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

[modoaruba]

Modo,

If you buy that condo and the roof needs to be replaced in 10 years, and the air conditioner goes wrong in 10 years, and the stove needs to be replaced in 10 years, then who will pay for the replacements? Will you demand that the seller, or the original builder/developer, cover some part of the costs? That is what you are asking Marriott to do. I don't think that would be reasonable for a condo so how is it for a timeshare?

The fact that the building was once a "rusting steel hulk" that was saved by Marriott doesn't mean that it is by definition a bad building. This type of situation comes up all the time and does not mean the building will be faulty. There may be problems at the AOC but how can anyone prove that they all date back to that "rusting steel hulk"? If it was such a slam dunk then it would all have been settled long ago- there doesn't seem to be any real proof that Marriott knowingly covered up a faulty building.

This fight is all about money and who should pay it. All the other talk about transparency, etc is a smoke screen.

imo, tlwmkw

You are right.But there will always be more equity on resale for that price of the condo.
The TS MFs will always be there regardless.Replacements and repairs for the condo will vary as needed.
Right now the expenses for the TS is way out of line compared to the going rates of renting and specials at the hotels.When will they come back to the norm?Who knows?But we must pay regardless.
Even though the financial climate might change back to the way things were,how many years will it take to recoup the loss?Does one really believe things will go back to the way it was?
Buying 4 wks at the AOC at $70,000 range will resell at this time for much less.Maybe half?
Buying the condo at that price will always resell for same or more.
Renting the condo is under supervision of the association.There is always supervision.If rentals are at 25% of the year,that would be more than enough to recoup any MFs or replacement costs and then some.Even at 10% rental there might still be a profit.
Real estate has always been a good investment in the long run,as long as you have the time to wait.Many people got rich after the great depression because they purchased real estate.
Right now cash is king and I believe that eventually real estate will go up.
Might take a few years.It's one of those things that they cannot make more of-land.
IMO,TS's will not appreciate as well because they are not meant to be an investment.
Eric's analogy of depreciating values of cars would apply more to TS's than to real estate.
Right now or in the near future , in my opinion ,if you got the money(which is devaluing as I write this)real estate purchase will bring back rewards.
It's always about the money.Especially paying into a loss.

 

[ecwinch]

You are right.But there will always be more equity on resale for that price of the condo.

Buying the condo at that price will always resell for same or more.

Renting the condo is under supervision of the association.There is always supervision.If rentals are at 25% of the year,that would be more than enough to recoup any MFs or replacement costs and then some.Even at 10% rental there might still be a profit.

There are million of people right now that would disagree with the underlying premise that real estate will always increase in value. I suspect that dislocation is one reason the condo is priced at the level you indicate. And while I do believe that general principle is still true in the long run, if you needed to liquidate that investment in the next 3-5 years, it might not be as true as you need it to be.

In regards to the economics of the situation, I would just encourage you to crunch the numbers very carefully. Managed rental properties can be good investments when the numbers work, and but the key is making sure you are considering all the fixed costs you will incur in operating the rental property and a reasonable target for number of rented weeks. Particularly one is a less than prime location.

potential rental income (rental rate x expected rental weeks)
less variable rental expenses (cleaning, comm%, etc)
less fixed expenses (m/f), utilities, insurance, advertising costs)

And again I would triple check what that $142 a month includes.

And yes, timeshares are more like cars than real estate. Many states require up-front disclaimers in the public offering statements that the buyer understands that the purchase is not an investment.

 

[Zac495]

Hope you are still enjoying your vacations. Are you going back to Aruba in 2010. I plan to be there in the summer.

No. I'm going to Cancun - Grand Mayan - and the finger lakes - I rented a house - wow, not with a timeshare. Miss you guys!

 

[Dean]

I appreciate everyone's input.
We hooked up with a realtor while in Aruba.
She showed us a condo in a really nice neighborhood in Palm Beach area.
There is a seller who has a 2 BR 2BA LV k and 2 pools across the street.It is 4 yrs old.
The drive to the beach is all of 5 minutes.
Completely furnished with nice stuff. He is willing to take $160,000.MFs are $143/mo.Taxes are negligable.Expenses are electric,water,phone/cable/internet.The condo rents out for about $900/wk and is maintained by the association.

We own 4 weeks at the AOC.Today buying through Marriott would cost us in the high $70,000.Correct me if I'm wrong.
Add on MFs and fees and we end up with a $5,000 bill/yr.Maybe more.
If we try to sell,I wonder if we'll get half of the cost.We can't even rent to cover our fees anymore.

Do the math. We could spend the $5,000/4 weeks at the Aoc or spend the same for 52 weeks at the condo.The caveat being,we could rent and actually make money.

So no matter what this thread is debating,I'm just PO'd that we bought a timeshare.
IMO,it was not wise for US to have purchased a TS.It has negative returns and is priced along with the fees to a point that is disturbing.

I think we all have to think about such calculations for an area we wish to return to time after time. We had the same questions for HHI and have looked twice at Condo's. For that area a Condo in a situation as we would want would be somewhere in the $450-750K amount depending on how much compromise we'd be willing to make. The yearly costs in terms of regime fees, taxes, etc would be in the $20-25K range/yr. If we bought and rented it, we'd likely recoup about 70% of the yearly outlay. Of course HH is more seasonal than Aruba. I own (now) 5 summer weeks on HH at a total cost about $90K and yearly fees about $5K. Our decision was that it wasn't worth the outlay and expense because the best case scenario is we'd break even after management fees and our "profit" would be the equity increase as the loan paid down and values hopefully went up. But we'd have a major risk of upkeep, damage, hurricanes, etc. IF we stepped away from the Beach, we could get something just as nice for 20-30% with less other fees but we wouldn't be happy.

IMO you can't compare a beachfront location to something a 5 min drive. If you want beach front, you have to pay for it, if you're happy with off the beach, it should be MUCH cheaper buy or rent. I've bought a number of timeshares in Aruba that were essentially beachfront for a song. As an example, 4th of July 3 BR unit for $1200 including transfers.

I'd also question the idea that there will always be equity of a market for such a condo, it might be true but the last couple of years have definitely taught us that it's not always so.

IMO, the bottom line is that a condo is a gamble far more so than is a top quality timeshare. It might work out but you're playing with fire and it only really makes sense if you can get the use yourself. Once you get to the "I have to rent it to be able to afford it" situation, you're sunk. I had a next door neighbor that was into flipping timeshares in the FL panhandle. They'd buy preconstruction then sell them once actives sales were going good. They likely made $3 million or so doing this over a few years and lost it all in a few months a couple of years ago. They had to sell their home and move into one of the condo's they owned and couldn't sell. They also had to sell the new home they had built and never actually moved into it.

 

[modoaruba]

what I'm saying is that today,if one is sitting on cash and does not need to mortgage,given the financial crises where people are in desperation to sell,it is a good time to buy.
I don't think we hit bottom yet.But one cannot time the market.
We are looking to spend quite a few weeks if not months in Aruba as I get closer to retirement.
A 5 minute drive to the beach does not bother us on such a small island.It will be a shorter drive to the grocery and gas station.Don't have to worry about driving in snow or ice.Either way,no big deal.
If however a desperate sale occurs on the ocean front we'll definetly look there.Right now is a buyers market and time is on the buyers side for now.
This is our goal for now and obviously does not apply to many.

 

[ecwinch]

Were you of that mindset when you bought your week at AOC and could you of have gotten that same deal then?

 

[modoaruba]

Were you of that mindset when you bought your week at AOC and could you of have gotten that same deal then?

When we bought our weeks over 10 yrs ago we paid 1/2 of today's cost and MFs were less than 1/2 of what they are now.It made more sense playing with those numbers.
Now we realize that we did not expect fees to be so high and that the resale value puts us back to square one.So all the financial benefits we enjoyed back in the day are slowly being chipped away at.
We might be nearing or exceeded our break even point.

We also have been buying real estate in Aruba for a few years now.
We have bought land and sold at a profit.The last piece of land we bought was 4 years ago and still have it.Today it is worth less than it was a year ago but still is worth more than we paid for it.Our regret is that we did not buy earlier on.Taxes are negligable,so holding on to it is not a problem.We don't buy property if we cannot afford to hold on to it.So emergency liquidation is not a concern.Just old school.If we cannot afford to buy for cash,we don't buy.
If we bought property at the time we bought our TS,we would be ahead of the curve because Aruban real estate vastly increased.
That's why we believe, considering today's financial crises,and that many people over extended themselves here and abroad,that it might be an opportune time to buy.
As we get older our needs and outlooks change.It's easy to look back and see what could have been.So,our TS is 0 growth or less after 11 years.Our property now is at 25% growth,down from 50% at he high after 4 years.If we bought the property 11 years ago we might be at 100% growth.But who knew?

 

[timeos2]

Resort actually shut down - owner lawsuit part of blame

As Dean said so clearly here, the BOD has no choice but to defend (itself and Marriott as the resort's management company) against the legal challenge(s) it faces from the "concerned owners group." No choice. Any BOD member who would vote against a legal defense in the face of a legal challenge has no business being on the BOD.

Now the whole story isn't the same, no two ever are, but here is an extreme example of what can happen if developers/owners fail to take actions needed to properly fund resorts. In this case it appears the developer had only sold about 25% of the timeshare units and the promised renovations never happened (no reserves set aside according to the published minutes). Then an owner elected Board took over and tried to get a special assessment in addition to developer funding. Somewhere along the line a "concerned owners group" had initiated a lawsuit, which is at least in part being blamed for the collapse.

Extreme case for sure, but a cautionary tale of what can actually occur if too many roadblocks to funding or unreasonable demands are made at any resort and what outside expenses such as owner lawsuits can lead to. Resorts can and will be shuttered if things get too bad. Fortunately for Marriott owners their resort isn't likely to reach such a bad ending as this example did, but nothing is beyond possibility if pressed far enough. Best if compromise is a key part of all actions on both sides to avoid such drastic measures being needed.

 

[SueDonJ]

When we bought our weeks over 10 yrs ago we paid 1/2 of today's cost and MFs were less than 1/2 of what they are now.It made more sense playing with those numbers.
Now we realize that we did not expect fees to be so high and that the resale value puts us back to square one.So all the financial benefits we enjoyed back in the day are slowly being chipped away at.
We might be nearing or exceeded our break even point.

We also have been buying real estate in Aruba for a few years now.
We have bought land and sold at a profit.The last piece of land we bought was 4 years ago and still have it.Today it is worth less than it was a year ago but still is worth more than we paid for it.Our regret is that we did not buy earlier on.Taxes are negligable,so holding on to it is not a problem.We don't buy property if we cannot afford to hold on to it.So emergency liquidation is not a concern.Just old school.If we cannot afford to buy for cash,we don't buy.
If we bought property at the time we bought our TS,we would be ahead of the curve because Aruban real estate vastly increased.
That's why we believe, considering today's financial crises,and that many people over extended themselves here and abroad,that it might be an opportune time to buy.
As we get older our needs and outlooks change.It's easy to look back and see what could have been.So,our TS is 0 growth or less after 11 years.Our property now is at 25% growth,down from 50% at he high after 4 years.If we bought the property 11 years ago we might be at 100% growth.But who knew?

It's interesting how we all have a different perspective of timeshare purchases, land purchases and vacation condo/home ownership, isn't it? We think the same as you do about not financing any of them and have pretty much the same expectations as you do for land and condos, but we sure do differ wildly on our timeshare expectations!

We bought Marriott timeshares because we wanted the level of resort vacations that MVCI offers, knowing that timeshares are not a financial investment in the sense that home- or land-ownership can be. The value we expected is in usage (being able to reserve a specific villa configuration that may not be available through a rental market,) because we knew MVCI is a relatively more expensive way to vacation than some other timeshares or with renting. Both of our resorts appear to have a solid reserve fund and fees in line with other similar resorts. But we bought at Barony knowing that it would be due for a ten-year refurb 2-3 years after our purchase, and this year right on schedule the 2010 m/f includes a $90 hike in the reserve. I think way back in this thread somewhere I mentioned that it wouldn't surprise me if a special assessment was going to be levied this year, but thankfully instead the large hike in the reserve appears to be sufficient to cover the refurb as well as a cushion for the next several years. The difference between your resort and mine, in this case, appears to be that Barony's BODs have been more pro-active over the life of the resort as far as the financials.

Condos/vacation homes are a completely different animal. We don't have the time or inclination to be absentee landlords, even if a rental management company is involved. And though the timing of such a purchase for you at the time you entered timesharing would have held its financial value, we would have taken a bath if we'd purchased an ocean-front condo on Hilton Head the first year we bought from MVCI. We would have been purchasing at the height of the market! Plus, one odd thing for me is that I wanted no part of owning a stand-alone home or condo that strangers would be sleeping in while I wasn't there. With timeshares or vacation rentals I expect that; with my second home it would give me the heebie-jeebies.

We did purchase land this year in a development just off-island to Hilton Head where we intend to retire five years or so down the line, and it should (knock on wood) increase in value as the market rebounds. We paid less than what it originally sold for about ten years ago, and less even further than what the people from whom we purchased bought it for three years ago. But of course as others have said there are no guarantees in real estate, so we'll hope for the best like everyone else speculating in this market.

Interesting turn in this discussion - thanks for adding it, Modo.

 

[ecwinch]

When we bought our weeks over 10 yrs ago we paid 1/2 of today's cost and MFs were less than 1/2 of what they are now.It made more sense playing with those numbers.
Now we realize that we did not expect fees to be so high and that the resale value puts us back to square one.So all the financial benefits we enjoyed back in the day are slowly being chipped away at.
We might be nearing or exceeded our break even point.

We also have been buying real estate in Aruba for a few years now.
We have bought land and sold at a profit.The last piece of land we bought was 4 years ago and still have it.Today it is worth less than it was a year ago but still is worth more than we paid for it.Our regret is that we did not buy earlier on.Taxes are negligable,so holding on to it is not a problem.We don't buy property if we cannot afford to hold on to it.So emergency liquidation is not a concern.Just old school.If we cannot afford to buy for cash,we don't buy.
If we bought property at the time we bought our TS,we would be ahead of the curve because Aruban real estate vastly increased.
That's why we believe, considering today's financial crises,and that many people over extended themselves here and abroad,that it might be an opportune time to buy.
As we get older our needs and outlooks change.It's easy to look back and see what could have been.So,our TS is 0 growth or less after 11 years.Our property now is at 25% growth,down from 50% at he high after 4 years.If we bought the property 11 years ago we might be at 100% growth.But who knew?

But timeshares are not real estate investments. If you purchase in Washington State or California, it is a required disclosure at purchase.

If you bought with that expectation, then I can understand your position.
I personally am not an advocate of playing "woulda, coulda, shoulda". I think you make the best decision you can with the available information, and do not look back. We can always make perfect decisions with the benefits of hindsight, and the turns in the road could just easily went the other way.

 

[Luckybee]

Now the whole story isn't the same, no two ever are, but here is an extreme example of what can happen if developers/owners fail to take actions needed to properly fund resorts. In this case it appears the developer had only sold about 25% of the timeshare units and the promised renovations never happened (no reserves set aside according to the published minutes). Then an owner elected Board took over and tried to get a special assessment in addition to developer funding. Somewhere along the line a "concerned owners group" had initiated a lawsuit, which is at least in part being blamed for the collapse.

Extreme case for sure, but a cautionary tale of what can actually occur if too many roadblocks to funding or unreasonable demands are made at any resort and what outside expenses such as owner lawsuits can lead to. Resorts can and will be shuttered if things get too bad. Fortunately for Marriott owners their resort isn't likely to reach such a bad ending as this example did, but nothing is beyond possibility if pressed far enough. Best if compromise is a key part of all actions on both sides to avoid such drastic measures being needed.

Timeos

Im not at all surprised that the management at the Aruban would attempt to lay blame anywhere but where it belongs in that case. I think you'll find though if you investigate further, and with some time that there were some pretty serious allegations levied against certain individuals which may lead to "other" proceedings down the road. To blame the "lawsuit" in that case would be like blaming a slight drizzle for a flooded basement ! Quite frankly with everything that was going on there the lawsuit was probably the least of the problems....lol . From what I've just been been told today the vast majority of owners are pretty relieved now in that they are more hopeful now that their resort can be salvaged.

 

[ecwinch]

"Unfortunately, this has not been made any easier by the litigation brought on by a small group of timeshare owners"

I fail to see how this statement represents blaming the problems on the "lawsuit" as you maintain.

I think John is illustrating that a small concerned owners group can be at cross-purposes withe needs of the membership of a whole. While that group might see that they have the moral high-ground in pursuing their agenda, the net affect can be to the detriment of the resort and the membership as a whole.

That while they see their purpose as noble and that they are "serving" the membership of a whole, they actually might be doing more harm than good.

 

[Luckybee]

"Unfortunately, this has not been made any easier by the litigation brought on by a small group of timeshare owners"

I fail to see how this statement represents blaming the problems on the "lawsuit" as you maintain.

I think John is illustrating that a small concerned owners group can be at cross-purposes withe needs of the membership of a whole. While that group might see that they have the moral high-ground in pursuing their agenda, the net affect can be to the detriment of the resort and the membership as a whole.

That while they see their purpose as noble and that they are "serving" the membership of a whole, they actually might be doing more harm than good.

Obviously you didnt read my entire post....bottom line they didnt do "more harm than good" and they were not at "cross purposes with the membership as a whole"...they did what was needed under the circumstances they were in....and if you check you'll find most owners were on board with the actions....but as usual you wish to debate everything....so dont take my word for it...find out for yourself if you are really interested which somehow I cant help but think you would only be if it could somehow assist your crusade against the Ocean Club owners

 

[ecwinch]

Does this mark an end to the "keep it civil" timeout?

The link nor your post provided any substantial details that support your assertion. So I am somewhat confused on how owners would find it favorable that the resort is shut down for 45+ days.

 

[SueDonJ]

There are quite a few public forums in which The Aruban situation is discussed but I don't have a good enough understanding of the timeshare systems involved or the total number of owners to say with any certainty why things played out there the way they did. But I've looked at several of them anyway and come away thinking that the worldwide economic crisis combined with poor development and management - including illegal maneuverings by the management company - are more at fault for the sad financial picture today, but certainly the legal burdens imposed by the ownership group have contributed somewhat. Luckybee, I haven't seen anything that verifies what you say about a majority of owners being in support of any legal actions - it appears that the four or five sites that I did look at are populated by the same group of folks. I'm not saying you're incorrect, just that I didn't find either how many owners would constitute a majority or confirmation of support by a majority.

Interestingly, it appears that The Aruban is related to the La Cabana resort that Dean has mentioned in this thread - maybe it's the building that split from that resort? Is that correct, Dean?

Also interestingly, every owner website related to The Aruban that I did find is an open forum at least for reading. A few even solicited input from non-owners who are timeshare-savvy to help them with their efforts.

 

[Luckybee]

There are quite a few public forums in which The Aruban situation is discussed but I don't have a good enough understanding of the timeshare systems involved or the total number of owners to say with any certainty why things played out there the way they did. But I've looked at several of them anyway and come away thinking that the worldwide economic crisis combined with poor development and management - including illegal maneuverings by the management company - are more at fault for the sad financial picture today, but certainly the legal burdens imposed by the ownership group have contributed somewhat. Luckybee, I haven't seen anything that verifies what you say about a majority of owners being in support of any legal actions - it appears that the four or five sites that I did look at are populated by the same group of folks. I'm not saying you're incorrect, just that I didn't find either how many owners would constitute a majority or confirmation of support by a majority.

Interestingly, it appears that The Aruban is related to the La Cabana resort that Dean has mentioned in this thread - maybe it's the building that split from that resort? Is that correct, Dean?

Also interestingly, every owner website related to The Aruban that I did find is an open forum at least for reading. A few even solicited input from non-owners who are timeshare-savvy to help them with their efforts.

They also have a private board just for owners and it is not open just for reading...you must be a registered owner to read or post....and yes they are the timeshare that split from LaCabana.

 

[Luckybee]

Does this mark an end to the "keep it civil" timeout?

The link nor your post provided any substantial details that support your assertion. So I am somewhat confused on how owners would find it favorable that the resort is shut down for 45+ days.

As I said if you are interested you can follow up on your own....and how was I not being civil ?

 

[ecwinch]

For those interested in a more complete accounting of the issues, here is the link to the concerned owners website for the Aruban. It is nice to see a group that asks for transparency to do the same. EDIT: Some sections of the board are member-only.

http://www.thearubanforum.com/viewforum.php?f=53&sid=2a0a5df573adfcd267ac69a9f1beeadd

 

[Dean]

Now the whole story isn't the same, no two ever are, but here is an extreme example of what can happen if developers/owners fail to take actions needed to properly fund resorts. In this case it appears the developer had only sold about 25% of the timeshare units and the promised renovations never happened (no reserves set aside according to the published minutes). Then an owner elected Board took over and tried to get a special assessment in addition to developer funding. Somewhere along the line a "concerned owners group" had initiated a lawsuit, which is at least in part being blamed for the collapse.

Extreme case for sure, but a cautionary tale of what can actually occur if too many roadblocks to funding or unreasonable demands are made at any resort and what outside expenses such as owner lawsuits can lead to. Resorts can and will be shuttered if things get too bad. Fortunately for Marriott owners their resort isn't likely to reach such a bad ending as this example did, but nothing is beyond possibility if pressed far enough. Best if compromise is a key part of all actions on both sides to avoid such drastic measures being needed.

What is now (or was) the Aruban Resort is the other half to the story I quoted above. It was in bankruptcy and disrepair for several years. I haven't kept up with the happenings since but I feel it was a doomed resort once it became separated from La Cabana.

what I'm saying is that today,if one is sitting on cash and does not need to mortgage,given the financial crises where people are in desperation to sell,it is a good time to buy.
I don't think we hit bottom yet.But one cannot time the market.
We are looking to spend quite a few weeks if not months in Aruba as I get closer to retirement.
A 5 minute drive to the beach does not bother us on such a small island.It will be a shorter drive to the grocery and gas station.Don't have to worry about driving in snow or ice.Either way,no big deal.
If however a desperate sale occurs on the ocean front we'll definetly look there.Right now is a buyers market and time is on the buyers side for now.
This is our goal for now and obviously does not apply to many.

No doubt the choices are different now with different risks and costs than 3 or 4 years ago. Certainly one can get a better "value" for a non beach location than for ocean front or similar though usually the OF option will retain it's value both for sales and rentals far better than the off beach option will. My conclusion with HH was that unless it made sense to buy without rental income, it didn't make sense to buy counting on rentals. If you can pay cash for it, that certainly shifts the equation but for all options including timeshares. For HH I came to the conclusion that owning timeshares THERE made far more sense for peak times than a condo FOR US and that for off peak I could do even better than owning by simply by trading in with Marriott. We certainly would not have been happy a mile off the beach. Even a lower unit in the back of an OF resort would have been pushing it for us. Of course I say that as I just got my confirmation for a 1 BR at the Surf Club for Jan, 2011.

 

[modoaruba]

No doubt the choices are different now with different risks and costs than 3 or 4 years ago. Certainly one can get a better "value" for a non beach location than for ocean front or similar though usually the OF option will retain it's value both for sales and rentals far better than the off beach option will. My conclusion with HH was that unless it made sense to buy without rental income, it didn't make sense to buy counting on rentals. If you can pay cash for it, that certainly shifts the equation but for all options including timeshares. For HH I came to the conclusion that owning timeshares THERE made far more sense for peak times than a condo FOR US and that for off peak I could do even better than owning by simply by trading in with Marriott. We certainly would not have been happy a mile off the beach. Even a lower unit in the back of an OF resort would have been pushing it for us. Of course I say that as I just got my confirmation for a 1 BR at the Surf Club for Jan, 2011.[/QUOTE]

I understand that a top floor ocean front is prime but comes with a premium.
When vacationing we do not spend a lot of time in the room so location of view is secondary.But the view would be nice.
Same with purchasing a residence.Ocean front is ideal but secondary to price point to US.
If we can find a premium location at a reasonable price it becomes a no brainer.
An analogy that comes to mind is since we travel on air miles,we have a choice of using 25,000 points for coach or 50,000 points for business class.
For a 4 hour flight we choose coach and get twice as many trips.No leather seats nor cheap wine.Oh well.
Dean,there'll always be chocolate and vanilla,we make the choice for ourselves.
It's a beautiful thing.Either way,we are where we want to be.Can't ask for much more.
We stayed at the Surf Club last September.Enjoy!

 

[Dean]

I understand that a top floor ocean front is prime but comes with a premium.
When vacationing we do not spend a lot of time in the room so location of view is secondary.But the view would be nice.
Same with purchasing a residence.Ocean front is ideal but secondary to price point to US.
If we can find a premium location at a reasonable price it becomes a no brainer.
An analogy that comes to mind is since we travel on air miles,we have a choice of using 25,000 points for coach or 50,000 points for business class.
For a 4 hour flight we choose coach and get twice as many trips.No leather seats nor cheap wine.Oh well.
Dean,there'll always be chocolate and vanilla,we make the choice for ourselves.
It's a beautiful thing.Either way,we are where we want to be.Can't ask for much more.
We stayed at the Surf Club last September.Enjoy!

I think there are resort oriented people and destination oriented people though most of us are in between. The resort IS important to us as for location, quality, amenities, view (at times and definitely for beach locations) though we want to go to nice overall places as well. We were at the Surf Club Jan of this year so we'll be back 2 years later. In both cases traded a lessor 1 BR with a negligible buy in and yearly fees much less than those in Aruba. We are empty nesters and pretty flexible and tend to prefer shoulder seasons for most locations so the exchanging works well for us.

 

[marksue]

Question: What is the status of the planned façade maintenance project at the resort?

Answer: MVCI recently funded efforts to develop a project scope, obtain preliminary bids from six contractors, and prepare a presentation of various options for the Board to review and consider. Subsequently, the Board reviewed a list of regular maintenance items as well as a list of additional items which, if completed in the short term, may allow the Association to realize cost savings or other advantages. While the Board completed its review, MVCI continued to work with the most competitive contractors to focus the scope of their work and obtain the most favorable pricing possible based on the Board's direction. The Association has nearly $600,000 in reserve funding approved for this project. In addition to the façade maintenance, which will be funded by the Association, MVCI will voluntarily make a one-time contribution of approximately $1M to fund optional façade improvements that were recommended by a certified architect based on the specific impact of the Aruban climate on the building during the last 10 years. These optional works will further enhance the ability of the building to withstand harsh climate conditions.



Planned Facade Refurbishment Process
• Just like your home, our building needs to be repainted periodically. This is especially true in Aruba’s harsh climate with ever-present wind and relentless sun. Beginning in early 2010, the building will be repainted with a waterproof paint specifically designed for stucco and our extreme climate. While the scaffolding is in place, windows and sliding glass doors will be re-caulked and work will be done on patios to extend their useful life. Please note there may be some noise during this process but careful effort will be taken to limit the work near occupied villas.

The reserves had this project as an already planned project for some years; unfortunately, due to the increases in local taxes, customs, duties, shipping, permit processes, etc. on the island this project may have been under-funded by the prior Board.THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEENTHIS BOARD AND THE PREVIOUS BOARD IS ALLAN COHEN. WHY IS THE BOARD TRYING TO DEFLECT RESPONSIBILITY BY BLAMING IT ON THE PREVIOUS BOARD The present Board worked with MVCI and was able to secure the extra funding by the management company to the benefit of the Association.


The façade work, similar to what the neighboring Marriott Resort recently did, is presently scheduled to begin in February 2010 and continue to August 2010. There will be 18 villas at a time from the first floor up to the sixth that will have scaffolding in front of the balconies and each week we will move the scaffolding to the next 18 balconies. Work will primarily be done around the balcony doors, balcony tile, villa window frames, and two coats of elastomeric waterproof paint.THE BUILDING HAS BEEN LEAKING AROUND THE DOORS AND THE WINDOWS SINCE THE BUILDING OPENED. ONCE AGAIN MARRIOTT IS MAKING THE OWNERS PAY FOR A SUBSTANDARD BUILDING AND USING ARUBA CLIMATE AS THE REASON. THE DAMAGE FROM OMAR WAS DUE TO TH LACK OF WEATHER PROOFING, YET NOW WE NEED TO WETHEPROOF THE BUILDING. WHY WAS IT NOT WATERPROFFED WEHN BUILT.

STILL CAN NOT GET AN ANSWER IF THERE WILL BE ANOTHER ASSESMENT TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE. THE BOARD HAS REFUSED NUMEROUS REQUESTS AS TO HOW IT WILL BE FUNDED



HAPPY AND HEALTHY HOLIDAYS TO ALL

 

[Dean]

THE BUILDING HAS BEEN LEAKING AROUND THE DOORS AND THE WINDOWS SINCE THE BUILDING OPENED. ONCE AGAIN MARRIOTT IS MAKING THE OWNERS PAY FOR A SUBSTANDARD BUILDING AND USING ARUBA CLIMATE AS THE REASON. THE DAMAGE FROM OMAR WAS DUE TO TH LACK OF WEATHER PROOFING, YET NOW WE NEED TO WETHEPROOF THE BUILDING. WHY WAS IT NOT WATERPROFFED WEHN BUILT.

The questions isn't so much whether the problem has been long standing per se but rather whether Marriott knowingly and purposefully sold a product they knew up front was defective and would likely require such expenditures early. Even then, having the owners pay for the added life gained by doing the work now (or the prorated portion for the value they've received) as well as the tag along work while the crews and materials are on site is still reasonable.

 

[lovearuba]

not sure I agree

The questions isn't so much whether the problem has been long standing per se but rather whether Marriott knowingly and purposefully sold a product they knew up front was defective and would likely require such expenditures early. Even then, having the owners pay for the added life gained by doing the work now (or the prorated portion for the value they've received) as well as the tag along work while the crews and materials are on site is still reasonable.

Hi Dean
First and foremost, let me say that I wish everyone a wonderful holiday season.

I do however want to understand why its okay to expect owners to pay for repairs that were the result of buying into a defective building. I understand expenses that are normal wear and tear on a new building but it just doesnt seem reasonable that the owners have to pay for repairs that were caused by the condition of the building upon purchase.

I am one of those owners that witnessed the numerous flooding areas in the building early on. I've passed buckets of water in the hallways that were placed there to catch the water pouring out of the ceiling.

 

[Dean]

Hi Dean
First and foremost, let me say that I wish everyone a wonderful holiday season.

I do however want to understand why its okay to expect owners to pay for repairs that were the result of buying into a defective building. I understand expenses that are normal wear and tear on a new building but it just doesnt seem reasonable that the owners have to pay for repairs that were caused by the condition of the building upon purchase.

I am one of those owners that witnessed the numerous flooding areas in the building early on. I've passed buckets of water in the hallways that were placed there to catch the water pouring out of the ceiling.

As I said early and as I said above, the issue that is core to this complaint (IMO) is whether Marriott knew (or should have known) early on during active sales about such issues, not whether the issues existed or whether Marriott found out later. If they acted in good faith and followed proper procedures for such a situation, that's all they can do. If they didn't, it'll be incumbent on the person filing the complaint to either prove that OR to at least convince a judge they did know. If things happen that were unexpected based on that approach, the members should be responsible. Regardless, much of the expenses in question are expenses that would eventually have come about no matter what. Therefore, it is reasonable for the owners to pay for the years they did get out of the entity in question even if Marriott were truly at fault or put another way, pay for the extra years they should get on the back end for the work that is being done. Lets say you buy a car and you later found out they did not sell the car as advertised. I had a friend that bought a corvette some years ago. Come to find out they had dropped it off the trailer when delivering it and broke the nose off. They sold it as new and presumable undamaged. He still had to pay for the miles he had driven it and reasonably so.