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

[modoaruba]

As an owner,it seems that there is no way to win.
Either it's legal fees or increased assessments and MFs.
I wanted for the group to get the word out to the owners more out of educating the owners as to what is going on rather than incur onto them (us) more fees.
As I crunched the numbers before,IMO,it makes no sense to buy in now through Marriott.Maybe a resale is OK.
But most of all this whole fiasco serves as a lesson to any novice or even weathered TS owner regardless of resort.
"S" can happen anywhere,just be prepared to deal with it.
No different than going to the casino,realize what you can afford to loose before you put money down.Again,IMO.
I hate to sound down on this but to me there is also an upside.
We will continue to go to the AOC,we will pay the fees,and we WILL enjoy our stay in spite of it all.
We made many friends there whom we see year after year.We at times bring family with us.The memories-Priceless.(should be a commercial-eh?)

Happy New Year

 

[lovearuba]

minor disagreement

I really don't care who wins in this fight. I don't have a vested interest. However, I do have enough legal training and experience to share what I believe to be a realistic and disinterested (not uninterested) view.

I accept, Mark, that the roof leaked from day 1. It's also clear that Marriott and the BOD were at odds over who should pay for repairs or replacement of the roof. And perhaps, yes, although it has not been proven, Marriott "knew" on day 1 that the roof leaked. However, ultimately the BOD, with the authority granted by the bylaws to act on behalf of all owners, agreed to settle with Marriott on the previously discussed 40-60 basis. That's one primary reason why I believe you have virtually no chance to win in court.

Further, because your BOD accepted the settlement, the BOD must continue to pay for legal expenses - which means the owners pay for those expenses - to protect itself against the likely claims against the BOD when Marriott points the finger in court that it already has an agreement on the roof to which the BOD has agreed.

That's why I believe the only thing you are accomplishing with this fight is more expense for the owners.

I don't agree with you that the only thing that is being accomplished is more expenses to the owners. The group continues to grow significantly in numbers and as more people sign up, the chance of removing the current BOD will be a reality. Its also my opinion that Marriott would not have agreed to pay anything if it was not for the group. www.aocconcernedowners.com

 

[ecwinch]

If a building was defective for 10 years, and it took 7 or 8 years for the owner to make a claim for defective construction, how successful do you think that owner would be in pursuing that claim? Particularly if the building was defective from day 1 and the defects were as obvious as claimed.

Against that backdrop, perhaps the current settlement that board accepted is a suitable compromise. And might be better than than the potential net outcome of a lawsuit. While I know that Dutch law is involved here, in the US, the decision of the board would be protected by the "business judgment rule" doctrine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule

To circumvent that defense it would have to be proven that MVCI controlled the board to the extent the directors were incapable of making independent decisions. Which would only lead to a protracted legal battle.

If I owned at AOC I would be concerned about the impact of potential litigation on the MVCI relationship. Something I am sure the board considered when making the decision to accept the current settlement regarding the roof. While Mark has made previous statements that he feels that MVCI would never drop the AOC, I do not think that is well-reasoned. In any relationship - no matter how important - their clearly is a point of no return.

Now, I do not think that is a immediate possibility. But if crusaders were allowed unfettered access to the owners to spin their biased version of the situation without rebuttal, then it is not impossible that they could gain a majority on the board. In the face of a board that is adversarial and seeks to pursue litigation, it is not a forgone conclusion that MVCI would rethink the value of the AOC.

That is the danger involved here, and why I remain involved in this thread. TUG should not be used as a bully pulpit to present only one side of a story in order to influence owners. While I agree that AOC owners have some legitimate concerns, the tactics and history of the crusaders provide me with no confidence that they would work with MVCI to solve those problems. I think their road only leads to one conclusion.

 

[ecwinch]

I don't agree with you that the only thing that is being accomplished is more expenses to the owners. The group continues to grow significantly in numbers and as more people sign up, the chance of removing the current BOD will be a reality. Its also my opinion that Marriott would not have agreed to pay anything if it was not for the group. www.aocconcernedowners.com

I do not think that is consistent with the record here.

Thanks

 

[ecwinch]

The building has had issues since day 1. You have never been there to see what happened everytime it rained. I was as all other owners. So you can say what you want to defend Marriott, the building has been defective and Marriott sold it knowing it was defective.

I guess with your logic, since it was a 10 year old building it wasn't built to handle rain since the building codes were different.

Mark,

Just to have a clear account of the facts, I was at the Surf Club in Dec 08, right after Omar. I visited the Ocean Club on a number of occasions during my visit, including periods when it was raining. I did not notice any buckets in the lobby.

I am not saying that this never occurred. Just that my opinion is rooted in more than just the biased information related here. My position is based on an objective view of the facts presented here and by MVCI, my personal observations of the property, the discussions here, and conversation and correspondence with Allan Cohen. It is not rooted in a desire to be argumentative, but in sense that it would be inappropriate for the dialog to dominated by only one side of the story. Given your frequent posts and hyperbole, I think the dialog requires more balance.

Thanks

 

[lovearuba]

I do not think that is consistent with the record here.

Thanks

Most of the owners do not post here. Your records that you refer to are from the folks that post to this thread and the majority, overwhelming majority of the posts on this thread are not from owners.

You always want people to prove their evidence when they make statements but you do not seem to have the same criteria for your posts. You've walked through the ocean club and on the rare occasions that you've been there you did not see water issues. The folks that have are owners and actually stayed there many times.

 

[Dean]

The building has had issues since day 1. You have never been there to see what happened everytime it rained. I was as all other owners. So you can say what you want to defend Marriott, the building has been defective and Marriott sold it knowing it was defective.

I guess with your logic, since it was a 10 year old building it wasn't built to handle rain since the building codes were different.

It may have had issues from day 1, I really don't know and it isn't especially important to me personally. However, it will take proving that it had issues from day 1 or thereabouts AND that Marriott knew up front and sold it anyway or at least that they should have known. Saying it here over and over will have NO meaning at all and I don't automatically buy it. Plus there was still 10 years worth of use gotten out of the room. I get that part of the argument was that there was additional cost and damage BECAUSE of the alleged roof issues. Assuming one can legally prove all of those things, which I sincerely doubt to be honest, the neutral position is the current cost times the % of roof life lost and then add in the additional proven costs generated by a defective roof. Assuming a 30 year life span which I suspect is the longest courts might use, you're looking at getting Marriott up to about 2/3 but the resort and owners will still have to pay the extra legal costs and the opposition owners will still have to pay their costs as well, or else add those to the resort legal costs if they can secure a ruling that pays the plaintiff's costs.

Some want to take the stance that if you're not with us your against us but I don't think that is an appropriate view on this topic.. You've got those that believe and those of us that are skeptical. That is not defending Marriott and suggesting it is insults the intelligence of those that remain unconvinced. Being unconvicced or taking a wait an see approach IS NOT being a Marriott apologist.

As an owner,it seems that there is no way to win.
Either it's legal fees or increased assessments and MFs.

A point several of us made over time. The owners are the one's who will suffer no matter the outcome of this and the lawyers are the ones who will profit. And it is entirely possible that the new position will be a loss for the owners. Anyone who thinks the board is going to be thrown out and a BOD that the opposition would be happy with is being unrealistic at best.

I don't agree with you that the only thing that is being accomplished is more expenses to the owners.

It was my understanding that Marriott agreed to it's roughly 40% kick in very early on, from what I've seen the group can't take credit for this. But it goes along with my prediction that there will be a settlement that at it's best is about a break even for the owners there even if the % is higher from Marriott (consider legal fees) and the group will attempt to take credit there as well.

 

[qlaval]

....I was at the Surf Club in Dec 08, right after Omar.
I visited the Ocean Club on a number of occasions during my visit, including periods when it was raining.
I did not notice any buckets in the lobby.

I am not saying that this never occurred.
Just that my opinion is rooted in more than just the biased information related here...

Strangely it was hard to miss....

 

[Luckybee]

qlaval

Nice photo(and comment )...indicitive of what we have seen over the years in different forms as well ! I remember in the first few years having to avoid areas of the lobby after it rained because of the water and buckets. Do any of the other owners remember the staircase that crumbled and couldnt be used for months?

Dean
Im curious....if you dont believe that Allan was responsible for Marriott kicking in to the point that they did for the repairs than who do you think got them to do it? Or are you now seperating Allan from the "group" ?
As well where we most definitely have to agree to disagree is the one issue(which happens to be the one I am mainly concerned with and again just my opinion but the most important issue for the future)which is that I think that there is a relatively decent chance of success is getting a more owner responsive board after all is said and done. To say that that isnt realistic is simply wrong, but as I said that is just my opinion and we obviously both have different ones

 

[davidberg]

Nice Photo

I like the photo and remember the Board even sending that specific one as well as a couple others depicting some of the damage that occurred at Ocean Club during Hurricane Omar. I believe I may even have other pictures showing the devastation on the island after that storm.

 

[Luckybee]

I like the photo and remember the Board even sending that specific one as well as a couple others depicting some of the damage that occurred at Ocean Club during Hurricane Omar. I believe I may even have other pictures showing the devastation on the island after that storm.

Very true and good point....when Allan was still on the board he made sure the owners were kept in the loop !

 

[Dean]

Dean
Im curious....if you dont believe that Allan was responsible for Marriott kicking in to the point that they did for the repairs than who do you think got them to do it? Or are you now seperating Allan from the "group" ?
As well where we most definitely have to agree to disagree is the one issue(which happens to be the one I am mainly concerned with and again just my opinion but the most important issue for the future)which is that I think that there is a relatively decent chance of success is getting a more owner responsive board after all is said and done. To say that that isnt realistic is simply wrong, but as I said that is just my opinion and we obviously both have different ones

Allan may or may not have been responsible, I don't know, but Marriott made the offer before there was any group and when Allan was still on the BOD if I understand the chain of events correctly. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that Allan was the group and vice versa did you. Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree on the chances of you getting what you think you want as it pertains to the BOD, at least with Marriott still involved with the resort. I expect you're going to get a more distant, battle hardened BOD and a Marriott that's less willing to be warm and fuzzy toward the owners there. Just my opinion of course as no one knows for certain and it'll take years to even know somewhat. IMO, the course being taken is one of high risk with low reward potential.

I think it'll be difficult using damage during a hurricane as proof of the accusations, I think you'll need similar damage proof that is not hurricane related to be effective.

 

[timeos2]

Somethimes things aren't as bad as they may appear

I like the photo and remember the Board even sending that specific one as well as a couple others depicting some of the damage that occurred at Ocean Club during Hurricane Omar. I believe I may even have other pictures showing the devastation on the island after that storm.

When a hurricane is involved it is very easy to come up with a "disaster" photo that may not be representative of any basic flaw or even serious damage. Here is one from a resort that basically suffered no damage at all
yet, in this picture, it looks pretty bad.

A wider view puts it more in context:

Actually just some wind blown rain under the second floor doors that caused this section of ceiling to get saturated and fall. A hurricane can drive water into many places, sealed or not, you normally wouldn't find it. Hardly proof of a major defect.

Interestingly there was virtually no damage to the resort due to roof problems. Yet shortly after the storm an engineering review found them incorrectly installed and in need of total replacement. It was proven that they were faulty from day one. The owners got ZERO toward the cost as both the contractor, who had been sued on another job and went out of business after that and the developer, who had gone bankrupt, paid nothing. They should have, it was known they were responsible but the law said "too bad" - they were untouchable even after a lawsuit.

So as I've said before, be thankful you are getting reimbursed for even a portion of the work. Even when you are proven right it doesn't mean you'll actually see a penny. Take whats offered and run to the bank. It's doubtful that a costly fight will get you anymore in the long run and you very well may end up with less.

 

[Luckybee]

Allan may or may not have been responsible, I don't know, but Marriott made the offer before there was any group and when Allan was still on the BOD if I understand the chain of events correctly. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that Allan was the group and vice versa did you. Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree on the chances of you getting what you think you want as it pertains to the BOD, at least with Marriott still involved with the resort. I expect you're going to get a more distant, battle hardened BOD and a Marriott that's less willing to be warm and fuzzy toward the owners there. Just my opinion of course as no one knows for certain and it'll take years to even know somewhat. IMO, the course being taken is one of high risk with low reward potential.

I think it'll be difficult using damage during a hurricane as proof of the accusations, I think you'll need similar damage proof that is not hurricane related to be effective.

Again...we'll have to wait and see what happens because it will take quite some time in my humble opinion and on that we do agree.

Just as an fyi...there is plenty of evidence out there about the "usual' leaking...I dont think that will be a high threshold to meet. Whether its effective at this point will be the issue in court I suspect ...but before everyone keeps saying the photo after a hurricane isnt evidence keep in mind why qlaval posted it and what it was in response to. I think it was rather appropriate (and funny imho).

 

[Luckybee]

So as I've said before, be thankful you are getting reimbursed for even a portion of the work. Even when you are proven right it doesn't mean you'll actually see a penny. Take whats offered and run to the bank. It's doubtful that a costly fight will get you anymore in the long run and you very well may end up with less.

Im sure that many owners would not agree with me on this but I would happily pay more if it meant we could get rid of this board and get back the kind of board we had for years ! I am not thankful that we have a Marriott controlled board one little bit because I have 0 confidence that the same sordid things that repeatedly have happened and continue to happen wont happen once again when it is in Marriott's interest to do so. As an example(and there are many) I personally continue to be concerned with regard to the issue of beach sharing. When I was in Aruba a number of people were talking about this issue and spoke with Corey about it, ...all answers from him were prefaced with "currently", and "not now", and related use of language. I know of no OC owner that wants "sharing" with the SC, but Marriott certainly does and this board has already repeatedly shown its true colours when it comes to Marriott. I also am very concerned about the way this board wants to prevent info from reaching the owners...and on and on and on! You see for me, the steps the board has taken ie: not telling the owners in the material why the addresses were being requested, tells me that this is not the kind of board that I want representing my interest...this is exactly the reason I got interested in this effort in the first place...quite frankly for me it was never about the $.
So for me I personally, and I have said this before could not care one iota if Marriott pays one more dime(although I am happy that as a result of Allans efforts in the first place they did accept some responsibilty and pay what they did).....I just want to see this board ousted so that we can go back to a board and resort we can trust.

 

[SueDonJ]

Im sure that many owners would not agree with me on this but I would happily pay more if it meant we could get rid of this board and get back the kind of board we had for years ! ... I just want to see this board ousted so that we can go back to a board and resort we can trust.

Ousting members of this board is proving to be a costly and drawn-out legal process for all of the MAOC owners, isn't it? And even if the "concerned owners" group is successful with that, there is no guarantee that the members who are elected to replace them will be able to act as prior board members did. There simply aren't any contractual stipulations in place which will give owners the right to demand "transparency" (whatever that means) from any BOD members. Of course you could attempt further legal actions that would enact such stipulations, by way of amendments to the bylaws and changes in the management contract between the MAOC BOD and MVCI, but again there is no guarantee of success there and the legal costs would only continue to escalate. Plus, how much are you willing to risk the MVCI name on the door for an intangible "transparency?"

I know you, Luckybee, in particular, think that this is an issue that relates only to MAOC owners. But in fact MVCI acts as the management company for every resort under the MVCI umbrella, and streamlines the process as much as is possible. You may not think that what happens at other MVCI resorts has any bearing on your resort, but the truth is that you can see evidence all over this TUG Marriott board that MVCI has instituted the practice at most every resort of using generic email addresses which funnel owner concerns through the GM offices. The private contact information for BOD members is being phased out all over. Unless your group can prove that is a breach of contract, there is a slim-to-none chance that MVCI will reverse that decision for any resort it manages. In fact I would bet that MVCI would fight against it specifically at MAOC because of a former board member's actions instigating this situation.

But besides all that, I cannot figure out why the sitting board members at MAOC are taking the brunt of this "concerned owners" group's anger. You all say that the physical structure was defective for years, that you saw it with your own eyes. So why punish the board members that have finally taken actions to fix it?!?! Especially when they have been able to extract from MVCI more than what would be reasonably levied in a court judgment - in effect, MVCI is funding what would have been the warranty protection if the contractor hadn't gone bankrupt. It just doesn't make any sense to me - the boards that accepted the building as it was and the boards that weren't fiscally responsible were good boards, but the board that took actions to fix the problems is bad? I just don't get it.

 

[ecwinch]

Im curious....if you dont believe that Allan was responsible for Marriott kicking in to the point that they did for the repairs than who do you think got them to do it? Or are you now seperating Allan from the "group" ?

This is funny. When I spoke with Allan, he disavowed any cooperation and/or knowledge of the "group". He repeatedly made that point. He actually mentioned that it was a source of friction between him and MVCI, as he had no knowledge or influence over what Mark was doing.

Likewise, if you go back to the beginning of this thread, Mark disavows any affiliation with Allan.

Your post seems to suggest the opposite.

 

[ecwinch]

Strangely it was hard to miss....

Actually this is a better example of how the facts are being distorted to fit the argument.

As I clearly noted in my post, I was there in Dec 2008. The properties for this JPEG file show it was taken on Oct. 22, 2008 at 10:27am.

Just validates my broader point on how the actual facts are being "slanted" to fit the argument. And completely ignores my point was the roof leakage is being grossly over-generalized, not that it never occurred.

 

[ecwinch]

Im sure that many owners would not agree with me on this but I would happily pay more if it meant we could get rid of this board and get back the kind of board we had for years ! I am not thankful that we have a Marriott controlled board one little bit because I have 0 confidence that the same sordid things that repeatedly have happened and continue to happen wont happen once again when it is in Marriott's interest to do so. As an example(and there are many) I personally continue to be concerned with regard to the issue of beach sharing. When I was in Aruba a number of people were talking about this issue and spoke with Corey about it, ...all answers from him were prefaced with "currently", and "not now", and related use of language. I know of no OC owner that wants "sharing" with the SC, but Marriott certainly does and this board has already repeatedly shown its true colours when it comes to Marriott. I also am very concerned about the way this board wants to prevent info from reaching the owners...and on and on and on! You see for me, the steps the board has taken ie: not telling the owners in the material why the addresses were being requested, tells me that this is not the kind of board that I want representing my interest...this is exactly the reason I got interested in this effort in the first place...quite frankly for me it was never about the $.
So for me I personally, and I have said this before could not care one iota if Marriott pays one more dime(although I am happy that as a result of Allans efforts in the first place they did accept some responsibilty and pay what they did).....I just want to see this board ousted so that we can go back to a board and resort we can trust.

This is one part that I do not understand. Beyond Allan, what other pro-owner director(s) were replaced that resulted in this seemingly sudden shift to a "Marriott controlled board"?

From your description it makes it sound like there were three pro-owner directors. But accounts here have strictly centered on Allan's departure from the board. Who was voting with Allan when the board was not MVCI controlled and how were they replaced?

 

[m61376]

As an example(and there are many) I personally continue to be concerned with regard to the issue of beach sharing. When I was in Aruba a number of people were talking about this issue and spoke with Corey about it, ...all answers from him were prefaced with "currently", and "not now", and related use of language. I know of no OC owner that wants "sharing" with the SC, but Marriott certainly does and this board has already repeatedly shown its true colours when it comes to Marriott.

That my be the case, but since the legal documents give Marriott the right to change these things as they deem necessary, I doubt the GM at any of the resorts would make a blanket statement that any policy which may be reviewed over the course of time is a concrete absolute.

The reality here is that there has been a tug of war between OC and SC owners over the use of the beach and the pool facilities. While the majority (or maybe all, but since I haven't spoken to all I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for them) of OC owners may not want to share the beach facilities, many (and perhaps most, although- again- I don't know) would like access to the SC's pool facilities, which many visitors prefer.

For a long time the OC and SC shared pool usage, but the influx of visitors was largely one-sided towards utilization of the SC's pool. Many SC owners resented OC guests using the pool and requested that, if the SC pool was open to OC guests, then the less crowded OC beach should be likewise shared. In reality, palapas stand vacant at the OC, since there are more palapas per keyed room than at the SC, and SC owners felt that if they allowed OC owners/guests to use their better pool facilities then the beach should be shared as well.

Since OC owners preferred to keep the beach facilities separate, the BODs of the two facilities determined the only equitable solution was to keep everything separate.

Personally, as an owner at the SC, while I think it would be nice if everyone co-existed and shared and I think that so doing would provide an ideal vacation experience, because it would allow visitors to use whatever facilities they would enjoy more (quieter pool but without some of the amenities versus busier pool area but with the Lazy River, etc.), since owners could not agree to share nicely the only equitable solution was for each resort to remain territorial. Although I know OC owners were angry about it, one-sided sharing was not an equitable solution.

But enough of the history - the point is, attitudes evolve over time and it makes sense to leave the door open for changes to be made.

 

[Dean]

Im sure that many owners would not agree with me on this but I would happily pay more if it meant we could get rid of this board and get back the kind of board we had for years ! I am not thankful that we have a Marriott controlled board one little bit because I have 0 confidence that the same sordid things that repeatedly have happened and continue to happen wont happen once again when it is in Marriott's interest to do so. As an example(and there are many) I personally continue to be concerned with regard to the issue of beach sharing. When I was in Aruba a number of people were talking about this issue and spoke with Corey about it, ...all answers from him were prefaced with "currently", and "not now", and related use of language. I know of no OC owner that wants "sharing" with the SC, but Marriott certainly does and this board has already repeatedly shown its true colours when it comes to Marriott. I also am very concerned about the way this board wants to prevent info from reaching the owners...and on and on and on! You see for me, the steps the board has taken ie: not telling the owners in the material why the addresses were being requested, tells me that this is not the kind of board that I want representing my interest...this is exactly the reason I got interested in this effort in the first place...quite frankly for me it was never about the $.
So for me I personally, and I have said this before could not care one iota if Marriott pays one more dime(although I am happy that as a result of Allans efforts in the first place they did accept some responsibilty and pay what they did).....I just want to see this board ousted so that we can go back to a board and resort we can trust.

As long as Marriott is involved they will always have a significant amount of control over the board including who is elected. Also, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, there's no way to know if you've gotten what you want unless you get on of the "instigators" elected. Marriott would walk away before they would give up a certain level of control, they may anyway.

 

[Dean]

That my be the case, but since the legal documents give Marriott the right to change these things as they deem necessary, I doubt the GM at any of the resorts would make a blanket statement that any policy which may be reviewed over the course of time is a concrete absolute.

The reality here is that there has been a tug of war between OC and SC owners over the use of the beach and the pool facilities. While the majority (or maybe all, but since I haven't spoken to all I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for them) of OC owners may not want to share the beach facilities, many (and perhaps most, although- again- I don't know) would like access to the SC's pool facilities, which many visitors prefer.

For a long time the OC and SC shared pool usage, but the influx of visitors was largely one-sided towards utilization of the SC's pool. Many SC owners resented OC guests using the pool and requested that, if the SC pool was open to OC guests, then the less crowded OC beach should be likewise shared. In reality, palapas stand vacant at the OC, since there are more palapas per keyed room than at the SC, and SC owners felt that if they allowed OC owners/guests to use their better pool facilities then the beach should be shared as well.

Since OC owners preferred to keep the beach facilities separate, the BODs of the two facilities determined the only equitable solution was to keep everything separate.

Personally, as an owner at the SC, while I think it would be nice if everyone co-existed and shared and I think that so doing would provide an ideal vacation experience, because it would allow visitors to use whatever facilities they would enjoy more (quieter pool but without some of the amenities versus busier pool area but with the Lazy River, etc.), since owners could not agree to share nicely the only equitable solution was for each resort to remain territorial. Although I know OC owners were angry about it, one-sided sharing was not an equitable solution.

But enough of the history - the point is, attitudes evolve over time and it makes sense to leave the door open for changes to be made.

The beach itself is public so you have to take out the area that's public out of the equation. Anytime amenities are too one-sided, things are not going to turn out well when sharing, enter the lazy river. Add to that the chair savers, who I have even less respect for, and you have a disaster in the making. I wonder how they're handling SC owners staying at the OC since most Marriott resorts offer day use privileges to owners at that resort.

 

[Luckybee]

That my be the case, but since the legal documents give Marriott the right to change these things as they deem necessary, I doubt the GM at any of the resorts would make a blanket statement that any policy which may be reviewed over the course of time is a concrete absolute.

The reality here is that there has been a tug of war between OC and SC owners over the use of the beach and the pool facilities. While the majority (or maybe all, but since I haven't spoken to all I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for them) of OC owners may not want to share the beach facilities, many (and perhaps most, although- again- I don't know) would like access to the SC's pool facilities, which many visitors prefer.

For a long time the OC and SC shared pool usage, but the influx of visitors was largely one-sided towards utilization of the SC's pool. Many SC owners resented OC guests using the pool and requested that, if the SC pool was open to OC guests, then the less crowded OC beach should be likewise shared. In reality, palapas stand vacant at the OC, since there are more palapas per keyed room than at the SC, and SC owners felt that if they allowed OC owners/guests to use their better pool facilities then the beach should be shared as well.

Since OC owners preferred to keep the beach facilities separate, the BODs of the two facilities determined the only equitable solution was to keep everything separate.

Personally, as an owner at the SC, while I think it would be nice if everyone co-existed and shared and I think that so doing would provide an ideal vacation experience, because it would allow visitors to use whatever facilities they would enjoy more (quieter pool but without some of the amenities versus busier pool area but with the Lazy River, etc.), since owners could not agree to share nicely the only equitable solution was for each resort to remain territorial. Although I know OC owners were angry about it, one-sided sharing was not an equitable solution.

But enough of the history - the point is, attitudes evolve over time and it makes sense to leave the door open for changes to be made.

Interesting perspective...having owned from the very beginning we know quite a few owners at the OC. Some availed themselves of the lazy river when it first opened but mainly as a novelty...we tried it a couple of times but the novelty wore off. . But the trade off simply wasnt worth it. Our beach was so overcrowded that it was like being at the SC or as we equated it ...las vegas on a very bad day. Quite frankly during that time frame was the only time we traded because we couldnt stand going to the OC with those crowds on the beach. Now that the new rules are in place we've gone back to a much less crowded beach and it is so much more pleasant. I seriously dont know of 1 OC owner who would give up the beach in order to gain access to the SC pool but I do know quite a few who would absolutely revolt if we went back to that again...but I guess that could just be that we know different owners ! Actually imho if the board tried to pass that again I think that would be a sure fire guarantee of success for the "concerned owners" because there would be alot more jumping on board...lol.

 

[Luckybee]

The beach itself is public so you have to take out the area that's public out of the equation. Anytime amenities are too one-sided, things are not going to turn out well when sharing, enter the lazy river. Add to that the chair savers, who I have even less respect for, and you have a disaster in the making. I wonder how they're handling SC owners staying at the OC since most Marriott resorts offer day use privileges to owners at that resort.

The public beach is exactly the area we are talking about. SC owners are not allowed under the new rules to use the OC chairs or palapas and visa versa. So by that action the SC owners no longer overcrowd the OC beach. In exchange the OC owners no longer use the SC pool. Of course an SC owner could come over and lay in the sand ....This was well monitored by security repeatedly when we were there in Nov/Dec a month ago....we saw quite a number of "blue towel" holders being requested to vacate by security. Of course if you had friends at the OC you could simply use your friends towels but it certainly did dramatically cut down on the overcrowding.

 

[qlaval]

Actually this is a better example of how the facts are being distorted to fit the argument.

As I clearly noted in my post, I was there in Dec 2008. The properties for this JPEG file show it was taken on Oct. 22, 2008 at 10:27am. .....

We all know that these are from Omar... it is just that when buckets are there they are hard to miss...

I like the photo and remember the Board even sending that specific one as well as a couple others depicting some of the damage that occurred at Ocean Club during Hurricane Omar.....