• 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 is asking for recent reviews of older resorts, earn a free year membership!

    Read more here
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $18,000,000 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 $18 Million dollars
  • We would love it if you would take a few minutes to participate in our Timeshare Survey Here there is no need to register or sign up for anything, just answer the questions online! We hope this survey will provide some fascinating answers to questions about Timesharing!
  • 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!

Sunset Harbor to vote on terminating Hyatt management contract

ocdb8r

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
369
Points
293
Location
Amsterdam, NL
The SH Board can't provide details on the management plan or fees until they have the approval to move forward with the departure from Hyatt.
This has been repeated over and over again in this thread, but no one has explained why? Nothing in the current contract or bylaws prevent the Board from sending out an RFP, seeking other quotes or speaking with other management companies. Just because owner approval is required to finally terminate the contract with Hyatt and move to another management company doesn't stop the Board from exploring what the options could be and shaping how they might look fee wise....
 

ScoopKona

Guest
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
2,880
Reaction score
932
Points
298
Location
Monkey King Coffee - Captain Cook, Hawaii
The cost of insurance outside of the Hyatt umbrella will be exorbitant - well beyond what Hyatt pays. They have the ability to amortize insurance over all Hyatt hotels and timeshare properties, insuring that no one property bears the full burden. SH as an independently managed property isn't going to be able to obtain insurance at the rate Hyatt is getting - not even close. So, any cost savings from reduction in management fees (if there even is one) will disappear and in my opinion there's big potential for fees increasing in order to cover the substantial increase in insurance costs. At some point in time, Key West is going to take a huge hit by a hurricane, almost certainly causing catastrophic damage to the island. SH is going to need catastropic insurance coverage and that takes a lot of money.
Key West native chiming in.

This simply isn't true. Hyatt isn't subsidizing insurance. And the cost is well known to literally everyone because there is only one company which will insure property in the Florida Keys -- Citizen's Insurance, which is a quasi-government agency.

Everyone pays the same rates in the Keys. And yes, they're ridiculous. But they're spread out over 52 owners per unit. Your insurance costs aren't going ANYWHERE with a change of management. Not happening. Forget that bit of calculus because it doesn't apply.
 

AJCts411

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
689
Reaction score
494
Points
173
Resorts Owned
Hyatt Sunset x 2
I believe that this (BOD) is not a hey we are just throwing out stuff and see what sticks as you believe. It is a matter of legal liability when ANY BOD puts out less perfect information that can be litigated by an opponent. That is addressed very well IMO in question#11 in the BOD email. Extending that liability issue, the BOD would put themselves in legal harms way if they did zero research as you call it. I'd call the BOD experts in matters at Sunset Harbor with first hand knowledge of budgets, negotiation with MVC and the notice from MVC that our management fees are soon to be, in fact, increasing to 15%.
Insurance, fees, maintenance, management fees....why is Galleons maintenance fees LESS than Sunset? Independent, no MVC umbrella insurance, higher resale vales? If you want to say restaurants..I say no it is not...those operations are leased to the operators, a tiny fraction of the cash flow. Why are Apsen fees dropping? You can ignore that information if you want to, but it does apply and it is factual.

I will agree that a big reason behind this vote, is to remove MVC and portfolio and ROFR. All of which is suppressing our property values, causing short stay excessive wear and eroding owner rights. MVC has not negotiated, has not lowered their management fees, and now one thinks that this will make them change their stripes..not a chance.
There is everything to loose staying under MVC, and everything to gain by being independent...look at Galleon and Banyan both in old town Key West and Aspen fully insured properties, both gaining value.


To my knowledge they haven't even done any background work to develop that information - they have no details to share even if they could. What they could have done was done some research, developed some modeling to indicate potential savings, and put that out. Their argument that they couldn't go out and get any information from management companies because the membership hadn't agreed to push Hyatt out, holds absolutely no water. No, no reputable management company was going to give a quote without an official RFP, BUT, some casual inquiries and research could have netted them enough information to get an approximate idea on what the cost and/or savings would be. You're right - it's not rocket science. The BOD rushed into this for whatever reason and we're in a Hell of a mess now because of it.

No, we don't know what Hyatt's fees will be next year. And yes, if Hyatt is successfully pushed out, some of the Hyatt fees will go away. How much of those? There is no way to know what a new management company's fees will be and whether they will be cheaper than Hyatt or not. There is no way to know that, especially since the BOD hasn't presented any evidence to that effect. Your argument that the management fee percentage paid to a new management company will "probably be lower than the fee percentage paid to Hyatt" is purely speculation. "Probably" is a big word to gamble on.

But, I can almost certainly guarantee that any potential cost savings (and that's all it is until more information is gathered - potential) will immediately be wiped out and more by the cost of insurance. The cost of insurance outside of the Hyatt umbrella will be exorbitant - well beyond what Hyatt pays. They have the ability to amortize insurance over all Hyatt hotels and timeshare properties, insuring that no one property bears the full burden. SH as an independently managed property isn't going to be able to obtain insurance at the rate Hyatt is getting - not even close. So, any cost savings from reduction in management fees (if there even is one) will disappear and in my opinion there's big potential for fees increasing in order to cover the substantial increase in insurance costs. At some point in time, Key West is going to take a huge hit by a hurricane, almost certainly causing catastrophic damage to the island. SH is going to need catastrophic insurance coverage and that takes a lot of money. Just think about that. All those little annoying fees that on the surface seem to be some of the driver to get rid of Hyatt are going to be nothing compared to what owners might have to cough up in special assessment should Hyatt be pushed out and SH no longer has the benefits covered by Hyatt's management.

Look, I think the real reason behind this move to push Hyatt out is to keep them from acquiring any more weeks at SH and eventually having a stranglehold on the resort ownership. The more Hyatt acquires, the more weeks they dump into HPP which without a doubt is a negative for weeks owners. The current BOD (and many others) believe that pushing Hyatt out is the only way to keep Hyatt from acquiring any more weeks.

Since Hyatt is aware of this move to get rid of them, perhaps there is room for negotiations with them. Maybe not. But, if the BOD doesn't even try, we'll never know. And right now, we're sitting on a ticking time bomb - Hyatt knows what the BOD is trying to accomplish and they're going to move at lightening speed to put a stop to it.

There may be benefits to leaving Hyatt but I think they are far outweighed by the uncertainties of a new independent management company and the exorbitant cost of insurance that will have to procured outside of the Hyatt umbrella. At this point, the board needs to cancel the vote, get some information together, meet and negotiate with Hyatt to try to resolve the issues at hand. If Hyatt isn't going to budge then the owners will have a difficult decision to make. BUT, at least they will have enough information to make an educated vote. As it stands now, it's like whizzing into the wind.
 

AJCts411

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
689
Reaction score
494
Points
173
Resorts Owned
Hyatt Sunset x 2
This has been repeated over and over again in this thread, but no one has explained why? Nothing in the current contract or bylaws prevent the Board from sending out an RFP, seeking other quotes or speaking with other management companies. Just because owner approval is required to finally terminate the contract with Hyatt and move to another management company doesn't stop the Board from exploring what the options could be and shaping how they might look fee wise....
See question 11...it is explained to the owners email.
 

JanT

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
2,744
Reaction score
1,316
Points
548
Scoop,

Thank you for the updated information. We have always been told that's how Hyatt has kept the insurance down. If what you're saying is true then that's a good thing and I stand corrected.

Key West native chiming in.

This simply isn't true. Hyatt isn't subsidizing insurance. And the cost is well known to literally everyone because there is only one company which will insure property in the Florida Keys -- Citizen's Insurance, which is a quasi-government agency.

Everyone pays the same rates in the Keys. And yes, they're ridiculous. But they're spread out over 52 owners per unit. Your insurance costs aren't going ANYWHERE with a change of management. Not happening. Forget that bit of calculus because it doesn't apply.
 

ScoopKona

Guest
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
2,880
Reaction score
932
Points
298
Location
Monkey King Coffee - Captain Cook, Hawaii
Scoop,

Thank you for the updated information. We have always been told that's how Hyatt has kept the insurance down. If what you're saying is true then that's a good thing and I stand corrected.
Citizen's Windstorm on my house when I left was $30,000 per year. One of the big reasons I left. I never owned property in the Keys because I simply couldn't afford it. And most landlords couldn't afford Windstorm so if they owned the building outright, they relied on FEMA to take care of them in the event of a catastrophe.

When (not if) Key West receives a direct hit from a Cat 5, it will scour all trace of human habitation off the island. At that point, I think it is likely all owners will share whatever the insurance payout is, and walk away.

Don't get me wrong -- it's my home town and I don't want anything to happen to it. But the odds are not in favor of that.
 

alameda94501

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
216
Reaction score
143
Points
153
Look, I think the real reason behind this move to push Hyatt out is to keep them from acquiring any more weeks at SH and eventually having a stranglehold on the resort ownership. The more Hyatt acquires, the more weeks they dump into HPP which without a doubt is a negative for weeks owners. The current BOD (and many others) believe that pushing Hyatt out is the only way to keep Hyatt from acquiring any more weeks.
But does that really work? It appears ROFR is continuing to work for Hyatt (as Developer) as of May. Firing Hyatt (as Manager) doesn't seem to affect Hyatt (as Developer)'s ROFR at all according to the original condominium covenants.

I am not an owner at Sunset Harbor but if I were, I would want to make sure this cornerstone of the Board's proposal was sound before voting.

The second thing I would ask is whether we could get rid of Hyatt (as Manager) first to see how well we could save Maintenance Fees, but retain Hyatt (as Club) for an extra year to see how it goes. Saving $157/yr and renting out one's own deeded week is appealing to TUGgers because of how we view the world. But that's not necessarily how the rest of the world thinks. The cost of kicking out Hyatt (as Club) is in property/resale value - most folks would pay $157 for the convenience of having an entire internal exchange and not taking on risk / hassle with renting their unit.

All things being equal, my guess is that the property value in resale of a resort unit-week with internal HRC exchange would be higher than the property value in resale of a resort unit-week without.
 

ScoopKona

Guest
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
2,880
Reaction score
932
Points
298
Location
Monkey King Coffee - Captain Cook, Hawaii
All things being equal, my guess is that the property value in resale of a resort unit-week with internal HRC exchange would be higher than the property value in resale of a resort unit-week without.
Compare the Galleon and Sunset Harbor. Galleon's resale values are higher -- and it isn't as nice a location. All things are already equal -- you have an apples-to-apples comparison within walking distance.

Management is doing what's best for management, not the owners. From my vantage point, the only group looking out for the owners at this moment is the BOD.
 

JanT

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
2,744
Reaction score
1,316
Points
548
Well, I will tell you I'm fairly certain the BOD did not do any specific research for a couple of reasons:

1. They didn't want to spend HOA funds to do it unless ownership agreed to push Hyatt out.

2. They didn't want to give out any cost savings numbers for fear they wouldn't be able to actually bring that to fruition and they would face backlash from owners.

Of course there are liability issues - that's why they should have had their ducks in a row, with some fairly solid numbers in their hands. It's not impossible to develop a plan with reliable numbers to present to owners while allowing a caveat that the numbers could shift. Owners will understand and accept that. But without any real evidence of malfeasance by Hyatt/MVC, without even a hint of cost savings, or a plan for the future of SH, many owners are not going to jump on board for this.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about whether this BOD are experts or not. I have tried very hard not to attack them, as a board or as individuals. I'm grateful anyone is willing to sit on a BOD of an HOA - it is a thankless job. BUT, I will and have voiced my displeasure at how they rolled this thing out. It was haphazard at best and because it was, they are never going to get this vote passed. Done correctly, they might have garnered more support. I want to be clear that I don't support the absolute shilling that's gone on here by some people. I'm not part of that group in any way. They have their own agenda for whatever reason. I don't like proprietory information being leaked out and draws into question the integrity of whatever board member(s) are doing that. That is of grave concern to me.

I don't know why the Galleon's MF's are less than Sunset Harbor. Do you? I haven't delved into their operating expenditures. I can tell you that for many years, the Galleon was considered a lesser property than SH by many people that I know. Is it? I don't know. I've never stayed there. They have and they didn't consider it on a level with SH. Have the Galleon and Banyan's resale values increased? I have no idea. Can you provide some evidence of that? I'd like to see it - not because I don't believe you but just that I would like to see the information. It could be their resale values have increased because they were lower in the first place. Maybe it's because property values in Key West have gone up. Maybe it's because there has been less inventory there, therefore driving demand up, therefore driving the prices up. I don't know. There are a lot of variables that could cause their values to increase but honestly, no one should ever buy a timeshare thinking it's some kind of investment. A suppression of property values at SH? It's a timeshare - no one should be counting on an increase in property values.

I'm glad to see that someone else is willing to admit the main reasons behind the push to remove MVC. It's taken awhile to get that out there in the open. It's not really all the little fees supposedly bugging the owners. It's really the desire to push out MVC, so they stop acquiring weeks, so HPP gets pushed out. The argument about short stays is really interesting. There is dissension about short night reservations but even weeks owners can book short stays (1, 2, 3, etc. nights). Isn't it not so much the short stays but in reality the fact that HPP gets priority over weeks owners in some cases? I get it - that pisses people off who bought weeks there but if the majority of weeks owners actually use their weeks and do nothing else, then what is the problem? I'm beginning to think it's really because short night stays by HPP or even Hyatt renting those nights out (which Marriott does with their properties, too) is bringing in "strangers" and SH loses that "family" feel generated by weeks owners who occupy every year or occupy significantly. Is that it? You sight excessive wear and tear from short term stays but how are short term stays by HPP people or even rentals causing any more wear and tear than a weeks owner who books a short stay? Or how about owners that don't even use their weeks, but rent them out instead? In general, many of them don't know who they're renting to really. They're renting to strangers who might put excessive wear on the resort. Look, I'm just trying to understand that whole "short stay issue" some people seem to be having.




I believe that this (BOD) is not a hey we are just throwing out stuff and see what sticks as you believe. It is a matter of legal liability when ANY BOD puts out less perfect information that can be litigated by an opponent. That is addressed very well IMO in question#11 in the BOD email. Extending that liability issue, the BOD would put themselves in legal harms way if they did zero research as you call it. I'd call the BOD experts in matters at Sunset Harbor with first hand knowledge of budgets, negotiation with MVC and the notice from MVC that our management fees are soon to be, in fact, increasing to 15%.
Insurance, fees, maintenance, management fees....why is Galleons maintenance fees LESS than Sunset? Independent, no MVC umbrella insurance, higher resale vales? If you want to say restaurants..I say no it is not...those operations are leased to the operators, a tiny fraction of the cash flow. Why are Apsen fees dropping? You can ignore that information if you want to, but it does apply and it is factual.

I will agree that a big reason behind this vote, is to remove MVC and portfolio and ROFR. All of which is suppressing our property values, causing short stay excessive wear and eroding owner rights. MVC has not negotiated, has not lowered their management fees, and now one thinks that this will make them change their stripes..not a chance.
There is everything to loose staying under MVC, and everything to gain by being independent...look at Galleon and Banyan both in old town Key West and Aspen fully insured properties, both gaining value.
 

AJCts411

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
689
Reaction score
494
Points
173
Resorts Owned
Hyatt Sunset x 2
I don't know why the Galleon's MF's are less than Sunset Harbor. Do you? I haven't delved into their operating expenditures. I can tell you that for many years, the Galleon was considered a lesser property than SH by many people that I know. Is it? I don't know. I've never stayed there. They have and they didn't consider it on a level with SH. Have the Galleon and Banyan's resale values increased? I have no idea. Can you provide some evidence of that? I'd like to see it - not because I don't believe you but just that I would like to see the information. It could be their resale values have increased because they were lower in the first place. Maybe it's because property values in Key West have gone up. Maybe it's because there has been less inventory there, therefore driving demand up, therefore driving the prices up. I don't know. There are a lot of variables that could cause their values to increase but honestly, no one should ever buy a timeshare thinking it's some kind of investment. A suppression of property values at SH? It's a timeshare - no one should be counting on an increase in property values.
I have stayed at both Galleon and Banyan. I also visit friends who own there every year. The Galleon I think is in slightly a better location and IMO is equal or better in furnishings. Baynan is different in it is older very well maintained, and has mostly one bedroom units. Simple comparison and math prove their fees are even lower than Galleon. Why their maintenance fees are lower that the huge MVC, that gets us such great deal via thier purchasing power? (those are MVC words) Better management. No gouging for stock holder profits.

An yes I admit I want MVC out. Their little fees add up, Portfolio is undermining legacy owners, and there is zero value to be gained by using the brand Hyatt. among so much more.
 

Kal

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,286
Reaction score
422
Points
469
Location
Redmond, WA
Key West native chiming in.

This simply isn't true. Hyatt isn't subsidizing insurance. And the cost is well known to literally everyone because there is only one company which will insure property in the Florida Keys -- Citizen's Insurance, which is a quasi-government agency.

Everyone pays the same rates in the Keys. And yes, they're ridiculous. But they're spread out over 52 owners per unit. Your insurance costs aren't going ANYWHERE with a change of management. Not happening. Forget that bit of calculus because it doesn't apply.
And Hyatt adds on another 12% on top of the premium. So what is Hyatt's level of effort to write a payment check once a year? Include the cost of the stamp.
 

alameda94501

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
216
Reaction score
143
Points
153
I'm glad to see that someone else is willing to admit the main reasons behind the push to remove MVC. It's taken awhile to get that out there in the open. It's not really all the little fees supposedly bugging the owners. It's really the desire to push out MVC, so they stop acquiring weeks, so HPP gets pushed out. The argument about short stays is really interesting. There is dissension about short night reservations but even weeks owners can book short stays (1, 2, 3, etc. nights). Isn't it not so much the short stays but in reality the fact that HPP gets priority over weeks owners in some cases? I get it - that pisses people off who bought weeks there but if the majority of weeks owners actually use their weeks and do nothing else, then what is the problem? I'm beginning to think it's really because short night stays by HPP or even Hyatt renting those nights out (which Marriott does with their properties, too) is bringing in "strangers" and SH loses that "family" feel generated by weeks owners who occupy every year or occupy significantly. Is that it? You sight excessive wear and tear from short term stays but how are short term stays by HPP people or even rentals causing any more wear and tear than a weeks owner who books a short stay? Or how about owners that don't even use their weeks, but rent them out instead? In general, many of them don't know who they're renting to really. They're renting to strangers who might put excessive wear on the resort. Look, I'm just trying to understand that whole "short stay issue" some people seem to be having.
I understand the sentiment, but what people usually don't understand about Portfolio is that there's no way to remove them. Portfolio is a Hyatt-as-Developer (not Hyatt-as-Manager) idea that absorbed all their unsold inventory, which legacy HRC never had a right to. From all the evidence I've seen from the Orange County Recorder, it's been pretty darn successful at salvaging the unsold unit-weeks at Sunset Harbor, Aspen, and other Hyatt branded properties. With their unit-weeks, Portfolio has to obey all the rules that every unit-week owner has to follow, there are no secret advantages.

The short-stay issue could theoretically be a real issue in terms of possibly having seven 1-night stays instead of the traditional 3-part (2/3/4 night) stays, because you would need to send the maid service out more than twice as much (not sure why this would be more or less wear and tear than anyone else, but it's maid labor expenses.) But I don't think anyone practically uses 1-night stays, at least for most of the resort locations. And if everyone started using 1-night stays, Portfolio could mitigate that by internally constraining a week into three or fewer parts in terms of what's left on the portal (i.e. if someone takes a single night, then only display 3-night and 4-night options).

If anyone would be hostile to Portfolio it would be Aspen, but Aspen keeps humming on the Portfolio portal.

The idea of 'strangers' seems pretty far-fetched to me for a timeshare. We go to Highlands Inn regularly and everyone still seems like a stranger there to me. (Very friendly strangers... but strangers!)
 

GTLINZ

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
616
Reaction score
258
Points
273
Location
Georgia
The HPP slice will not go away at Sunset Harbor , just as it has not at Aspen. This is about stopping the HPP growth before control is gained, which has been discussed in this thread. What has also been discussed in this thread is that halting ROFR was part of the Aspen settlement in exchange that existing HPP rights will not be diminished. It seems reasonable that the same leverage will work for Sunset Harbor also.

The Galleon comparison is completely valid. If their management can run it with less MFs AND maintain far higher resale value, then why wouldn't Sunset owners want the same? I have stayed at both properties and the Galleon may have a marina and an amazing rooftop patio but they are not directly on Mallory square. I admit that losing access to the nearby Hyatt hotel gym would be a loss. But the difference in resale values is hard to explain.

I get that internal trading would be lost. But with rentals being so high for most owners, it is often not the best choice.

As an owner elsewhere who has traded into Sunset Harbor, them pulling out does not benefit me personally. But I have my popcorn ready, as suggested, to watch the show.
 
Last edited:

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
38,341
Reaction score
11,310
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott's Grande Vista
Marriott's Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
I get that internal trading would be lost. But with rentals being so high for most owners, it is often not the best choice.
I see many mention renting out their weeks but yet how HPP is bringing in riff raff? How is giving HRC the boot then promoting renting weeks improving at least one gripe that owners have with HPP? It seems that HSH owners don't care about the riff raff as long as they aren't staying there and they are making some cash on their rental?
 

alameda94501

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
216
Reaction score
143
Points
153
The HPP slice will not go away at Sunset Harbor , just as it has not at Aspen. This is about stopping the HPP growth before control is gained, which has been discussed in this thread. What has also been discussed in this thread is that halting ROFR was part of the Aspen settlement in exchange that existing HPP rights will not be diminished. It seems reasonable that the same leverage will work for Sunset Harbor also.
I don't have a dog in the fight, but I'm interested in how much difference terminating Hyatt-as-Manager and Hyatt-as-Club will actually accomplish the goals.

I would hope that the Sunset Harbor board should have an actual answer to whether stopping Portfolio growth is 'reasonable', but a few things:

1. I don't think control is an issue, if that's 50% of the unit-weeks. We know that there are 40 units, so 40 x 51 = 2,040 unit weeks:

1655866665796.png


Portfolio originally took in 127 of those unit weeks:

1655866687936.png


And then added 95 unit weeks as of 2021, over the four years of ROFR:

1655866729921.png


That's a pretty slow roll to controlling 1020 unit-weeks.

2. Aspen's Condominium Declaration had a stipulation that Hyatt's ROFR only existed until 2015 (for ten years), presumably to comply with Colorado Law:

1655866855061.png


There was no need for an agreement because Hyatt-as-Developer hasn't had ROFR for 7 years. In my California addendum above, there were no further Aspen unit-weeks added, for example.



3. Sunset Harbor's Condominium Declaration does not have a rights expiration (thanks @dioxide45 for posting it first), presumably because it wasn't required in Florida:

1655866968279.png


The important excerpt being here: "In the event an Owner desires to sell, transfer, assign or hypothecate his or her Unit or Unit Week and for so long as the Developer has interests to sell in the Condominium, the Developer shall have the right of first refusal to purchase the Unit or Unit Week under the same terms and conditions as are offered to or by a bona fide third party, including financing, for so long as the Developer has any interests to sell in the Condominium." (my emphasis)

4. We know that Hyatt-as-Developer still "have interests to sell in the Condominium" even though they sold nearly all the unit-weeks to Hyatt-Portfolio in 2017, because they still execute on ROFR in 2022, per this post.



So while it may seem at first reasonable that terminating Hyatt-as-Manager and Hyatt-as-Club might get rid of Hyatt-as-Developer's ROFR, I think there's enough questions here in the Condominium Declaration and Hyatt-as-Developer's behavior in 2022 that, if I were on the Sunset Harbor BOD, I would want to provide membership a definitive legal answer on this question prior to vote.
 

alameda94501

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
216
Reaction score
143
Points
153
I see many mention renting out their weeks but yet how HPP is bringing in riff raff? How is giving HRC the boot then promoting renting weeks improving at least one gripe that owners have with HPP? It seems that HSH owners don't care about the riff raff as long as they aren't staying there and they are making some cash on their rental?
Great question. Especially since Portfolio people have spent around 10x more than a TUGger on the same number of points... aren't we the riff-raff? :)
 
Last edited:

GTLINZ

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
616
Reaction score
258
Points
273
Location
Georgia
I see many mention renting out their weeks but yet how HPP is bringing in riff raff? How is giving HRC the boot then promoting renting weeks improving at least one gripe that owners have with HPP? It seems that HSH owners don't care about the riff raff as long as they aren't staying there and they are making some cash on their rental?
A lot of Hyatt owners have been called rif raff by association in this thread - because a broad net was thrown :) As an HRC owner, i make reservations using both HRC and HPP inventory - so i am guilty as charged.

Owner rentals tend to be full weeks. So I assume that if SH is apart from Hyatt, there would be less midweek stays because there would be no HRC trading out/back in. One could argue that it would likely be less stressfull on staff. HPP would still be there - but it is a small percentage at this time.
 
Last edited:

ocdb8r

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
369
Points
293
Location
Amsterdam, NL
The Galleon comparison is completely valid. If their management can run it with less MFs AND maintain far higher resale value, then why wouldn't Sunset owners want the same? I have stayed at both properties and the Galleon may have a marina and an amazing rooftop patio but they are not directly on Mallory square.
I'm not sure it is a valid comparison. The Galleon is a much more "dense" resort overall, with more units under a single roof/in a single building and less common space compared to the overall number of units. In addition, it has the benefit of a lot of other commercial opportunities to supplement/offset maintenance fees. SH can't offer any food/drink revenues (or rental revenues for an external to operate). I think it's a no brainer that the Hyatt Club Fees are pure waste as far as overall maintenance fees go (for those who never trade)...and I think even for those that do, there are then reservation fees to be paid on top of that. However, other than the Hyatt junk fees, not sure there is an enormous opportunity to lower maintenance costs at SH. Regardless, I do believe maintenance fees play into resale prices quite a bit...smart buyers know the key to making a timeshare work financially is for the annual costs to be as reasonable as possible.

I admit that losing access to the nearby Hyatt hotel gym would be a loss. But the difference in resale values is hard to explain.
I thought this was already lost - not sure if it is permanent or COVID related, but this has not been available for the last two years (including last month).
 

kwsunset

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2022
Messages
6
Reaction score
6
Points
53
Resorts Owned
Hyatt Sunset Harbor
So how many tuned into the webinar that was hosted by HRC? (Address was only to Sunset Harbor owners. ) They did have some answers for quite a few questions. I did hear one that asked " we voted, and now want to change our vote, as we didn't have all the information that we thought we needed". Tells me someone voted with their wallets before they had all the info. Also for those who did vote early, I question what was the rush, you had until July 13. As for changing a vote, the answer was yes, you should have until the last day, (7-13) before final count. Comparison was for Hyatt issues such as proxy votes, which can be changed before count deadline.
 

SteveinHNL

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2021
Messages
246
Reaction score
87
Points
78
So how many tuned into the webinar that was hosted by HRC? (Address was only to Sunset Harbor owners. ) They did have some answers for quite a few questions. I did hear one that asked " we voted, and now want to change our vote, as we didn't have all the information that we thought we needed". Tells me someone voted with their wallets before they had all the info. Also for those who did vote early, I question what was the rush, you had until July 13. As for changing a vote, the answer was yes, you should have until the last day, (7-13) before final count. Comparison was for Hyatt issues such as proxy votes, which can be changed before count deadline.
Was it all fluff and patting themselves on the back, or was there some substantive info shared about owners' concerns and HRC responses?
 

rtp-resident

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
361
So how many tuned into the webinar that was hosted by HRC? (Address was only to Sunset Harbor owners. ) They did have some answers for quite a few questions. I did hear one that asked " we voted, and now want to change our vote, as we didn't have all the information that we thought we needed". Tells me someone voted with their wallets before they had all the info. Also for those who did vote early, I question what was the rush, you had until July 13. As for changing a vote, the answer was yes, you should have until the last day, (7-13) before final count. Comparison was for Hyatt issues such as proxy votes, which can be changed before count deadline.
A comment was made during the webinar around 200 owners had called in. Whether HRC was keeping a running tally of the number is unknown. However, one had to identify themselves and provide an email to gain access to the call.
 
Top