• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 29 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered!
  • TUG started 29 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Check out our happy birthday post here: Happy Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Come check it out for a chance to win a Free TUG membership (or renewal) just for helping out!

    Read more here
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $19,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $19 Million dollars
  • Our 2022 Timeshare Survey is now complete and the full results as well as our expert and witty analysis of each question is available here: Here We hope you enjoy reading the results as much as we did!
  • Follow the TUG Member Banner as it travels the world on vacation with Timeshare owners! Also sign up to get the banner sent to you so you can submit a photo of your vacation with the banner to share with TUG! Banner Thread
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free! 50,000+ subscribers! Latest resort reviews and the most important topics discussed by owners during the week!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    Read more Here
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Possible Starwood Listing of Starwood’s Voluntary Resorts

nodge

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
Portland, Oregon
Hey Starwood Tuggers,

I was hanging around the Sheraton Desert Oasis’ (a Starwood voluntary resort) last week using the for-fee WiFi in the lobby and stumbled onto a document titled: “2006-C Supplement to Sheraton Desert Oasis Owner Information,” Version R-14, dated Sept. 6, 2006. Page One says “Owner Information Pages 240 through 261 (the Starwood Vacation Exchange Company Disclosure Guide for Members of the Starwood Vacation Network (R-12)) are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the attached Starwood Vacation Exchange Company Disclosure Guide for Members of the Starwood Vacation Network (R-14).”

Section III (“Membership in SVN”) of this document includes the familiar terms that make SDO a voluntary resort. Namely, “[m]embership in SVN automatically terminates if the SVN Member voluntarily or involuntarily transfers the SVN Member’s VOI [“Vacation Ownership Interest”] and owns no other VOI, or if the SVN Member’s VOI ceases to be an SVN Resort. SVN Membership is not transferable.”

The most interesting thing in this document is its file name. It is printed at the bottom of each page as follows:

F:\SVEC\Registrations\Docs\GUIDE R-14 (9-6-06 – CAS LKS LST PGA WMH SMV SDO SBP CAN POR BV AR).doc

It would appear that this Document R-14, which includes the SVN voluntary resort language, applies to all of the resorts listed after “9-6-06” in the file name. If so, the file name serves as a list of SVN’s voluntary resorts and here they are:

Starwood Voluntary Resorts in SVN

CAS – Sheraton Vistana Resort – Cascades Section
LKS – Sheraton Vistana Resort – Lakes Section
LST - Sheraton Lakeside Terrace
PGA – Sheraton PGA Vacation Resort
WMH – Westin Mission Hills
SMV – Sheraton Mountain Vista
SDO – Sheraton Desert Oasis
SBP – Sheraton Broadway Plantation
CAN – Westin Lagunamar (Cancun)
POR – Princeville Ocean Resort (Kauai)
BV – Westin St. John – Bay Vista Section
AR – “Amelia Resort” (listed as being located at Vistana Village’s address with an “estimated completion date for Phase 1 [of] June, 2007.”

Starwood Mandatory Resorts in SVN

By elimination, the following remaining resorts identified as SVN resorts in Document R-14 must be “mandatory” resorts that are not subject to SVN Document R-14’s “voluntary” membership provisions:

Vistana Villages – Original “Bella” Phase
Vistana Villages - Key West Phase
Westin St. John – Original Phase referred to in Document R-14 simply as “Westin St. John.”
Harborside Resort Phases I and II
Westin Kaanapali Ocean Resort Villas
Westin Kaanapali Ocean Resort Villas North
Westin Kierland Villas

Interestingly, Harborside Resort Phase III is not listed in the list of SVN resorts provided in this document and I’ve never heard of “Amelia Resort” purportedly located at 12401 International Drive, Orlando, Florida 32821 (Vistana Villages’ address). Can anyone shed some light on this?

Since I’m assuming this list based solely on the file name of the document, I could be wrong. Does anyone have any info to challenge these designations for any particular resort?

-“Gumshoe” Nodge
 
Last edited:

vic714

TUG Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Round Lake, IL
Nodge,

Nice work. I'm really suprised that Starwood is able to break up Vistana Villages into sections that are mandatory & voluntary. If I remember from my owners update in March at VV the 3 bedroom units were going to be in the Amelia section of the resort.

I'm hoping that when Aurba starts selling it will be a mandatory resort. It really seems that Starwood is moving more towards voluntary resorts. The last few resorts have all gone this way with the exception of WKORVN.

Victor
 

bward

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
127
Reaction score
2
Points
378
So, should we as owners at mandatory resorts be concerned that Starwood might want to do away with the mandatory concept? Can the company unilaterally do this on its own? Or do we have a voice?

The way I see it, if this trend continues, the more desirable resorts will be not necessarily the resorts in the primo locations, but the ones that have the ability to trade in SVN after a resale.

I understand why Starwood would want to make SVN membership an exclusive right to people who buy from the developer; it protects the developer's price. But it does nothing for the value of the what the customer buys. Look how affordable Vistana Resort resales are compared to Vistana Villages, for example. Not that VV is pulling in big bucks, but there is a difference in price on the resale market, and that difference is probably SVN.

Someday I will no longer own my measly week at Vistana Villages in Orlando. I would like to think that when the time comes to pass it along to my kids, they'll be able to enjoy the same benefits I once did, and see other parts of the world though SVN (which we love). I don't think they'll want to go to Orlando every year, as much as they love it now.

I know I'm getting ahead of myself here. Likely being an alarmist. From what we know there are no plans to do away with the mandatory resort concept.
I do believe if Starwood wanted to protect its developers price, it would be better served to institute and implement a right of first refusal, which would set a low end for the price of our timeshares on the open market. I'm not an economist, and I'm sure there are good reasons against this, but from where I stand, it seems a workable solution.

Looking forward to any thoughts on this,

bward
 

stevens397

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
808
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
NJ
bward-

If your concern is losing SVN after passing it on to the kids (rather than selling it to a stranger for a better price), rest easy. If the situation in NJ is any indication, there should be no problem. I'm told that some of the season ticket holders for the football Giants are over 120 years old! They simply never send in any kind of transfer and just keep paying the bills when they come.

The only thing I'm sure of is that whatever Starwood decides to do, it will be in THEIR interest rather than that of the existing owners. Most of us had never even heard of mandatory/voluntary when we made our first developer purchase. I have a patient who owns 10 weeks - 8 at Mission Hills and 2 at Kierland. He has not idea of what I'm talking about and probably won't until he decides to sell. If he did, he would probably have bought 8 at Kierland and 2 at Mission Hills.
 

bward

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
127
Reaction score
2
Points
378
Hi stevens,

Thanks for your post, you make some great points.

My concern is that whatever I do with my Vistana Villages Starwood timeshare when I can no longer use it, it'll be worth considerably less if the mandatory concept goes away. In other words, it won't be the same thing that I bought. We're already seeing the switch to II from RCI, afterall.

I know owning a timeshare is not a money making proposition, that's not what I'm talking about. I just want to know that when the day comes to sell, or give it way (and I'm not planning to get rid of my Starwood), that what I paid for is the same thing that I'm passing on. In my case, I bought mandatory, and I think it should stay mandatory forever. After all, this isn't a car, or a computer that depreciates over time. That's all.

Again, I figure I'm getting way ahead of myself. But it is interesting to see the trend of more voluntary resorts.

Or, complete speculation, off the top of my head, I wonder if Starwood is prepping for the day when, like the new Disney passes, if the buyer pays extra (say another $10k), SVN doesn't expire on resale. Hmmmm.

bward
 

nodge

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
Portland, Oregon
So far (at least) Starwood hasn’t changed a mandatory resort into a voluntary resort, so that is good news.

The larger short-term concern for Starwood purchasers (either resale or from the developer) is to understand exactly what they are buying. The greatest potential for purchaser confusion would appear to now be at Vistana Villages, where if you buy a Vistana Villages “Key West” phase, you are buying a mandatory resort, but if you buy at Vistana Villages “Amelia” phase, you are buying a voluntary resort. I bet that developer prices do not differ significantly between the two phases, but the resale value difference between the two will likely be dramatic. I bet that Starwood’s salespeople don’t even tell potential customers about this issue.

This information could also swing a potential purchaser one way or the other if they are on the fence over whether to buy in Maui (WKORVN – a mandatory resort) or Kauai (WPORV – a voluntary resort). Again, I bet the salespeople don’t even mention this issue to their customers.

It would appear Starwood is banking heavily on its relatively new “requalification” plan, that allows a voluntary resort resale to be requalified into SVN if the new owner purchases an additional unit from the developer. Otherwise, as voluntary resort owners sell or die, fewer and fewer units will be available for trade within SVN, eventually rendering the program worthless.

Buyers beware!

-Nodge
 
Last edited:

malex2

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Points
6
nodge said:
It would appear Starwood is banking heavily on its relatively new “requalification” plan, that allows a voluntary resale to be requalified into SVN if the new owner purchases an additional unit from the developer. Otherwise, as voluntary resort owners sell or die, fewer and fewer units will be available for trade within SVN, eventually rendering the program worthless.

-Nodge

Nodge,

I agree with your concerns for both mandatory and voluntary resort buyers. Most people buy into a "club" program for the internal trading priority (some for the points conversion for hotel access). If internal trade options diminish, everyone loses; there is no more "club". Creating two classes of Starwood owners benefits no one. Allow owners to opt-out, but don't push them out.

malex2
 

vacationtime1

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
4,708
Reaction score
2,206
Points
599
Location
San Francisco
Resorts Owned
WKORV-OF (Maui)
WKV x2 (Scottsdale)
malex2 said:
Creating two classes of Starwood owners benefits no one.

Creating two classes of Starwood owners benefits Starwood. In several ways:

1. By lessening the utility of purchases on the secondary market (because the resales will come without StarOptions), Starwood reduces the resale value of those units. In situations where Starwood has a right of first refusal (Princeville for example, probably others), it can exercise its ROFR, buy those units at a relatively distressed price, and resell them as "new" (with StarOptions) at probably 2-1/2 - 3 times its purchase price.

2. "nodge" suggests that not permitting the transfer of the right to StarOptions will encourage additional developer sales because when the purchaser of a resale later buys a developer unit, the resale may be "requalified" and get StarOptions.

3. "bward" suggests a one-time $10,000 charge to make the developer-granted StarOptions transferrable. But why would Starwood limit themselves to charging this only once? Starwood could charge this each time the unit transfers.

4. By minimizing internal exchanges with StarOptions, Starwood can make more money on rentals. My understanding is that Starwood maintains a "pool" of exchange units at II which do not necessarily correspond with units being deposited for exchange (owner relinquishes a platinum week; Starwood deposits a silver or gold week). That gives Starwood a prime rental week.

The good news in this is that Starwood cannot change mandatory resorts into voluntary resorts; the transferability of StarOptions is part of the project documents. All of this will continue to make interests in mandatory resorts relatively more valauble and interests in voluntary resorts relatively less valuable (as is the observation of those writing about the resale values of Vistana Villages vs. Vistana Resort).
 
Last edited:

malex2

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Although I can't argue with some of your points, I would suggest that Starwood will not benefit if potential new buyers of voluntary resorts catch on to the fact that these units will depreciate much more than mandatory ones due to the expiration of SVN status on resale.

The response could be that there will always be uninformed buyers and salesmen who will neglect to educate them about this feature. But, these new resorts (Princeville, etc.) are expensive and those who have the means to buy them should not be presumed to be clueless.

As a business model, I'd rather appeal to people's intelligence and ability to discern value, rather than their ignorance.

Starwood may expand further its willingness to requalify voluntary resales since there is money to be made here.
 

Henry M.

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
2,343
Reaction score
513
Points
473
Location
Austin, TX
A couple of years ago when I was looking at WMH, the sales person said SVN was voluntary but she claimed that you could buy back into SVN for something like $599 or $699. At the time I didn't pursue it since I wasn't looking at resales. I'm also not sure if this applied to resale units or if she meant that you could opt out of SVN buying from the developer and then buy in later on.

Does anyone know if it is possible to buy into SVN with a voluntary resort and what the details are?
 

DeniseM

Moderator
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
56,580
Reaction score
7,624
Points
1,849
Resorts Owned
WKORV, WKV, SDO, Kauai Beach Villas, Island Park Village (Yellowstone), Hyatt High Sierra.
emuyshondt said:
A couple of years ago when I was looking at WMH, the sales person said SVN was voluntary but she claimed that you could buy back into SVN for something like $599 or $699. At the time I didn't pursue it since I wasn't looking at resales. I'm also not sure if this applied to resale units or if she meant that you could opt out of SVN buying from the developer and then buy in later on.

Does anyone know if it is possible to buy into SVN with a voluntary resort and what the details are?

I own a resale at Sheraton Desert Oasis and contacted Starwood requesting to buy-in and they said no. They do offer this to owners who purchased there before Starwood bought the property.
 

vacationtime1

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
4,708
Reaction score
2,206
Points
599
Location
San Francisco
Resorts Owned
WKORV-OF (Maui)
WKV x2 (Scottsdale)
This thread covers two distinct, but overlapping issues -- (1) our lack of accurate information about Starwood's rules, and (2) Starwood's desire to maximize its profits. The overlap happens whenever we stumble because we have inaccurate or incomplete information.

I am not suggesting that Starwood intentionally puts out inaccurate information; I am stating that timesharing is inherently so complicated that misinformation happens. During the two months I have been trolling this BBS, I have read numerous threads about which Starwood resorts are mandatory vs. voluntary. If we have trouble figuring out this stuff, how can a newbie vacationer sucked into a presentation, totally unprepared, be expected to ask the right questions? And even if they (we?) ask the right qustions, we read of numerous situations where the salesperson is clueless about the correct answer. (Note: any newbie reading this should locate "seenett"'s sticky for the best information we do have.)

Starwood takes care of Starwood. It is struggling with the correct "mix" of incentives to maximize its profits -- both short-term and long-term. The financially sophisticated but timeshare newbie purchaser of Princeville is told that s/he can transfer within the system using StarOptions; s/he doesn't know to ask why this right is transferrable for Maui purchases but not for Kauai purchases. Perhaps Starwood thinks it can sell more units by charging less less now and pick up additional fees/profits later by selling additional units to permit requalification (or by permitting requalification for a fee). Remember that just because Starwood does something doesn't make it the correct decision even for Starwood; American corporations routinely fail due to poor business decision making.

The only antidote for the consumer is to exchange information. Nodge does us an enormous service by finding and posting the initial item in this thread.
 

nodge

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
Portland, Oregon
DeniseM said:
I own a resale at Sheraton Desert Oasis and contacted Starwood requesting to buy-in and they said no. They do offer this to owners who purchased there before Starwood bought the property.


Hi DeniseM,

I was told the same thing for my SDO resale. :doh:

However, my notes from these discussions with SVN folks suggests that a special situation MAY exist for Vistana Resort Cascades and Lakes Section resale purchasers. In particular, at least one person within SVN’s “contracts” department told me that resale purchasers of Vistana Resort Cascades and Lakes units can “buy-in” to SVN simply by paying a $599 “enrollment fee.” However, before anyone gets too excited over this, several other folks within SVN told me that Vistana Resort resales can “never” be brought back into SVN either through a straight buy-in or even through a requalifcation coincident with a new developer purchase. It was all I could do to get to the bottom of my SDO resale issues, so I never pursued getting a straight answer on this potential special situation with Vistana Resort resales.

Hey Vistana Resort Cascades and Lakes resale owners! Have you ever tried to “buy-in” to SVN? If not, are you willing to try? Rather than just calling and asking SVN if you are eligible, I suggest that you request a copy of the SVN enrollment fee form, which is titled “Starwood Vacation Network Enrollment Fee Acknowledgment and Disclosure Statement” for “Florida Projects.” SVN will either send it to you (and take your $599, and you’ll owe me a dinner) or tell you why you are not eligible to receive it. Either way, you’ll get a more formal and well reasoned answer from SVN than you would get simply by rolling the dice with whoever answers the phone at SVN.

If you are up for the challenge, please post what you find out here.

Good Luck,

-Nodge
 

rfb813

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
125
Reaction score
0
Points
226
We own at Vistana (Cascades) and were looking to buy additional weeks but after learning about the Mandatory and Voluntary resort situation felt that there was too much inconsistency with Starwood. With Marriott, Hilton and Hyatt you know where you stand with a developer purchase and a resale. Starwood has to get its act together and decide where they stand with this issue.
 

arlene22

TUG Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
973
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
New Jersey
nodge said:
Interestingly, Harborside Resort Phase III is not listed in the list of SVN resorts provided in this document and I’ve never heard of “Amelia Resort” purportedly located at 12401 International Drive, Orlando, Florida 32821 (Vistana Villages’ address). Can anyone shed some light on this?

Since I’m assuming this list based solely on the file name of the document, I could be wrong. Does anyone have any info to challenge these designations for any particular resort?

-“Gumshoe” Nodge

Hey, Nodge-- Great detective work!

The only thing I have to add is that my understanding is that "phase III" is Atlantis phase III, not Harborside phase III. The units being built for Atlantis phase III are very high end fractional/rental apartments. They will not be a part of SVO. I am not aware of any plans to build more at Harborside after phase 2. My guess is that Starwood will eventually build timeshares to go with their Cable Beach development in Nassau, but these will not have an Atlantis tie-in.

Again, great info! Thanks for posting.
 

armlem2

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
190
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Tiverton, RI
Could it simply be a matter of supply and demand that dictates what is mandatory and what is voluntary. It appears to me, they might have made the most demanded resorts mandatory. By doing so, it ensures that all mandatory owners whether or not it was a resale or developer purchase will always have an easier time to trade out internally. Thus making more units at the high demand resorts available for everyone else to trade into and at the same time they are lowering the number of people allowed to trade in by taking away the internal trades on resales.

Most buyers wouldn't ask the developer about transferring of options when they sell. It also eliminates the problem Marriott has with everyone at 50 resorts trying to trade into Maui and alot of people getting upset. It strikes me the Hilton has tried to resolve the same issue by building multiple resorts in the same high demand places as Marriott has done with Hilton Head and Orlando. These are solely attempts to keep traders happy and hence not kill their reputations and ability to sell more units. JMHO
 

grgs

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,157
Reaction score
103
Points
423
Location
Oceanside, CA
Resorts Owned
WKV, SDO, WLR, So Cal Beach Club
armlem2 said:
Could it simply be a matter of supply and demand that dictates what is mandatory and what is voluntary. It appears to me, they might have made the most demanded resorts mandatory.

That's what I used to think was the case. But with Princeville and the latest phase of St. John not mandatory (as far as we can tell), I don't think that logic holds.

Glorian
 

DavidnRobin

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
11,521
Reaction score
2,004
Points
698
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Resorts Owned
WKORV OFD (Maui)
WPORV (Kauai)
WSJ-VGV (St. John)
WKV (Scottsdale)
grgs said:
That's what I used to think was the case. But with Princeville and the latest phase of St. John not mandatory (as far as we can tell), I don't think that logic holds.

Glorian
I agree.

In my post on the WKV ROFR -
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=246025#post246025

Heres is text from a SVO Resale Information sheet that I have (Nov 06) that discusses the ROFR (not required for WKV) - Section E:

(Voluntary Resorts) Starwood Vacation Network and Vistana Plus Disclosure Statement:
Membership in the Starwood Vacation Network (SVN) or Vistana Plus is a benefit unique to the seller's ownership. Under the SVN Rules and the Owner Membership Agreement, membership in SVN or Vistana Plus, the Starpoints associated with the Gold Level Memberships in the Starwood Preferred Guest Program (SPG), and access to the SPG Conversion Program cannot be transferred to the purchaser.

(Club Resorts) Starwood Vacation Network Disclosure Statement:
Membership in the Starwood Vacation Network (SVN) must transfer with ownership, however, the benefit of Gold Level Membership in the Starwood Preferred Guest Program (SPG), and access to the SPG Conversion Program are not transferrable. Starpoints deposited in the seller's account will remain there and cannot be transferred.
 

Fredm

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
8
Points
248
Location
Palm Desert, CA
vacationtime1 said:
Creating two classes of Starwood owners benefits Starwood. In several ways:

1. By lessening the utility of purchases on the secondary market (because the resales will come without StarOptions), Starwood reduces the resale value of those units. In situations where Starwood has a right of first refusal (Princeville for example, probably others), it can exercise its ROFR, buy those units at a relatively distressed price, and resell them as "new" (with StarOptions) at probably 2-1/2 - 3 times its purchase price.

2. "nodge" suggests that not permitting the transfer of the right to StarOptions will encourage additional developer sales because when the purchaser of a resale later buys a developer unit, the resale may be "requalified" and get StarOptions.

3. "bward" suggests a one-time $10,000 charge to make the developer-granted StarOptions transferrable. But why would Starwood limit themselves to charging this only once? Starwood could charge this each time the unit transfers.

4. By minimizing internal exchanges with StarOptions, Starwood can make more money on rentals. My understanding is that Starwood maintains a "pool" of exchange units at II which do not necessarily correspond with units being deposited for exchange (owner relinquishes a platinum week; Starwood deposits a silver or gold week). That gives Starwood a prime rental week.

The good news in this is that Starwood cannot change mandatory resorts into voluntary resorts; the transferability of StarOptions is part of the project documents. All of this will continue to make interests in mandatory resorts relatively more valauble and interests in voluntary resorts relatively less valuable (as is the observation of those writing about the resale values of Vistana Villages vs. Vistana Resort).
I just came across this thread, and would like to resurrect the discussion of voluntary and mandatory resort classifications.

It appears as if Starwood's latest moves toward Voluntary resorts has us all in a spin trying to guess the rationale and implications of it. Funny how we proceed in our thinking. We have given the terms Mandatory and Voluntary a definition that is technically inaccurate, but until now descriptive of how the system works. I have read every document I can put my hands on, and none of them say that a resale buyer of a Volunary resort cannot be an SVN member. Yet, the entire discussion of Mandatory vs Voluntary has revolved around this premise. So much so, that we are prognosticating resale values of Voluntary resorts based on it. Disclosure documents all say the same thing: A Voluntary resort owners membership in SVN terminates upon sale, and is not transferrable. Mandatory resort owners SVN membership is attached by deed and is inseperable from it. It transfers automatically to the new owner. This is from memory, so somewhat paraphrased, but accurate.
Original owners of Voluntary resorts are,of course, SVN members. That is because they were enrolled by the sales rep at time of purchase. A membership application was completed and signed. Terms of that membership agreement state that membership is volunary, and it terminates upon sale, and is not transferrable. No more, no less.
It is and has been starwood's POLICY to be restrictive in accepting membership applications to SVN. Nothing prevents them from becoming less restrictive, or non-restrictive, except their view of their best interests.
So,WHAT IF Starwood has decided that everyone should be SVN members? They currently have an established enrollment fee of $599 for those who apply and are accepted. Did you know that since there is no prohibition on applying for membership if a voluntary resort resale owner (it just does not happen automatically), some have applied and were accepted?The term which accurately describes Starwood's policy in this regard is "highly restrictive". But there is a huge, did I say HUGE, difference between prohibited and "restrictive'.
Nowhere in this thread, or any other that I have followed, has there been raised the possibility that the term "Voluntary" means other than a resale buyer cannot get StarOptions. Funny how we proceed in our thinking.
Starwood could make a lot of easy money by taking in application fees of , say, $1,000, $2,000, maybe $3000, for each voluntary resort owner sale. Especially if almost all resorts were classified as such. More SVN inventory as well. Doesnt make sense to have Princeville, a part of St john,etc off line from the network, does it? It would also go a very long way to calm the waters with owners who just might feel they have been, shall we say, finessed on the issue when they initially purchased. Indeed, lots of reasons to think that it may possibly be an answer. It would at least be consistent with what the disclosure documets really say.
I am not predicting that this is the "answer" which explains Starwood's moves.
I am pointng out that it is an alternative that thus far has not been considered bacause we insist on defining "voluntary' differently than the dictionary does.
Funny how we proceed with our thinking. Just imagine what THAT will do to the secondary market price of Voluntary shares. One could currently buy a Platinum at Mission Hills for 16k. Not bad for 148,100 Options.
 

myip

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Points
246
Location
Bay Area, CA
Fredm said:
They currently have an established enrollment fee of $599 for those who apply and are accepted. Did you know that since there is no prohibition on applying for membership if a voluntary resort resale owner (it just does not happen automatically), some have applied and were accepted?The term which accurately describes Starwood's policy in this regard is "highly restrictive". But there is a huge, did I say HUGE, difference between prohibited and "restrictive'.
:confused: Are you saying that any current resale owner can apply for membership for $599. Starwood may allow the owner to join SVN. Who do you ask to apply for membership?
 

oneohana

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
516
Reaction score
26
Points
388
Location
los angeles
myip said:
:confused: Are you saying that any current resale owner can apply for membership for $599. Starwood may allow the owner to join SVN. Who do you ask to apply for membership?

When I called SVN regarding requalifing a resale, they said that they do not allow requalification of a resale. The person I talked to was under the impression I was just trying to requalify the resale on its own without a developer purchase. I guess if you can get a manager to sign off on it it will go through.
 

DavidnRobin

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
11,521
Reaction score
2,004
Points
698
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Resorts Owned
WKORV OFD (Maui)
WPORV (Kauai)
WSJ-VGV (St. John)
WKV (Scottsdale)
To the point raised about the definition of 'Voluntary' and 'Mandatory' - it is from the perspective of SVN and owners within SVO.

There is SVN documentation that for a 'Voluntary' resort - membership into SVN is voluntary and the 'SVN Club' is not transferred upon resale. A 'Mandatory' resort owner has to pay to be in the SVN Club - it is mandatory, and it is transferred to the resale buyer.

As to paying the SVN fee - if I only owned WSJ and WKORV (OF) - I would like opt-out from paying the ~$130 per year fee as I would never exchange. With WKV - the SVN exchange option is useful.

As to paying $600 to be in the system... hard to say whether it would be worth it or not - I guess it would if you could make it work for you.

As to what SVO/SVN intent is... well, they will make a decision that best meets their perceived business needs (whether correct or not),a nd the SVO owners will have to go along for the ride.
 

Fredm

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
8
Points
248
Location
Palm Desert, CA
myip said:
:confused: Are you saying that any current resale owner can apply for membership for $599. Starwood may allow the owner to join SVN. Who do you ask to apply for membership?

I am glad I checked back here. At my transmit the bbs returned a message saying I could not post to a "something or other " thread.

I am saying that Starwood' policy is restrictive toward secondary market buyers of voluntary resorts. Nothing prohibits it. The restriction is a policy matter. As such, policy can change. I am simply making an observation. One that has not been considered before. While trying to find rational explainations for why new resorts are being classified as voluntary, my speculation is possible. Ownership of a voluntary resort does not unto itself preclude membership in SVN. Discussions on the matter, heretofore, presume that it does. The fact of the matter is it could change tomorrow. I am not saying that is will, but it could. So, if that variable is tossed into the stew, one can arrive at other reasons for the latest round of classifications. I have long held that their restrictive SVN policy hurts them more than it helps. I see the potentil of a policy change in them. It could easily be accomplished,without admitting a thing, simply by being accomodating rather than restrictive toward membership applications. A good money maker too, from transactions they excluded themselves from before. In this context, the latest resort classifiction s make rational sense. It depends on how Starwood views its self nterest.
Since application for enrollment in SVN is not prohibited, one could complete and submit a membership application, just as the original owner did. It will very likely be rejected while policy is so restrictive. Then again, it may be accepted. That, fellow tuggers, would signal Starwood's maturity in deling with the mess its misplaced policy has caused. Reclassified weeks are a step in that direction, as well imho.

How to apply? Good question. The Starwood Vacation Exchange Company Disclosure Guide says: "A purchaser at a non -Club Resort is not automatically a member of SVN.
To use and enjoy benefits of mmbership in SVN , such purchaser must be enrolled by SVN Operator,which will require the execution of an Owner Member Agreement, and the payment of any applicable fee, as determined by SVN Operator..."
The SVN Operator is Starwood Vacation Exchange Company. Principal offices are at 8801 Vistana Centre Drive, Orlando, FL 32831,. Last I heard, the "applicable fee" was $599.

Fredm
 

Bill4728

Moderator
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,882
Reaction score
449
Points
869
Location
Lake Tapps, WA
Here in this thread TUG thread there is a lot of confusion about WKORV-N and if it is voluntary or mandatory. But, in this thread the OP says it will be mandatory.

The thing that makes me crazy about Starwood is that we (some of the best informed timeshare owners) can't find a solid answer to this question. WHY IS THAT?
 

steve1000

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
320
Reaction score
5
Points
378
Location
Boca Raton, FL
Resorts Owned
Westin: Mission Hills, Desert Willow, Riverfront Mtn Villas, Kierland, Flex
Marriott: Grande Ocean, Canyon Villas, Desert Springs
Hyatt: Beach House, Coconut Plantation, High Sierra Lodge,
Four Seasons: Aviara, Scottsdale.
Royal Haciendas
FredM thanks for your excellent post. It is valuable perspective. As an owner at WMH who bought before the mandatory/voluntary issue became apparent I would certainly like to see Starwood relax its restrictive position on permitting resale purchasers at voluntary resorts to be able to be admitted into the SVN network. I think you are correct that at some point Starwood may recognize the wisdom of relaxing their policy.
 
Top