Haven't we been over this ground before?
In terms of closing a resort for some period, the HOA cannot simply tell a deeded owner the resort is being closed then. He has a legal right to occupy the unit when he owns. HOA's are not the gestapo.
No, they can't, but they can certainly offer an incentive to do so. And if things get bad enough, the rest of the owners can in fact vote to modify the timeshare agreement.[/QUOTE]
I love your ''just takes a supermajority'' thing! Have you ever tried to get one of those? It is almost impossible. And with resorts where a majority of owners own to use, even suggesting doing so over some exchanging issue when it will raise fees is not going to get to first base. A supermajority is also often a supermajority of ALL owners, not merely a supermajority of a quorum, one of the factors leading to the usual impossibility of getting one
As a matter of fact, I have seen this happen - and had my deed modified by an amendment to the condo docs. We rebuilt our resort and eliminated several units, and consolidated the deeds. That was in fact the issue with the unit I bought last December, Escapes! wouldn't recognize the transfer of ownership because the deed referenced the original unit number, which no longer exists, so a corrected deed had to be prepared.
As to closing resorts for good, do you know who gets screwed by that? In most cases, it is the prime week owners. Unless there is a provision otherwise inserted in some states laws or perhaps in some declarations of covenants, then both the Uniform Condominium Act and the acts preceding that (one set modelled on the HUD model condominium act, like North Carolina, and the other set modelled on Puerto Rico's condominium statutes) provide that all weeks are paid out equally. That means an owner of week 50 or week 3 gets the same amount as the owner of week 27 or week 30. That is not fair or realistic in terms of value but that is the law. And again, closing a resort is something that takes a supermajority, something you seem to think is a breeze but in reality is nearly impossible. Indeed, except at designated intervals, in a resort under state stautes derived from the HUD model act, it takes unanimous consent to close a resort. I am sure you think that is a breeze, too..
I didn't say it was a breeze, but is a distinct possibility when the resort gets to the point where large numbers are abandoning their weeks. Yes, the peak week owners get hurt by a sale of the resort, but they also are hurt by the wholesale abandonment of the lesser weeks. They are also "hurt" if the condo docs can be amended to allow for different maintenance fees for different weeks. But those same owners have been benefitting from the maintenance fees paid by the other owners.
Consider two owners who have owned for 25 years. One paid $10,000 up front 20 years ago, plus another 10,000 in maintenance fees over those 20 years, and had a holiday week. The other paid $5000 up front, and the same 10,000 in maintenance fees for a mid-valued week. Are you really going to argue that the first owner didn't get $5000 worth of value out of having a holiday week? Another way to look at it is that they both paid $5000 to buy a share of the resort, and the first owner paid an extra $5000 for the right to reserve the better week. If they were selling after 5 years, I might agree that peak owner gets screwed, but not after 20 years![/QUOTE]
I know you always try to back whatever RCI is doing, but can't you at least look at it from an HOA or an individual timeshare owners perspective just a little bit?.
No, I don't always back RCI, but my perspective as an owner is not the same as yours. I have the perspective of an owner from a resort that almost had to liquidate, do you? Do you perhaps only care about the perspective of peak week owners?
What HOA's need to be doing is not the things you mention, but to 1) migrate all of their members who exchange to other exchange companies, and 2) gear HOA resales to own-to-use buyers.
Do you honestly think any other exchange company is ready to take on members at the scale of RCI's membership? Redweek tried a points hybrid program, and we are now seeing them convert everybody over to a week-for-week program with DAE, which seems to be first-come-first serve. SFX and some of the others only accept top weeks. II does many of the same things RCI does. Exactly which exchange company should everybody move to? RCI doesn't work for you, that's fine. But maybe, just maybe, RCI will end up working for many of the rest of us.
HOAs need to address the iniquities in the timeshare model used to sell units 20 years ago. RCI needs to create a new exchange model that is fair to all its members. This incentive you keep talking about for the developers is a red herring. Even if RCI were to publish their formula, they would add a factor in that always benefits those developer - perhaps resort age (or age of that particular phase) Further, if they publish the formula, you will know what counts most, and will manipulate their programs to get the best numbers - kind of like teaching to a test.How will that benefit existing owners? The owners of those new weeks will learn soon enough just how "valuable" their weeks are. If the base value is modified by a supply and demand factor, and the supply of their weeks is sky high, what do you suppose they will get when they go to deposit? The owners of the nearby resorts with a lower base value, but no supply and high demand will get more for their deposit. If new owners fall for the sales presentations, with all the information available at their fingertips (they have to be of certain income levels to attend the presentations, so I bet most have internet access, and many have smart phones), do we really need to look out for their best interests? We've tried that, and they don't listen!
As Roger and others have stated a number of times, what matters is the numbers, not how you got them. If those new resorts are rated too high, nobody will want to exchange in. If that happens, RCI is stuck with inventory they can't move. That won't be good for their bottom line, and won't make the shareholders happy. In the end That's who RCI cares about, not the developers. Could you possibly consider that RCI might have learned its lesson with the Points program? They gave concessions to the developers, when in fact they probably hoped for the majority of owners to convert. Otherwise, why didn't they take a bigger piece of the conversion pie? This time, they are obviously converting everybody, and the developers get no extra fees. I for one am willing to give it a try.
