started all this. Seems like if they try to squeeze Marriott for money then our fees will only go up more than they already are. I feel like Marriott has explained the extra charges, and i could easily see where the money went at the resort.

There is a lot of information out in these threads. I would only encourage you only to accept things that are supported by factual information and not reckless innuendo, speculation, and conjecture. Also evaluate the motives of the leadership of the group, and what they are seeking to personally gain from this crusade.

As noted post #2095 certainly offers one side of the story. The other side of the story is that a long-time and well-meaning Board President was forced to retire from the Board due to the by-laws of the Ocean Club. Toward the end of his tenure he attempted to orchestrate a by-law change that would have allowed him to remain on the board, and was thwarted.

Despite a long tenure on the board, and the fact that he personally voted for many of the "problems" that the crusaders complain about now, toward the end of his tenure he also adopted an confrontational attitude toward MVCI. One that has escalated into the current situation.

 

[modoaruba]

There is a lot of information out in these threads. I would only encourage you only to accept things that are supported by factual information and not reckless innuendo, speculation, and conjecture. Also evaluate the motives of the leadership of the group, and what they are seeking to personally gain from this crusade.

As noted post #2095 certainly offers one side of the story. The other side of the story is that a long-time and well-meaning Board President was forced to retire from the Board due to the by-laws of the Ocean Club. Toward the end of his tenure he attempted to orchestrate a by-law change that would have allowed him to remain on the board, and was thwarted.

Despite a long tenure on the board, and the fact that he personally voted for many of the "problems" that the crusaders complain about now, toward the end of his tenure he also adopted an confrontational attitude toward MVCI. One that has escalated into the current situation.

Whoa!Hold on there podner.
In my post I merely gave the posts of the 2 sides without any interpretation nor speculation.Lets not put any flies in the ointment for the newbies.I'm sure they are capable of coming to their own conclusions without our wisdoms.

 

[ecwinch]

Whoa!Hold on there podner.
In my post I merely gave the posts of the 2 sides without any interpretation nor speculation.Lets not put any flies in the ointment for the newbies.I'm sure they are capable of coming to their own conclusions without our wisdoms.

Given that Allan (the former BoD President) has never posted directly on this board, I think you have to devote a lot of time to glean that story from this thread.

All of the information in my post is supported by the facts. There is no interpretation or speculation on my behalf.

 

[modoaruba]

Given that Allan (the former BoD President) has never posted directly on this board, I think you have to devote a lot of time to glean that story from this thread.

All of the information in my post is supported by the facts. There is no interpretation or speculation on my behalf.

And what makes you the authority on this issue?By you having to glean the story you forgot to or intentionaly avoided to glean the rest of the story.
We all see what we want to see.(who said that?)
There are facts on both sides.

 

[ecwinch]

I do not claim to be an authority on the subject. But I have been involved in this thread for almost a year now, so I am offering a quick recap. I notice you did not raise any of the same concerns when Mark's posted his recap (#2095) soliciting support for the website.

So why is my post any different and so objectionable to draw your rebuke?

And it is interesting to note that you do not dispute my recap, only that the reader should page through 2100+ posts and reach their own opinion. Seems like the standard is only higher for those that oppose the crusade.

 

[lovearuba]

he said she said

If I wanted to make up my own mind I would go through the trouble of reading the whole thread and then going to the www.aocconcernedowners.com web site, read the opening page and take Allan up on his offer to contact him for his side of the story. You can also read the official Marriott words on the ocean club web site. Then take a look at your maintenace fee and ask yourself if you think change is needed.

I wouldnt take anyones recap of the issues, too much bias on all sides.

 

[Dean]

If I wanted to make up my own mind I would go through the trouble of reading the whole thread and then going to the www.aocconcernedowners.com web site, read the opening page and take Allan up on his offer to contact him for his side of the story. You can also read the official Marriott words on the ocean club web site. Then take a look at your maintenace fee and ask yourself if you think change is needed.

I wouldnt take anyones recap of the issues, too much bias on all sides.

Or we could do it all over again if you want, LOL. To a degree we ALL bring our own biases to any discussion, however, in this discussion you have mostly 2 groups. Those 2 groups are those that take the side that Marriott was dishonest and deceitful and those that want proof to accept that, there has been no particularly pro Marriott group just those on one side of the fence and those on the fence. Put another way, those convinced by circumstantial evidence at best along with the statement of a given single person and those that want more than that. To date there has been no proof produced to document those accusations that I am aware of, no smoking gun. Lack of proof doesn't mean it's not true but it doesn't mean it is either. That is my stance, I'm not willing to accept the assertion that Marriott purposefully misled and hid such issues without proof. If that proof is produced, I'll be right there to say so. I predicted long ago the proof would never come but somewhere along the way, this group would claim victory and proof out of some compromise/settlement and I'll say again that settlement does NOT equal proof. Proof should produce full victory AND legal fees with Marriott covering the entire cost of such related repairs and thus settlement/compromise equals lack of proof.

I'd encourage anyone truly interested to go through the entire thread as well as the other avenues lovearuba suggests and keep an open mind to all aspects. I'd suggest they still have an open mind when they get through all of that information as there really isn't enough info currently to make a final decision, unfortunately it's likely there never will be.

 

[modoaruba]

Am I talking in circles?In a different language?
Since we got everyone's attention I encourage the owners to at least go to the owner's site if you haven't done so yet and just take a look.Believe me there is no risk.You could always remove yourselves from it.
Make up your own minds if it's important enough for you.If not,no problem.
A fair and balanced view of both sides is available to those who can think on their own and come up with their own conclusions.
Don't let me or others disway the issues.
Just to let those who oppose the group know that they are actually helping the enrollment. So thank you on behalf of the group for your support.

 

[ecwinch]

If I wanted to make up my own mind I would go through the trouble of reading the whole thread and then going to the www.aocconcernedowners.com web site, read the opening page and take Allan up on his offer to contact him for his side of the story. You can also read the official Marriott words on the ocean club web site. Then take a look at your maintenace fee and ask yourself if you think change is needed.

I wouldnt take anyones recap of the issues, too much bias on all sides.

Just the for the record, my opinion of the situation was developed after talking to Allan. But I would agree to the extent that everyone should ask their own questions. While it would be helpful if Allan was willing to participate in a forum like TUG, that is apparently not possible. He would rather engage questions on a one on one basis. So I would encourage interested members in having that conversation with Allan.

 

[ecwinch]

Am I talking in circles?In a different language?
Since we got everyone's attention I encourage the owners to at least go to the owner's site if you haven't done so yet and just take a look.Believe me there is no risk.You could always remove yourselves from it.
Make up your own minds if it's important enough for you.If not,no problem.
A fair and balanced view of both sides is available to those who can think on their own and come up with their own conclusions.
Don't let me or others disway the issues.
Just to let those who oppose the group know that they are actually helping the enrollment. So thank you on behalf of the group for your support.

Does the owner's site have a fair and balanced view of both sides of issue?

As long as owners understand that there is more to this discussion then what is on that site, I am fine in participating in promoting the site. I would hope that owners that learn of the site by reading this thread would then return to this thread. And after seeing one side of the dialog would then ask questions about the gaps in the factual evidence.

 

[lovearuba]

owners site

Does the owner's site have a fair and balanced view of both sides of issue?

As long as owners understand that there is more to this discussion then what is on that site, I am fine in participating in promoting the site. I would hope that owners that learn of the site by reading this thread would then return to this thread. And after seeing one side of the dialog would then ask questions about the gaps in the factual evidence.

owners can write whatever they want on the site. You would probably agree that the folks that are signing up are those that are concerned with issues around the ocean club otherwise they would probably not register for a site named www.aocconcernedowners.com. The point of starting the site is to deal with owners only, not the rest of the world that participates in tug. This was the recommendation and it was taken. As for you talking to Allan, it was nice that you did that and he has no reason to continue the discussion here since he has plenty of communication to owners on the other site. They are reading his communications there and posting their comments. They are also taking advantage of contacting him for any concerns they have related to registration and the use of their information.

 

[ecwinch]

owners can write whatever they want on the site. You would probably agree that the folks that are signing up are those that are concerned with issues around the ocean club otherwise they would probably not register for a site named www.aocconcernedowners.com. The point of starting the site is to deal with owners only, not the rest of the world that participates in tug. This was the recommendation and it was taken. As for you talking to Allan, it was nice that you did that and he has no reason to continue the discussion here since he has plenty of communication to owners on the other site. They are reading his communications there and posting their comments. They are also taking advantage of contacting him for any concerns they have related to registration and the use of their information.

So why the "support" provision in the terms and conditions, if owners can write whatever they want on the site?

You are also agreeing that you support efforts to gain more transparency on the ASSOCIATION (Aruba Ocean Club Association Board). If you decide at any time that you no longer support this cause you can delete your account by using the home page and following the prompts to delete your account.

 

[modoaruba]

So why the "support" provision in the terms and conditions, if owners can write whatever they want on the site?

You are also agreeing that you support efforts to gain more transparency on the ASSOCIATION (Aruba Ocean Club Association Board). If you decide at any time that you no longer support this cause you can delete your account by using the home page and following the prompts to delete your account.

Why are you so hell bent about this?If any owner wants to go onto the owner's site,who cares?(especially non-owners).
As I mentioned before,it's posts like yours that are making it extremely palatable for owners to join the site who otherwise would be lurking in the background.
Keep up the good work.You never disappoint.

 

[london]

Lot of Posts and Many Opinions

With almost 2200 posts, this thread may be on a course to slow down, and perhaps close soon.

Glad the Aruba Ocean Club owners have started a site for owners only, which may be more appropriate to handle communication with the Board of Directors.

 

[billymach4]

With almost 2200 posts, this thread may be on a course to slow down, and perhaps close soon.

Glad the Aruba Ocean Club owners have started a site for owners only, which may be more appropriate to handle communication with the Board of Directors.

We are installing tolls on the Brooklyn Bridge. The new owner will collect all of the proceeds.

The bidding starts now.

 

[ecwinch]

Why are you so hell bent about this?If any owner wants to go onto the owner's site,who cares?(especially non-owners).
As I mentioned before,it's posts like yours that are making it extremely palatable for owners to join the site who otherwise would be lurking in the background.
Keep up the good work.You never disappoint.

I am not "hell bent" about anything. Just pointing out the interesting contradiction of how a group that is interested in transparency constructs terms and conditions that allow them to exclude or censor any member that disagrees with them.

Other than that, I am glad to help.

 

[AwayWeGo]

The Wisdom Of Dilbert.

I am not "hell bent" about anything.

Denial is proof.

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

 

[Retired to Travel]

Also a concerned owner, but...

I have refrained from posting to this thread recently. When I have previously, I have been accused of being a spy for, or working for, Marriott. I assure you, we ARE owners. I have posted on other TUG threads well before this one was started, and I have always listed our MAO ownership on my profile. We too are “concerned owners.” However, our concerns are mainly with keeping our personal information private, and with the additional costs to the association of defending the litigation being brought about by marksue’s group. Are we pleased with the higher MFs and SA? Of course not! Nobody likes to spend more money, especially in a difficult economy. However, we feel that these costs have been adequately explained and justified. The refurbishment was long overdue, and the photos look great. We are looking forward to our stay this winter to see it for ourselves. Also, contrary to what others have experienced, we WERE informed when we purchased in 2000 that the resort was not originally developed by Marriott, but was an abandoned project which Marriott took over. So, yes, we went into this with our eyes open and are not surprised by the special assessment. We feel the 48% Marriott is offering to pay toward the new roof is fair. We do not wish to see that offer pulled off the table as a result of the pending litigation. We do agree with the group’s goal of not integrating the Ocean Club and Surf Club, but we feel there are better and less antagonistic ways of expressing that preference.

Others have stated that if you sign up on the group’s website, you can always change your mind later. While that may remove you from the list of owners supporting the cause, I’m not comfortable that the personal information provided to gain access to the site has not already been added to the group’s database. That bell is not that easily unrung. Case in point: I have recently received (and ignored) invitations from Mark Silverstein to be his friend on Facebook. I cannot be sure why my email address is in his hands, but suspect that it may have been passed on from Allan Cohen, whose email letters I received while he was President, then again in Nov. 2008 and Jan. 2009. We also received an email from the "Concerned Owners" group in January, 2009, asking us to sign a complaint list with our name, address, number of weeeks, and phone. We ignored that too. Sharing email lists is annoying but not harmful in itself. What can be harmful is the attachment of name/address/phone to that info. (We do receive phone calls from TS realtors and we cannot be sure where that data leaked either.)

Once such information is out there, it’s out there. We are meticulous about keeping our personal information private, and I’m sure many other owners share that concern. We always opt out of allowing our contact information to be shared by anyone we do business with. In fact, the only lawsuit against Marriott we might be inclined to join would be if they were to release our contact information to any owner or group of owners just because they ask for it. We appreciate Marriott fighting to uphold its privacy policy and protect us owners from unwanted proliferation of our personal information.

 

[oldone]

Retiredtotravel, i agree with you completely. These people want way too much personal information and i am not going to sign on to their web site if that's how i get in. i'm glad we're not the only ones who feel this way. from what i can get from the posts outlined above and also all the other information here it's a very flimsy argument and i don't see what other information they could have that would make me feel any different. the timeshare looks great now and you can easily see where our money went. nothing else in aruba comes close in terms of the luxury of the resort. marriott has provided good explanation for all the extra costs so i plan to just enjoy the resort and not join any groups that will just cause further increases in costs because of legal fees. hope they don't spoil it for the rest of us.

 

[Dean]

I have refrained from posting to this thread recently. When I have previously, I have been accused of being a spy for, or working for, Marriott. I assure you, we ARE owners. I have posted on other TUG threads well before this one was started, and I have always listed our MAO ownership on my profile. We too are “concerned owners.” However, our concerns are mainly with keeping our personal information private, and with the additional costs to the association of defending the litigation being brought about by marksue’s group. Are we pleased with the higher MFs and SA? Of course not! Nobody likes to spend more money, especially in a difficult economy. However, we feel that these costs have been adequately explained and justified. The refurbishment was long overdue, and the photos look great. We are looking forward to our stay this winter to see it for ourselves. Also, contrary to what others have experienced, we WERE informed when we purchased in 2000 that the resort was not originally developed by Marriott, but was an abandoned project which Marriott took over. So, yes, we went into this with our eyes open and are not surprised by the special assessment. We feel the 48% Marriott is offering to pay toward the new roof is fair. We do not wish to see that offer pulled off the table as a result of the pending litigation. We do agree with the group’s goal of not integrating the Ocean Club and Surf Club, but we feel there are better and less antagonistic ways of expressing that preference.

Others have stated that if you sign up on the group’s website, you can always change your mind later. While that may remove you from the list of owners supporting the cause, I’m not comfortable that the personal information provided to gain access to the site has not already been added to the group’s database. That bell is not that easily unrung. Case in point: I have recently received (and ignored) invitations from Mark Silverstein to be his friend on Facebook. I cannot be sure why my email address is in his hands, but suspect that it may have been passed on from Allan Cohen, whose email letters I received while he was President, then again in Nov. 2008 and Jan. 2009. We also received an email from the "Concerned Owners" group in January, 2009, asking us to sign a complaint list with our name, address, number of weeeks, and phone. We ignored that too. Sharing email lists is annoying but not harmful in itself. What can be harmful is the attachment of name/address/phone to that info. (We do receive phone calls from TS realtors and we cannot be sure where that data leaked either.)

Once such information is out there, it’s out there. We are meticulous about keeping our personal information private, and I’m sure many other owners share that concern. We always opt out of allowing our contact information to be shared by anyone we do business with. In fact, the only lawsuit against Marriott we might be inclined to join would be if they were to release our contact information to any owner or group of owners just because they ask for it. We appreciate Marriott fighting to uphold its privacy policy and protect us owners from unwanted proliferation of our personal information.

Well stated; as a Marriott owner but not an Aruba owner, I have voiced many of your concerns (if not all) as possibilities though never as eloquently as you have done. It sounds like your email was obtained illegally and by fraud, this would concern me greatly as it obviously does you. If you believe it was obtained inappropriately through the actions of this group or others, you may want to contact Marriott directly to voice your concern.

 

[SueDonJ]

I have refrained from posting to this thread recently. When I have previously, I have been accused of being a spy for, or working for, Marriott. I assure you, we ARE owners. I have posted on other TUG threads well before this one was started, and I have always listed our MAO ownership on my profile. We too are “concerned owners.” However, our concerns are mainly with keeping our personal information private, and with the additional costs to the association of defending the litigation being brought about by marksue’s group. Are we pleased with the higher MFs and SA? Of course not! Nobody likes to spend more money, especially in a difficult economy. However, we feel that these costs have been adequately explained and justified. The refurbishment was long overdue, and the photos look great. We are looking forward to our stay this winter to see it for ourselves. Also, contrary to what others have experienced, we WERE informed when we purchased in 2000 that the resort was not originally developed by Marriott, but was an abandoned project which Marriott took over. So, yes, we went into this with our eyes open and are not surprised by the special assessment. We feel the 48% Marriott is offering to pay toward the new roof is fair. We do not wish to see that offer pulled off the table as a result of the pending litigation. We do agree with the group’s goal of not integrating the Ocean Club and Surf Club, but we feel there are better and less antagonistic ways of expressing that preference.

Others have stated that if you sign up on the group’s website, you can always change your mind later. While that may remove you from the list of owners supporting the cause, I’m not comfortable that the personal information provided to gain access to the site has not already been added to the group’s database. That bell is not that easily unrung. Case in point: I have recently received (and ignored) invitations from Mark Silverstein to be his friend on Facebook. I cannot be sure why my email address is in his hands, but suspect that it may have been passed on from Allan Cohen, whose email letters I received while he was President, then again in Nov. 2008 and Jan. 2009. We also received an email from the "Concerned Owners" group in January, 2009, asking us to sign a complaint list with our name, address, number of weeeks, and phone. We ignored that too. Sharing email lists is annoying but not harmful in itself. What can be harmful is the attachment of name/address/phone to that info. (We do receive phone calls from TS realtors and we cannot be sure where that data leaked either.)

Once such information is out there, it’s out there. We are meticulous about keeping our personal information private, and I’m sure many other owners share that concern. We always opt out of allowing our contact information to be shared by anyone we do business with. In fact, the only lawsuit against Marriott we might be inclined to join would be if they were to release our contact information to any owner or group of owners just because they ask for it. We appreciate Marriott fighting to uphold its privacy policy and protect us owners from unwanted proliferation of our personal information.

This is an excellent post, RetiredtoTravel. You've so clearly articulated the concerns that we non-owners of MAOC have mentioned repeatedly here. If I was an owner there, I would feel exactly as you do. I hope that you take Dean's suggestion and contact Marriott directly with your concerns.

About your sentence that I bolded - it's entirely possible that the phone calls you're receiving from the TS realtors (which are called "postcard companies" elsewhere on TUG) have nothing to do with any MAOC ownership list that has been compiled by either a Marriott office or the minority ownership group in this thread. Those companies harvest owner names and addresses from the public records, i.e. recorded deeds, mortgages, etc...

(I've been away for a week and debated sending this in a private message to RetiredtoTravel so as to not resurrect the thread, but then I thought that maybe could be looked at as suspect because this is one of the only times I've attempted to deflect blame from Mark/Allan/etc. Oh well, it was time for someone to put it back on Page One anyway.)