The SaveKBV.org Website

[Jeff From Salem]

Aloha.

I urge ALL owners to go to the www.saveKBV.org website and read everything you can to be informed about important matters regarding this election. It's very helpful in terms of helping you fill out your ballot, recommended candidates, etc.

It also has an Archive which contains a secretive inter-office memo, Wyndham's Smoking Gun, that Wyndham put out in an attempt to overthrow the AOAO board and replace members with Wyndham operatives. They were successful there and with the IOA. One of the members Wyndham succeeded in getting off the board was Karen Blackford. All members of the board as of then who voted to end Wyndham's contract were the focus of campaigns by Wyndham to unseat them. All were removed from then but Trish Harrington.

Here is a direct link to the Wyndham Smoking Gun memo:

https://savekbv.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/kbv_strategicplanningnotes3.pdf


Karen has considered reapplying for the board, but personal matters has kept her from being able to do it this year. But implemented board rules have not allowed for dissent. The only way to inform owners as to what's really going on is to not be on the board, unfortunately. I hope that we will eventually be able to change the rules.

I can't state enough how important it is to stay informed. Again, stay informed by going to www.saveKBV.org


Mahalo,

Jeff Bellin

 

[TUGBrian]

how about putting a link to the kbv TUG forum on there to share in return?

 

[Jeff From Salem]

how about putting a link to the kbv TUG forum on there to share in return?

That would be a question for Karen Blackford (who is on vacation right now in sunny climes), but most who go there will have come either from here, or from the KBV Yahoo Users group I created a couple of years ago. If you wish to get in on the fun there, you may send an email to subscribe to
kbvowners-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

You'll get an automated response back and just follow the instructions.

Aloha Brian.

 

[magmue]

most who go there will have come either from here...

Jeff, I think Brian is talking about reciprocity. I read the information that is posted at the saveKBV.org last year while in the process of acquiring our unit, and I think I understand why you are concerned about Wyndham. But it has a very clearcut viewpoint, if you know what I mean.

I think TUG agreed to host a KBV Public Square here, with the intent of offering a place for an exchange of opinions and ideas about the best path forward. One way traffic from here to there potentially subverts the "exchange"

 

[Jeff From Salem]

Jeff, I think Brian is talking about reciprocity. I read the information that is posted at the saveKBV.org last year while in the process of acquiring our unit, and I think I understand why you are concerned about Wyndham. But it has a very clearcut viewpoint, if you know what I mean.

I think TUG agreed to host a KBV Public Square here, with the intent of offering a place for an exchange of opinions and ideas about the best path forward. One way traffic from here to there potentially subverts the "exchange"

Aloha Maggie!

That site, I think, is meant as an additional information, not instead of this public forum or the Yahoo KBV group. Karen Blackford blogs here as well as on the KBV Owners Yahoo group. I'm not sure of why the need to have to have a link to come back here. Forgive me if I'm not clear. Perhaps Karen doesn't think that the saveKBV.org page is operating in a vacuum, so to speak. I mean, it has not occurred to me either that it was something that needed to be done. It has never been brought up before, to my knowledge.

The saveKBV.org is a site that contains a warehouse of information, some aspects that couldn't be stored here. There, she can control and add to the content. Again, use it as a source of information, important information. But I'd bring it up with Karen Blackford about putting a link back here if you think it's important. She also doesn't have a link to the KBV Owners Yahoo page either. If I speak to her, I'll ask her. But I know she's getting some needed R and R. She recently had a death in her family and has been dealing with the aftermath. So she's been pretty heroic, to me, about putting work into refreshing the saveKBV.org site in that light. In any event, I think she's returning home the following weekend.

Jeff

 

[TUGBrian]

Just to come back to this since it slipped my mind!

we support most any site/forum/etc that is designed to inform or educate owners...and we usually welcome those that get posted here as links/reference/etc. I would however assume the same in return from said site in that they would want to promote TUG to any owner that found them as well.

it is not required of course, just merely courteous.

 

[Jeff From Salem]

Just to come back to this since it slipped my mind!

we support most any site/forum/etc that is designed to inform or educate owners...and we usually welcome those that get posted here as links/reference/etc. I would however assume the same in return from said site in that they would want to promote TUG to any owner that found them as well.

it is not required of course, just merely courteous.

Hey Brian -

Please don't make controversy where there is none. They're not competing sites. SaveKBV.org is simply an advocational news site that provides information and ways to keep the Kauai Beach Villas resort independent and to expose Wyndham's efforts to take back over the management of the resort. It's a news source. Those who know about that website know about TUG and/or the Yahoo KBV Owners groups already. And we have bigger fish to fry, so to speak, than whether there's a link from that page back to this one or to any other one.

Both the TUG group and KBV Owners Yahoo group are where discussion can happen between owners. Those who are members of the KBV Owners Yahoo group know about TUG and I try to make those here aware of the KBV Yahoo group.

By the way, when I started the KBV Owners Yahoo group a couple of years ago, I had been unaware of TUG having a KBV area. All I knew as that for years, I had tried to create a discussion area on KBV's own website (which had been run by Wyndham), but to no avail.

But a couple of years ago, I was SO alarmed as to what I was learning about what Wyndham was trying to do (and I had been researching them for over a decade!) that I created the Yahoo page and contacted as many KBV owners as I personally could. I saw that we independent owners desperately needed to take action. Owners, at the very least, needed to be informed voters, and Wyndham's KBV site wasn't doing that. We have about 250 members in that group. And they're pretty motivated. At some members' request, as I the moderator there, I have allowed those who want to buy, sell, or trade units to do so, so you will see some of that there.

If you're not a part of that group and you wish to be, you can subscribe by sending an email to:
kbvowners-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Follow directions to the email response you will receive (and make sure you check your spam folder, just in case).

Jeff

 

[TUGBrian]

not sure how you translate my post into starting controversy? to each his own I suppose.

 

[Jeff From Salem]

not sure how you translate my post into starting controversy? to each his own I suppose.

" I would however assume the same in return from said site in that they would want to promote TUG to any owner that found them as well.

it is not required of course, just merely courteous."

Brian, I don't mean any disrespect, but I'm trying to nip this one in the bud, as another poster also posted something about this. The person running that site, Karen Blackford, is neither being courteous nor discourteous in not posting a direct link back here. In another sense, however, she's being enormously courteous by volunteering to put that site together. All the work she did on that, and all the work I did in my research and reaching out were all done as volunteers. We don't make money from it. Think of all of the work we have done for the benefit of so many. If that's not courtesy, I don't know what is.

The saveKBV.org site is an addendum, it's just a source of information that Karen has compiled that we all can use to help us make an informed decision with regard to whom we will vote for. It's not an equivalent type website to TUG. It's not a competitor. And people aren't stumbling onto saveKBV.org. People know about it through here or through the Yahoo group. I'm not saying it can't be done, and I don't run that website, but what's important is that people read the warehouse of information on that site. From there, we hope that those who read it will take action based on what they read.

saveKBV.org has a narrow scope and there's no discussion blog. TUG, in contrast, is a discussion blog, and we discuss a wide array of subjects. It's just that now we're at election time, it's when we, as a whole, can make the most impact on the composition of the IOA board, and hence, the direction that we go forward.

I'm just suggesting that spending time worrying about whether there's a link back here or not. It's like worrying about the arrangement of the deck chairs while the Titanic is sinking. Again, most people get to saveKBV.org there through here or the Yahoo group anyway, so they already know about this site.

Aloha,

Jeff

 

[TUGBrian]

It was nothing more than a simple question and EXTREMELY common courtesy in the internet world where sites that actually support owners are so very rare.

if the owner wants to post a link back to TUG, so be it...if not...also so be it. I do believe you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Jeff From Salem]

It was nothing more than a simple question and EXTREMELY common courtesy in the internet world where sites that actually support owners are so very rare.

if the owner wants to post a link back to TUG, so be it...if not...also so be it. I do believe you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Fair enough, Brian, but if it were only one person mentioning this, it'd be one thing. But it has been more than one person asking for that. And I personally don't understand the significance of needing a link. That site is simply a suppository of information.

So we'll move on...

If Karen has any comment or wishes to go ahead and provide a link, great.

 

[ecwinch]

It is amazing to me that such a simple request has received such long-winded replies.

Seems like a different agenda is in play.

 

[CO skier]

That site is simply a suppository of information.

Either auto-correct will again get the blame, or everyone will feel better after they have digested the information and the election is over.

 

[Braindead]

I’m not a KBV owner but from the first time I seen the supposed “smoking gun” looks so unprofessional that I don’t believe it’s an internal memo of Wyndhams! I think someone with alternative motives just typed something up. My two cents worth

 

[Jeff From Salem]

Either auto-correct will again get the blame, or everyone will feel better after they have digested the information and the election is over.

Whoopsie. hee-hee. Let's substitute depository for suppository.

 

[Jeff From Salem]

I’m not a KBV owner but from the first time I seen the supposed “smoking gun” looks so unprofessional that I don’t believe it’s an internal memo of Wyndhams! I think someone with alternative motives just typed something up. My two cents worth

It is, though. Thoroughly researched. I don't see what you see that looks unprofessional about it anyway. But in any event, they executed just that - everything in the memo went forth. So, let's say that the memo is good and accurate, what then?

I don't know how long you have been around, but what Wyndham has done reflects their actions. The memo just solidifies it in writing. The reporting is not done by fly-by-nighters but by those who have been on the board and are well connected with the workings of the IOA.

Jeff

 

[Jeff From Salem]

It is amazing to me that such a simple request has received such long-winded replies.

Seems like a different agenda is in play.

Like what, Eric? Instead of casting aspersions, why don't you come out and say it. You love to muck up discussions. What's your theory?

 

[ecwinch]

The obvious. That is is Karen's decision. You would do it, but dont see the need.

It just seems to run counter to a "free exchange of ideas" as there is no balance to the content of SaveKBV.org. It is a mono-culture of opinion.

 

[Braindead]

But in any event, they executed just that - everything in the memo went forth. So, let's say that the memo is good and accurate, what then?

I don't know how long you have been around, but what Wyndham has done reflects their actions. The memo just solidifies it in writing. The reporting is not done by fly-by-nighters but by those who have been on the board and are well connected with the workings of the IOA.

Jeff

Why so much emphasis on the “smoking gun”? Just state the facts that “went forth” in your words.
I seen it was repeatedly recommended for owners to click on a link and make sure to read the “smoking gun “ like it was amazing astounding information. We blame TS companies for using scare tactics & I see a lot of scare tactics in opinions being used against big bad Wyndham in this case. Completely blown out of context in my opinion

 

[Jeff From Salem]

Why so much emphasis on the “smoking gun”? Just state the facts that “went forth” in your words.
I seen it was repeatedly recommended for owners to click on a link and make sure to read the “smoking gun “ like it was amazing astounding information. We blame TS companies for using scare tactics & I see a lot of scare tactics in opinions being used against big bad Wyndham in this case. Completely blown out of context in my opinion

Okay. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I'm guessing that you don't have a lot of history with this situation.

I have been researching Wyndham's wrongdoings for over 10 years. What started that inquiry was when I was improperly propositioned with an offer which undermined individual ownership at an Owner's Update in 2005. Individually, I started to wonder whether the part of Wyndham that did resort management for independent resorts was trying to use its presence to turn KBV into a Wyndham Resort for their vacation ownership company, which to me would be a conflict of interest (We owners pay them to manage our resort, but they use that to pull the carpet from under us, so to speak). I started to do research, talked with IOA board members. My concerns turned into a few board members' concerns. We turned up what we saw as circumstantial evidence. The IOA made the decision to let Wyndham's contract end a few years before their 10 year contract was to end. They would have actually brought a lawsuit against Wyndham at one point, but deemed it too expensive to do so, so they decided to let their contract end. Still, there was some level of misconduct detected, and conclusions that they were slowly trying to take over the resort for Wyndham corporate.

Still, evidence was circumstantial. When the interoffice memo surfaced, that was the "smoking gun" that proved our concern. The AOAO, which governs the property at large, were about to let Wyndham's contract end as well. Wyndham was successful, however, in their efforts as outlined in the memo, and saved Wyndham as the manager of AOAO's responsibilities. Fortunately, the IOA was able to bring in a new management company, Grand Pacific. But Wyndham used their voting power to oust all IOA members who voted against Wyndham other than Trish Harrington, who, partly by the power of our efforts in the KBV Owners Yahoo group I established as well as by a mailing promoting the saveKBV.org website, was able to be retained on the board.

Subsequently, the largely pro-Wyndham board removed Trish Harrington as President and voted in two Wyndham employees, each of whom had zero ownership at KBV, Linda Kolstad and Danielle Ramos, as President and Vice-President respectively.

Clearly, from Wyndham's hostile moves and the "smoking gun" memo, fast "pants on fire" action needed to be taken in order to fight and push back. We independent owners are already at a disadvantage due to Wyndham owning so many deeds (as part of their attempt to take over the resort over 10 years ago) and therefore with an enormous amount of voting power. If we move too slowly, we won't have any chance of getting back control.

Wyndham has had a history of letting resorts it manages go downhill, then with the lowered interest in the resort (making the deeds essentially worthless), scoop them up, turn them into Wyndham property, and resell the deeds at great profits. So we're not making up this sort of stuff. Wyndham was trying to do it here. We have tried to put a stop to it.

That's a mini-history for you. There are a bunch of us who are taking aggressive action as best we can for the benefit of independent owners to keep the resort independent, healthy, and thriving. Already, cutting Wyndham as KBV timeshare manager and bringing in Grand Pacific has resulted in great dividends, as previously posted statistics verify.

We hope you can appreciate the work that we're doing. Unlike Linda Kolstad (who apparently is still working on KBV behind the scenes) and Dani Ramos, we're not getting paid. We're volunteers. And unlike Linda and Dani, we actually personally own deeds here. Linda and Dani's sole responsibility is to Wyndham corporate, whose responsibility is to make a profit.

And making a profit is not the goal of an individual owner. Money that comes in from maintenance fees and rentals should completely go to upkeeping and upgrading the resort, and keeping maintenance fees down. A profit making organization like Wyndham needs to make sure that money is being scooped up for the profit of Wyndham. Very different goals.

Jeff

 

[ecwinch]

I have been researching Wyndham's wrongdoings for over 10 years.

We turned up what we saw as circumstantial evidence.

Wyndham has had a history of letting resorts it manages go downhill, then with the lowered interest in the resort (making the deeds essentially worthless), scoop them up, turn them into Wyndham property, and resell the deeds at great profits. So we're not making up this sort of stuff. Wyndham was trying to do it here. We have tried to put a stop to it.

That's a mini-history for you.

And making a profit is not the goal of an individual owner. Money that comes in from maintenance fees and rentals should completely go to upkeeping and upgrading the resort, and keeping maintenance fees down. A profit making organization like Wyndham needs to make sure that money is being scooped up for the profit of Wyndham. Very different goals.

Jeff

As with anything - there is the other side of the story. A side of story that I says that Wyndham stepped up during the worst financial crisis in US history and protected KBV from the drag of defaulting owners. The very issue that most of the candidates for the BoD have spoken on as being a significant threat to the health of KBV today. As evidenced by the HOA (in 2+ years) now owning 299 intervals (not paying dues), and ~12% of the owners being in default on dues. An issue that you seemingly ignore as there is nothing on SaveKBV.org that even mentions that problem.

And is GPR operating as manager out of the goodness of their heart? I would look at the approx 30%+ cut of rental revenue they are receiving as commission, and the value of exclusively managing our growing inventory of rental weeks to both their GPX exchange and rental network. What motivation does that provide them for implementing effective plans for converting defaulting intervals into dues-paying owners?

By your own calculations rental income has increased over 300% - and we still are getting 5% dues increases. So who is really benefiting from the lack of a foreclosure agreement since GPR took over management?

A profit making organization like GPR needs to make sure that money is being scooped up for the profit of GPR. Very different goals.

 

[Jeff From Salem]

As with anything - there is the other side of the story. A side of story that I says that Wyndham stepped up during the worst financial crisis in US history and protected KBV from the drag of defaulting owners. The very issue that most of the candidates for the BoD have spoken on as being a significant threat to the health of KBV today. As evidenced by the HOA (in 2+ years) now owning 299 intervals (not paying dues), and ~12% of the owners being in default on dues. An issue that you seemingly ignore as there is nothing on SaveKBV.org that even mentions that problem.

And is GPR operating as manager out of the goodness of their heart? I would look at the approx 30%+ cut of rental revenue they are receiving as commission, and the value of exclusively managing our growing inventory of rental weeks to both their GPX exchange and rental network. What motivation does that provide them for implementing effective plans for converting defaulting intervals into dues-paying owners?

By your own calculations rental income has increased over 300% - and we still are getting 5% dues increases. So who is really benefiting from the lack of a foreclosure agreement since GPR took over management?

A profit making organization like GPR needs to make sure that money is being scooped up for the profit of GPR. Very different goals.

But you're talking two different things.

1) Grand Pacific does not have any employees on the board. There is no one representing the company on the board. They are a completely outside company that we have the power to keep or get rid of if they're not doing their job.

2) Grand Pacific works for us on a paid basis. As did Wyndham, they take a small percentage of our maintenance fees as compensation for managing the timeshares. That money pays for housekeeping, the manager (Clinton Owen), etc.

3) We have hired them to handle rental income (and eventually sales). They get a commission for doing so, meaning they only get paid for being successful at it.

4) Wyndham is an owner of about 2200 deeds (and yes, they pay a maintenance fee). But unlike individual owners, as a profit making company, they need to make money on their investment. Owners would be happy if all of their maintenance fee money went into upkeep, upgrades, and keeping fees down. Wyndham, on the other hand, needs to make a profit on top of that. (Do you see a conflict of interest here?) Wyndham also wants to be the management company here (another conflict of interest), a for-profit endeavor that would also allow them to make even more money for not only Wyndham corporate, but for their Wyndham Vacation Club. Like they have notoriously tried to do and actually in a number of places, they have eventually displaced independent owners and took their place to make the resorts fully owned and run by Wyndham. In a couple of instances, individual owners have been able to rise up in unity and keep Wyndham out. This has also happened with Diamond Resorts.

But who says that Grand Pacific should be a non-profit company? That's silly. And GPR only stays on as manager of our timeshare if they're doing well, which they are. Yes, we're getting dues increases because merely the rental income is not going to take care of the big hole that Wyndham put us into. And while Wyndham had over 10 years, Grand Pacific has had 2.5 years.

And that 30% cut is on the rental income. Grand Pacific has increased rental income by about 500%!!!!! Would you rather have a stock broker that you paid 5% and made you dividends of 10%, or a stock broker you paid 10% and made you dividends of 30%? You're throwing out numbers that are supposed to be scary without providing context? Really, Eric. Wyndham raised ~$100,000 in rental income its last year. Grand Pacific raised $850,000 its first year. You really want to bring back Wyndham, even if they might have charged a smaller commission fee? And they tried to use their sales pitch presentation to steal deeds out from under owners. You really want to bring back Wyndham? And Wyndham has other sister companies under their corporate umbrella. Shell Vacations is another. So don't be fooled by bringing in another Wyndham company with a pseudonym.

And if you still think the sales commission is too much, you're only penny-wise, pound-foolish.

Honestly, there's something funny about how you post. Everything you state in your posts mirror Wyndham talking points. I can't remember you EVER agreeing with any of my points. You're either in bed with them, or talk too much with a Wyndham friendly owner on the board.

Linda Kolstad, Dani Ramos, and Larry Warner have used these points to try to end Grand Pacific's contract. They talked about wanting to put the contract out to bid, so it would allow Wyndham elements to weigh in. Dani would have to recuse herself from voting (and Linda would have had to as well, leaving three members, only one being Wyndham friendly, to vote on it), but Linda being officially off the board, Wyndham can try to put another Wyndham-friendly member on the board. And how is it that we allowed Wyndham over 10 years here, while Wyndham elements already talk about getting rid of Grand Pacific after only 2 1/2 years??

Grand Pacific has just scratched the surface with what they can do. They're starting to replenish our financial coffers. Many have seen the model upgrade unit. I have seen GP's upgrades in a couple of resorts on the North Shore, including at the Makai Club. They're fantastic.

No rational independent owner wants to bring back Wyndham. And if we were to bring in a different one at this point, they'd practically have to start from scratch again with a learning curve.

Eric, you requested to be a member of my KBV Owners Yahoo group and I granted that. But I'm not interested in having you if you're just going to be a troll and create muddy waters. A few of us are trying to truly inform out of research and great experience. You seem to only be interested in mucking things up.

 

[Aurelius]

A few of us are trying to truly inform out of research and great experience. You seem to only be interested in mucking things up.

I’ve got no skin in the game, but from an outside perspective it seems like you’re uninterested in dissenting opinions. Having a different opinion than you is apparently “mucking things up”. Sounds like you’re interested in a propaganda campaign rather than allowing open discussion. “Informing owners” doesn’t seem to be your goal here. Getting your desired result is.

I serve as a board President and have been through several management companies. None are perfect. They all have their pluses and minuses. They’re all out for a profit. That’s what businesses do.

Of course Wyndham wants favorable representatives on the board for a timeshare in which they have a large investment. That’s their right as owners. To vote for those whom best represent their ownership interest.

A valid point was made - if there is more inventory to rent, of course rentals are up. That’s kind of how it works.

 

[Jeff From Salem]

I’ve got no skin in the game, but from an outside perspective it seems like you’re uninterested in dissenting opinions. Having a different opinion than you is apparently “mucking things up”. Sounds like you’re interested in a propaganda campaign rather than allowing open discussion. “Informing owners” doesn’t seem to be your goal here. Getting your desired result is.

I serve as a board President and have been through several management companies. None are perfect. They all have their pluses and minuses. They’re all out for a profit. That’s what businesses do.

Of course Wyndham wants favorable representatives on the board for a timeshare in which they have a large investment. That’s their right as owners. To vote for those whom best represent their ownership interest.

A valid point was made - if there is more inventory to rent, of course rentals are up. That’s kind of how it works.

It is NEVER in the interest of an independently owned timeshare to have a corporation on the board. You haven't thought out the history of this, and what it means to be an independent timeshare. Think about it - Wyndham corporation owns 2200 deeds, giving them 6600 votes for this election. An individual who owns 10 weeks would have 30 votes. Does the person with 30 votes individually have any chance to really sway the direction of the resort unless there is a collective? And if this becomes a Wyndham resort, everything we do will become more expensive, because instead of everything essentially being done at cost, it will have to incorporate profit for Wyndham.

You must love oligarchies.

As far as Eric is concerned, he doesn't merely discuss alternatives. He never acknowledges the issues that we are fighting for as legitimate. For example, 97% of climate scientists say that man-made climate change is causing potentially catastrophic damage to our planet. Those who say "Well, not ALL scientists agree" simply muck up the need to take action. If you went to see 100 doctors about a condition you had, and 97 of them said you had cancer and you needed to take immediate action, you wouldn't say, "Well, not ALL of them say it's cancer. I think I should hold off and do some more studying."

Those who have argued against taking action on climate change often have ulterior motives, often paid by the fossil fuel industry. If someone here refuses to acknowledge Wyndham's history, and the history of their work at PAHIO are either uninformed, or, I surmise, have their own ulterior motives.

We're not talking about an merely imperfect human beings on a board. You're being dismissive of something that we've been studying for over a decade. Have you? Are you aware of Wyndham's (and Diamond's) efforts out in the timesharing world?

So we have some factual things on our side and we're at a point that we need to take action and quickly. If you don't feel that way, that's your prerogative. I can't vote or think for you. We have evidence. If you want to be dismissive of it, that's unfortunate. But we're putting this information out. The skin in the game I have is that I'm an individual owner who, like most of us individual owners, wants to be able to maintain our say in the direction of the KBV resort, and saw what Wyndham's control over 10 years did to it, and have observed them trying to retake control of the resort for themselves hostilely.

 

[Aurelius]

Oligarchies and climate change? Cancer? What in the world?

Presenting the current management company as some flawless white knight while painting Wyndham as an evil corporation and using misleading percentages and statistics as “proof”?

I’m sure all the money that Wyndham has invested into their ownership was discarded because it came from an evil corporation right?

Good luck to you...