SURF CLUB and OC owners- let Marriot know how we feel

[PNBN]

It seems to me that part of the solution should be to allow Surf Club owners tor use the Ocean Club palapas. If the lazy river is reciprical then the palapas should be as well. This won't solve the larger issue but does provide better balance of the two properties.

I am sure this will get some interesting replies.:ignore:

 

[timeos2]

The grab it and it's mine mentality

Be it palapas or the best weeks deposited or anything in between why do some feel it is their right to grab them and keep them indefinitely? I prefer a system that promotes the best chances that when you want a week/palapas/lounge at the pool or anything else that a timeshare ownership gets you it will be there for you. I really dislike the idea that someone gets up at 6AM to run down and grab a lounge or whatever to hold it for the day. Come on. How long are you actually going to be using that? An hour? Two? The rest of the time it is sitting there unused and no one else can enjoy it. When that happens the mindset becomes that you "need" to grab it while it's there at 6AM or you won't get it at all. It's the grab the 3 bedroom unit 24 months ahead even though we only need a 1 bedroom because it's there mindset. It feeds itself.

If Marriott or anyone else that has to try to satisfy 100's of owners/guests each week with limited quantities of whatever has a method to get it spread out over more users each use period I say more power to them. It is a shared amenity not personal property. If it was meant to be used one for each unit week then there would be one assigned to every unit. There isn't so everyone has to learn to play nice and share. Seems fair to me - how about you kids?

 

[m61376]

PNBN- I'm surprised your comment hasn't been met with outrage . Seriously though, one of the things that I find troublesome is that, by creating a convoluted, half day and fee-for-use system at the SC while OC users get to enjoy easy to secure and free palapas, the SC is being relegated to a second-class resort. I can tell you with certainty that is not only my opinion, as there have been many comments made that the beach and pool are better at the OC because of the overcrowding (although OC owners do like to have it both ways and want to retain the right to use the SC pool at whim).

I have been one of the SC's biggest advocates, touting what we perceived as an amazing place to vacation and defending it against others who have commented that Marriott greedily overbuilt the resort. This new policy gives credibility to that contention- otherwise, why would the Boards of the OC and SC deem it necessary to impugn such a policy on the SC owners while giving OC owners continued easy access to the OC/SC pools and the OC palapas? With the nicely expanded beachfront, if adequate planning was done, why are SC owners being relegated to being second class citizens in Marriott's eyes, since only SC owners, and not OC owners or hotel guests, are subject to this new policy?

IMHO, the new policy and its inequity conveys the very message that Marriott wants to avoid. I do think if the resorts are going to operate as one big Marriott family that they should share uniform policies.

And, yes, lounges and palapas or umbrellas at the pool are shared amenities and, as posted above, owners need to learn to share and not be possessive. I agree that commandeering a lounge or palapa and letting it sit unused for over an hour is selfish. However, I also feel all owners should have an equal opportunity to reserve ones- not that those who were there the previous week should have first dibs, or those who arrive earlier in the weekend or even on an earlier flight. As I stated previously, when we arrived Sunday afternoon, all the palapas were reserved ahead of time till mid week. At least under the old system half were saved and unreserved, so those who really wanted one could get one. I agree that the lines were ridiculous and largely generated by the monopolization even if not being utilized. Trust me, I didn't like having to get on line at 7AM. But substituting a 6-7AM line with one beginning an hour and a half later for a 9AM opening (and, during the height of the season, possibly just as early with a later opening). And then, people who want to stay on the beach until after 1PM and still want shade can look forward to standing on yet another line to play musical chairs if they are "lucky" and can secure a palapa for a few more hours.

I think, in an attempt to make things easier, the management has complicated things. In an atttempt to rectify a problem they have placed an unfair burden on SC owners rather than finding a real solution- whether that be by trying harder to get more palapa permits or devising other allowable solutions (the bimini chaises are a great addition, but are difficult for older people due to the constant shifting of the sun; I do think they should try to really increase the number of the bimini chaises, though, as a start toward alleviating the problem). I also think Marriott should resolve these issues before adding new owners.

While I would love to think that simply by grabbing OC beachfront use as a trade for SC pool use the problem at the SC would be rectified, fixing the problem at the SC beach cannot be done at someone else's expense. I do think there is ample space at the newly expanded beachfront. I think Marriott has to find a way to convince the powers-that-be in Aruba to allow for more palapas.

I quipped earlier to someone about a timestamp slip system out of jest- but, actually, although it will never be adopted it isn't that far-fetched an idea. If you're going to leave the area, you have to get a time-stamped sticker and place it on your lounge. After an hour, akin to a meter, it's expired and belongings can be moved by staff. If a 1 hour rule (or even the 2 hour rule that is currently in place) was really enforced (and without some system it really can't be) a lot of these problems would disappear on their own, since desirable space/lounges remaining claimed but unused is a big part of the problem.

 

[Cathy in Boston]

Well, I have not been on the board for a few days and look what I miss!

I am so confused by the various rules and regulations apparently being tried out at the SC, all I can say is, I am going to have to see how things go down when we're there (in 24 days, 22 hours...approximately).

One thing I am confused about (one of many, lol) is that m61376 mentioned that, when they arrived on Sunday, all of the palapas were reserved through midweek - what happened to the old rule about only being able to reserve for two days?

Admittedly, we will be there during the "slow" season, so we may not encounter the problems those traveling in January and February encounter.

Anyway - I will surely post as much info as I can when we do return!

 

[m61376]

To Marriott's credit, although they have not changed the policy (which hopefully will change ), they are apparently, at least, receptive to input and considering mine, and others', concerns (I was careful not to state it as "our concerns", lest I be misinterpreted).

As I've always said, I think Marriott runs a great resort and, while I strongly disagree with the new policy, I don't think it was created out of greed, but simply to make an inconvenient situation better. Sometimes good intentions make things worse rather than better, which I feel is the case here.

It is obvious they intend to monitor the situation. Hopefully they will respond to the concerns and input of owners and exchangers.

 

[m61376]

Well, I have not been on the board for a few days and look what I miss!

I am so confused by the various rules and regulations apparently being tried out at the SC, all I can say is, I am going to have to see how things go down when we're there (in 24 days, 22 hours...approximately).

One thing I am confused about (one of many, lol) is that m61376 mentioned that, when they arrived on Sunday, all of the palapas were reserved through midweek - what happened to the old rule about only being able to reserve for two days?

Admittedly, we will be there during the "slow" season, so we may not encounter the problems those traveling in January and February encounter.

Anyway - I will surely post as much info as I can when we do return!

Cathy- the old rule was for 2 days at a time- but not for only the next two days. What I was told by the people at the towel hut when I arrived on Sunday was that people who were there from the previous week had reserved in advance. I was also surprised; in fact, while there were reservations available for later in the week, over half of them (meaning over half of the ones available for reservations) were already reserved for the entire week before I even arrived. Arriving on Sunday, even if I wanted a palapa in the first few rows on Sat. there were none available for advance reservations.

 

[Cathy in Boston]

Aaahhh...Okay now I get it, thanks!

I doubt May will be like that. But I've been wrong before...

 

[m61376]

Cathy- actually, you will be quite impressed with the expanded beach- prob. looks a lot different than when you were there before. I agree that you will likely not have the same issues in May as during the peak season. One of my concerns with this whole new system is that they will be judging it largely based on the comments of people who are happy and impressed at first seeing the expanded beach (since many owners were concerned as to whether or not the beach could accomodate the number of villas they were building) and during times when it is not as crowded anyway, and the policy will become entrenched before its effects are really tested.

My guess is that, during May, you will likely be able to make advance reservations for most mornings and will be able to secure another for most, if not all, afternoons and I wouldn't anticipate that lines will be too long, since it is one of the quieter times. Your biggest inconveniences will be having to stand on line again before 1, having to pay twice and having to play musical chairs. During peak periods the lines for morning and afternoon reservations will likely be much longer, advanced reservations will likely be gobbled up (as they were before for the half that could be reserved in advance), and I would expect the whole system to be very aggravating.

I hope you have a great trip and hope you are as impressed with the changes (meaning the expanded beach- not the new policies of course) since last year as I was.

 

[Cathy in Boston]

I really can't wait to see the beach. As for standing in line twice, we won't - what we will do is just pull up stakes for the day a little earlier and move over to the pool. Last year we went around 2:00 - now we'll go at 1:00 instead.

 

[qlaval]

"...part of the solution should be to allow Surf Club owners tor use the Ocean Club palapas. If the lazy river is reciprocal then the palapas should be as well...."

You're right I've oversaw that one...

Do you know why the Ocean Club owners have access to the Lazy River?

Because the Ocean Club has accepted to rent about ten palapas daily to the Surf Club in exchange of this privilege...
Add to that the use of our lobby for check in (until you have yours finished) it was last year) and that you can use our pool too (now after 10 am)
More in the low season we accept to rent our unused palapas to the SC (the ones near the Surf Club)...

Are you sure you want to break this deal?
You're already are too low on palapas at the Surf Club and need to split the reservation in two shifts.
Imagine 10 less palapas and the other buildings open….

I think it's already a win-win situation.

As for the Surf club owners who were placing their chairs on the Beach (which is public) in front of our Palapas.
The Surf Club Board is now instituting a policy that their chairs must stay on their property, adding more seating and improving the beach.

And just a few numbers to make you understand the palapas problem.
The Ocean Club owns 118 and the Surf Club owns 79 plus 30 scheduled for a total of 109.
Surf Club once finished will be 3 time bigger with less Palapas then the OC...

 

[irish]

while i share the pain of the surf club owners having to deal with the palapa situation i have to weigh in here about surf club using the ocean club palapas.
as i understand it, OCEAN CLUB shares both the use of their POOL and PALAPAS with the HOTEL. OCEAN CLUB and SURF CLUB share the use of the POOLS. now you think OCEAN CLUB should share the use of the palapas with BOTH the HOTEL and the SURF CLUB. sorry i don't agree. Marriott knew when starting to build the SURF CLUB that they were over building. Marriott thought they could just throw money at the arubian gov't and get anything they wanted. THEY WERE WRONG!
as with any other contract you sign, what was IMPLIED should have been in WRITING.
when, and this is JMO, the surf club is completed, the same situation will occur at the pool. to many people not enough space.
i am an OCEAN CLUB owner and i am not willing to give up my PALAPAS as a solution to MARRIOTT GREED.

 

[m61376]

Interesting conversation and a bit of confusion- possibly all on my part ...I was under the impression that the hotel facilities were for hotel guests only, that the beaches in front of each facility were for the use of the guests of that facility only and that the OC and SC shared their pool facilities, at least temporarily (there have been a few different answers to the question as to whether or not that would end this year).

The above posts indicate a few different scenarios. I was wondering if anyone knows the real restrictions/rules in place.

As far as the palapas- I do agree that monopolizing OC property (in this case palapas) is not a suitable fix for Marriott's miscalculations wrt what the Aruban government would allow. The letter from the Board president and my own communications make it clear, at least to me, that the developers anticipated being allowed to build more palapas (as the letter indicated, they applied for many more than were approved). This was an issue that, IMHO, should have been determined before the scope of the project was finalized.

However, I do feel that both the Lazy River at the SC and palapas at the beachfront are desirable amenities. And, Irish, you are right- when the rest of the villas are opened the space at the pool will become more constrained. Personally, I think that with the anticipated added sitting areas it will be fine and, even in peak season, the pool wasn't crowded, at least the week I was there.

I think if the OC and SC are going to share desirable amenities they should do so equivalently. Currently, OC owners/guests can use the SC pool, but cannot access it before 10AM. That is to allow, I assume, SC owners first dibs on the lounges/umbrellas, etc. I think if this policy will continue, in an equivalent manner, SC guests should have access to unutilized amenities at the OC. While .12 palapas per keyed unit is insufficient for owner's needs at the SC, .38 exceeds demand at the OC. Even in January I noticed several OC palapas sat shading the sand but nothing else. If they are not needed by OC owners/guests, then I think, like the pool policy wrt use of the Lazy River by the OC, SC owners should be allowed to use them. If both Boards agree 10AM is the magic time, then it should apply equally. In the interest of fairness, I don't think useage of any facility by the other should be applied unilaterally.

OC owners may argue that the space should be saved in case someone wants it later in the day. Personally, if people weren't so bent on saving space I think a lot of the issues would go away. People hog palapas and spend half the day at the pool or elsewhere, but they have to maintain their space so it is available to them when they want to use it. Same at the pool- at times I think there were as many empty lounges with towels on them as there were occupied ones- far in excess of the number of people in the pool. I think there should be a way of regulating saving- after sitting empty for an hour stuff should be moved. People may think I'm crazy, but a timestamp sticker system so there is no argument might be worth considering- if you're leaving your belongings but want to reserve the space, place a sticker on a card attached to a lounge- after an hour, your hold time is expired and peopple are free to ask security to move your belongings. No arguments that you weren't gone that long, becuase there would be a system in place. It does sound silly, and as adults it is a bit ridiculous, but it is not only the Marriotts with this problem. Practically every resort has issues with chair hogs. People come down in the middle of the night to reserve their idel space on the beach or at the pool (which is why marriott will remove things placed before 7:30). Ridiculous- of oourse, but let's face it, that is a major issue. And it is self perpetuating- I don't liek it, but feel compelled to do it too, becuase if I don't go down early and reserve my space for future use, there will be none left.

I think there are many viable alternatives to easing the palapa situation other than the new system Marriott has imposed. If units were not allow to be monopolized but unused, at both the SC and the OC, along with the addition of the bimini chaises (which, interestingly, despite what was posted above about blocking the view, some OC owners have also posted about really liking because of their portability), a lot of the problems might self correct.

 

[irish]

with the advent of the" PALAPA RESERVATION SYSTEM", we are no longer able to determine whether or not the "unused palapas" people are seeing are actually
unused or reserved. possible, the "unused" palapas,actually are reserved. the occupants might have gone for lunch, gone to the pool, gone to town,on a site seeing tour, or scuba diving, snorkeling and will use the huts at sometime during the day.they paid for use, they can use or NOT use at will. when i was in the beach, the occupants of the reserved palapa next to me did not show up until after 3pm every day.therefore, people were ASSUMING is was vacant.in reality, it was occupied.
the figure given for the o.c palapa count(118) i believe is a misnomer.the 118 figure count INCLUDES the palapas in front of the hotel.therefore, i believe(i could be mistaken), the actual count for the O.C.to be far less then the 118 count given.

the O.C. is expecting to incorporate the BIMINI chairs into the O.C. as well.i have also read, but have not confirmed, that there is also a new reg. inplace for the the use of the surf club BIMINI chairs.that is, they(surf club) will no longer be able to remove them off the surf club property. as i said, i have not confirmed this. i think the HOA president is sick of hearing from me.

 

[m61376]

From what I was told, the 118 palapas are for the OC. Actually, I read the 118 figure, I believe on this post, but that corresponds to the .38 per keyed room at the OC that came directly from the Marriott letter. So those are not hotel but OC palapas.

Maybe you don't agree with me, and that's certainly your right, but one of my points is I really object to the reserving for future use sometime during the day concept. Reserving in advance is fine, but if people aren't going to use them by a pre-determined "reasonable" time (whether or not the homeowners agree on this time, but let's use 10AM for arguments sake, since this was the pool use time) then after 10AM they should be available for alternate use. Why should a palapa give shade to the sand while someone is off shopping or on an excursion, or spending hours at the pool? That is my whole point. I really think some of the problems would be alleviated if the concept of chair/palapa/umbrella-hogging was eliminated. I don't think reservations should be absolute- they should only give guests the ability to use the palapa if they intend to use it by a set time- otherwise, they should be available for others to enjoy. There are too many people who look at the $10 or $15 fee as a minor expense and well worth it in case they decide to sit at the beach, oblivious to the fact that there are people who would otherwise really like to use the amenities. And if the OC wants to make sure that guests who only want a palapa for the afternoon have one guaranteed, they can offer an optional half day rental for reserving an afternoon in advance (don't get me wrong, I am NOT suggesting they do a mandatory half day program that I object to like the SC- I am suggesting that OC owners who may only want to use a palapa in the afternoon but want to make sure they have one reserved should be able to do so without monopolizing one for the whole day). On the other hand, I am sure there are OC owners who will disagree with me, feeling that as long as there is an abundance of palapas at the OC, possibly in excess of what their owners need at any given time, then having them sit unused but reserved is ok as long as it doesn't infringe on their owners/guests useage. And, in a sense, if you look at the SC as a different property all-together, then it would be hard to argue with the concept. BUT- if you consider them as part of a larger resort, and given that they are sharing some amenities I think that was the concept behind the development, then considering others' needs without imposing a hardship doesn't seem unreasonable. I guess it boils down to whether one considers not being able to hold onto chairs/palapas/umbrellas for hours without using them a hardship.

I am a little confused about the whole bimini chair issue myself. First I heard that they could be used at both facilities, then that they were restricted to in front of the SC because OC owners objected to their presence (yet there are OC owners who posted that they really liked the convenience of the bimini chaises), and now that the OC is going to get their own but that the SC's are not going to be allowed in front of the OC's beach. Wonder if they are going to attach little signs or something, or get a different color for the OC? I can understand if the OC doesn't want the bimini chaises blocking the front row for those that consider that important (so if they don't want any at all), but will it be better if they are OC's biminis and not SC's? To me that's taking things a little too far, unless the HOAs decide to keep everything separate- the beaches, the chaises, and the pools. I just don't think you should have sharing of some without sharing of others, with equivalent restrictions.

 

[PNBN]

.
as i understand it, OCEAN CLUB shares both the use of their POOL and PALAPAS with the HOTEL. OCEAN CLUB and SURF CLUB share the use of the POOLS. now you think OCEAN CLUB should share the use of the palapas with BOTH the HOTEL and the SURF CLUB.

We have stayed at the hotel and were NOT allowed to use the OC pool or beach as it was explained to us.

I agree with m61376, if one part of the facility is shared then all should. I was unaware of the 10 rental palapas situation that Glaval pointed out, but would the OC owners be open to using only 15% of the lazy river?

It is true that we could reasonably anticipate what we were buying into with the Surf Club property size, however, clearly one of the major property amenities is the Lazy River, which is shared FULLY with the OC. On the other hand, the OC beach and palapas is, IMO, one of it's greatest features and that is only shared partially. The issue of using the lobby temporarily should not be considered a long term payback to the OC owners, IMO.

Hopefully Marriott can work with the Aruba officials to add more palapas.

 

[irish]

i guess we'll just agree to disagree. i believe, AND THIS IS JMO, that if/when the showdown comes(and eventually it will come) O.C will just give up the use of the lazy river pool and end the agreement involving the 10 O.C. palapas. from speaking to SOME O.C owners, the pool is not a big deal . we lived without it before it was built, we'll live without it after it's gone.

 

[m61376]

Glaval-
I too was unaware that the OC was renting 10 palapas to the SC and it was not mentioned by either the Pres. or VP of the Board, or the gen. manager. Are you even sure that is still in effect- or was it a temporary situation until the SC beach was expanded and/or a rumor, as apparently the OC sharing the pool and palapas with the hotel is a rumor according to PNBN's post (btw- I was also told the hotel was an entity unto itself and the facilities were not shared, other than access to the restaurants and casino, of course)?

I could be wrong, but when I was there in Jan. I don't think any OC palapas were available for SC use; all of the ones available were in front of the SC. I seem to remember there may have been some temporary sharing when the first building opened before the Compass tower opened, but I don't think that's the case anymore.

Irish- I'm not saying you are wrong, although I know a lot of people who feel the Lazy River is a very big feature so the OC Board would have to assess what is in the best interest of their owners (because that's where their responsibility lies). But I hope you can understand that I am not proferring a "let's grab everything we can" but that if the OC owners are getting to enjoy and use facilities at the SC that there should be a reciprocal exchange (and, really, although they can use the Lazy River space, what we are really discussing here is their access to lounges/umbrellas after 10AM which are otherwise unused and what I am suggesting is similar access to unused palapas; I am suggesting that OC owners be inconvenienced only in that they cannot reserve a palapa and let it sit unused most of the day. From your earlier post I think that is our biggest difference, in that retaining that right is important to you; of course, if that's important to your vacation enjoyment, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion and, as you said, let's agree to disagree).

 

[irish]

m61376, yes, i TOTALLY agree that palapas should NOT be reserved and allowed to sit unoccupied all day. however, how do you police this situation?they instituted a policy whereby you pay for use and it's yours to do as you please. i was quite happy with the 2 hour rule and fought to maintain it but i was overridden by the board so it is what it is. i learned to accept it.
i am a beach person. i get up EXTREMLY early to reserve my palapa.luckily, i am a morning person and enjoy the solitude. i grab a coffee and a chair, sit and read a book or watch my portable dvd player until the 'GANG' arrive and then enjoy good conversation and I have learned much in my morning gab fests with other marriott owners. i am on the beach from early morning to sunset. i ALSO agree that having to vacate my space on the beach and stand in another line to get another hut is a REAL PAIN IN THE A**!! i believe the only point we don't see eye to eye on is shared palapa use. that's okay too. we will just agree to disagree. exchange of ideas is one of the many reasons i love this board. i can't wait to see how this situation plays out
on the "3rd week of january" 2008 when 'THE GROUP' arrives and is expected to adhere to the newly instituted policy. that is assuming it is still in effect at that time. should be interesting to say the least.

 

[qlaval]

Hi again...

So many subjects I will try give my opinion for a few of them (for what it's worth...)

"...why would the Boards of the OC and SC deem it necessary to impugn such a policy on the SC owners while giving OC owners continued easy
access to the OC/SC pools and the OC palapas?..."
Because both resorts are separate entities and the SC is in a big need of palapas...

"...if adequate planning was done, why are SC owners being relegated to being second class citizens in Marriott's eyes..."
The answer is in the question adequate planning wasn't done properly by Marriott for the SC.

"...(Marriott should try)harder to get more palapas permits..."
I'm sure they have tried VERY hard but surprisingly the local government didn't budge.

"...I also think Marriott should resolve these issues before adding new owners...."
It is unfortunately too late for that they have sale contracts to fulfill. Not doing so would cost them millions
(and since there are in the TS business for money that isn't an option for them)

Irish stated:"...OCEAN CLUB shares both the use of their POOL and PALAPAS with the HOTEL..."
Are you sure about that? (If so I was under another impression)

"...the developers anticipated being allowed to build more palapas ... This ... issue ... should have been determined before the scope of the project was finalized...."
ABSOLUTELY! Like I said earlier adequate planning wasn't done properly.
Marriott did failed on his obligation to verify and confirm before starting the SC project. (especially considering his size)

"...when the rest of the villas are opened the space at the pool will become more constrained..."
And when that happen the use of the Lazy River won't be share anymore with the OC.
It simply isn't build to support this amount of people period. If the SC board don't do it at first the complains of the SC owners will...

"...I am sure there are OC owners who (feel) that as long as there is an abundance of palapas at the OC ... then having them sit unused but reserved is ok as long as it doesn't infringe (other OC owners)..."
Sorry m61376 but that's exactly how I feel...
On the other hand it's true that I see the OC as an entity not a member of a "Marriott-Resort-City"

"... part of a larger resort ... I think that was the concept behind the development..."
I've always saw it like a good neighbours thing... good friends on both sides, no need for a fence, welcome to walk by, etc...
Not a we share everything... (but that's my view...)

"...The issue of using the lobby temporarily should not be considered a long term payback to the OC owners, IMO...."
I totally agree with you.

"...I believe, ... that if/when the showdown comes(and eventually it will come) OC will just give up the use of the lazy river pool and end the agreement ..."
Me too! I'm 100% sure that this is exactly what will happen by 2008.
This might sounds selfish but I prefer by 10x times the accessibility to our palapas to the use of the lazy river. And I feel most OC owners feel the same.
As for renting unneeded palapas to the SC I'm sure it will continue as it is a good income for the OC.

"...I too was unaware that the OC was renting 10 palapas to the SC ... Are you even sure that is still in effect-..."
The number 10 isn't a fix number it can vary a little. I was told by the President of the OC board only a few days ago...

"...I don't think any OC palapas were available for SC use; all of the ones available were in front of the SC...."
I think they were rented by the SC directly more they were situated by the SC side so you might not have noticed?

 

[irish]

okay, here's the scoop on what is shared at the 3 resorts .
OC and hotel share pool use. OC and surf club share pool use.
palapas are NOT shared by ANY of the marriotts.
OC does RENT some of the palapas to the surf club as long as this policy does not have an adverse effect on the OC owners. i take this to mean that in high season when the OC is fillied to capacity that may not occur.
there ARE 118 palapas at OC. ORIGINALLY theses were shared by the hotel but that agreement has been terminated.
so there you have it.

 

[m61376]

Glaval- We agree more than you think actually. I agree that Marriott should have thought this out beforehand and now they are scrambling to try to fix it. It is clear that adequate planning was not done; I was attempting to underscore that fact when I wrote that "if adequate planning was done..."- that was meant as a rhetorical question. The intent of my post was for people to let Marriott know that they shouldn't look to fix their mistake by shifting the onus to the owners, but should endeavor to do everything possible to rectify them and ameliorate the impact on owners.

Interesting that the SC Board did not mention anything about any rental of palapas; it is also possible that, since you were told the number fluctuates, they may not do it in peak season, which is when I was there. With the numbering I think I would have noticed if they were being offerred, but possibly not. As another poster mentioned, you are right that the hotel and the OC don't share (oops, Irish, you posted while I was writing- I guess you have the inside scoop from your post).

The suggestion about trying to get more permits is that the wheels of government turn slowly, and we all know in this country that applications are made and then only partially approved and people reapply to get more. Sometimes it depends on other politics at the moment, sometimes on the mood of the legislators, sometimes on who knows ...but sometimes things are approved that were initially denied. It can be as simplistic as grouping a few together or different type of placement on the beach, who knows. Maybe they would approve of some further back rather than on beach edge, or maybe to the side so the villa views won't be affected (that seems to be a big issue with the Aruban government; they allowed palapas to block the ocean views of the OC villas, but will not allow them to block the clear view from the SC). We are guests in Aruba and the government must do what it feels is in the best interests of its citizens. Compromises are made by every government for economic reasons and, obviously, it will be up to the Aruban government to set the parameters as to what concessions they want to make to attract tourists. For example, there is a large area in the newly expanded beach, kind of between the pool and the beach. I would call it beach since it has sand, but it is back quite a bit. Clustering palapas in that area might be a great compromise. It won't impinge on the view of the beach from those sitting at the beach already and might be a very convenient area to sit for those families that like to sit by the beach but use the pool, since it is midway. I had actually thought they were going to put more palapas up in that area while I was there. Of course, that's just one thought...we'll leave it to better minds than mine....

While I understand why different policies were instituted at both resorts, what I don't find equitable is that SC owners are subject to what I think is a very inconvenient policy while OC owners continue to have unfettered access to their own pools/palapas (rightfully so) and the SC's pools after 10AM. This is obviously where we disagree, in part. It appears you would rather give up access and use of the Lazy River at the SC and maintain the right to reserve palapas for possible future use during the day, while letting them sit unused for hours at a time. And that is your option, and the option of the other owners. What I am saying is that the OC shouldn't have it both ways- either the resorts are friendly but selfish neighbors and don't share amenities except for perhaps access to stores/restaurants, or they share access in an equal fashion. Obviously, the SC's better amenity (or at least what many OC owners like to use) is their larger pool facilities. I still maintain that IF OC owners get to use the SC pool after 10AM, and occupy vacant lounges/umbrellas, then SC owners should be allowed to use vacant lounges/palapas at the OC. Really, the only thing I am suggesting is that OC owners shouldn't be able to reserve a palapa for the day and let it sit unused while they are out snorkeling, shopping, or sitting at the pool. As the policy currently exists, OC owners can have an empty, reserved palapa, while sitting under an umbrella for several hours at the SC pool. Sorry if that doesn't seem fair to me. Of course, as you said, you would prefer to give up the use of the SC pool, then that's for the OC Board to decide, but it isn't right to have it both ways.

Interestingly, even there we agree . What we differ on is that I'd like everyone to play nicely in the sandbox together, sharing toys when they aren't being used. You'd prefer to use your own toys or keep them by your side to use just in case you want them later...and while I might not agree, we can agree to disagree there. I don't think a long term policy where I can't use any of your toys but you can use some of mine for part of the day is a fair policy; while you may not agree on the issue of "fairness," it is clear that you realize that it is not a tenable policy. I guess my proposal is one of friendship whereas you'd like to just be good neighbors, co-existing peacefully side by side but not intermingling. While not my preference, that's ok too- just can't have it both ways.

Now that I'm done being metaphorical here- hope we can still be friends . I've enjoyed our bantering.

 

[qlaval]

AMEN!

(But should we ever met at the beach I will gladly share my palapa with you and your husband for the whole day... )

 

[m61376]

AMEN!

(But should we ever met at the beach I will gladly share my palapa with you and your husband for the whole day... )

:hysterical: Thanks!

 

[Blondie]

And for this you guys paid how many thousands of dollars? I don't know of ANY other resort in Aruba that insults its guests by making them cough up dough to rent a palapa. What a scam and how insulting to owners.

 

[swing4thefence]

Marriott is doing the best it can with a difficult situation.

And for this you guys paid how many thousands of dollars? I don't know of ANY other resort in Aruba that insults its guests by making them cough up dough to rent a palapa. What a scam and how insulting to owners.

If you don't like it, go back to the Caribbean Palm Village and leave us alone.

Perhaps Marriott merely underestimated the demand for these palapas. After all, NO other resort has a problem with them right?

I do agree that something needs to be done to encourage people to actually use the time they reserve.