Westin St John [Master Thread] - Part 2 (June 2014 and forward)

[okwiater]

Slight digression...

Does anyone know whether your deeded unit matters in the Bay Vista phase? I figured that since they are float weeks the deeded unit numbers were for recording purposes only. Is that true or do you have a right to your deeded unit?

 

[LisaRex]

The most interesting part of the letter was the reference to Hillside paying its share of common expenses based on a percentage of the total # of units. This will lead to a pretty significant increase in Hillside's share of common expenses as hotel rooms are eliminated.

I think you're correct. Acc to my calculations (based on the remaining 96 hotels rooms being converted into 66 TSs), VG owners will get hit pretty hard.

 

[steve1000]

Slight digression...

Does anyone know whether your deeded unit matters in the Bay Vista phase? I figured that since they are float weeks the deeded unit numbers were for recording purposes only. Is that true or do you have a right to your deeded unit?

You are correct. The deeded unit is for recording purposes only unless a fixed week/fixed unit was purchased.

 

[letsgomets]

November 26, 2014

Dear Fellow Virgin Grand Villas Owner:

one reason for the expected increases is Starwood's continuing conversion of its hotel rooms, including the poolside rooms, to time share units. As you know, in recent years Starwood created the Bay Vista and Coral Vista developments on what was hotel property, and it is now starting a fourth timeshare development at The Westin St. John by converting some hotel rooms in Building 12, one of the poolside buildings.

Sincerely,
Philip G. Schrag
phil.schrag@gmail.com

Robert Werbel
robert.werbel@yahoo.com

This email was sent by SVO Management, Inc. You've received this email as a convenience in the general course of communication regarding your ownership.

Is Starwood now planning to convert the entire remainder of the hotel to timeshare? We own in BV and had always understood that while they planned to convert the lower hillside (now CV), the 6 buildings around the pool would always be a hotel.

While others may have the experience of an all-timeshare resort that I don't have (I'm dubious), one thing that was always important was that we could extend our stay by booking a hotel room for a few more nights. St. John is a long way to travel for just a week, but can't afford the time for 2 full weeks.

 

[DavidnRobin]

New WSJ Signs

http://www.on-stjohn.com/2014/11/26/new-westin-signs/

I miss the sea turtle...

 

[bobpark56]

What good is the freecycle bldg if it's never locked?

What good is the freecycle building if it's never locked to keep non-members out?

 

[LisaRex]

Personally, I think that timeshares, etc should have a place where you can donate things like beach chairs to charity or local schools. They can open up a thrift shop and resell them and pocket the money. Win win.

 

[DavidnRobin]

What good is the freecycle building if it's never locked to keep non-members out?

I thought it had been (they supposedly added card key access)? (I recall this past June)
Is it not locked? Really should let someone know at WSJ - they are often uninformed of issues and willing to correct when informed.

Overall - IMO - VGV Owners are not made aware (reminded...) about the FreeCycle program (via Front Desk, welcome email, etc). It was working early on. Also, moving the Security Guard from that side of street allows for off-Resort people to do a bit of thievn'

 

[DavidnRobin]

ok - I waited a reasonable time to discuss the Elephant... (wearing the $ sign hat)

So... if I understand correctly - as WSJ converts to Timeshares, the MF for VGV will be disportionally impacting (bigger relative increase) since VGV has a higher percentage of villas... (As compared to VB, CV, and future HOAs)

That is true, BUT!!!??? - that is because they are heavy with studios and 1Bd villas - HOWEVER they do not account for the same relative occupancy (or space per VOI) - how is that fair or equitable? How much are VGV MFs going up? Compared to BV/CV/etc? Are we paying for more resort services that BV/CV/etc - and not even being at the Main resort. One example - we have our own pools which we pay for - and pay more disportionally for the Main pool? WTF?

Anyone feel like chiming in?
Can we temp ban on the Salty ban?

 

[okwiater]

ok - I waited a reasonable time to discuss the Elephant... (wearing the $ sign hat)

So... if I understand correctly - as WSJ converts to Timeshares, the MF for VGV will be disportionally impacting (bigger relative increase) since VGV has a higher percentage of villas... (As compared to VB, CV, and future HOAs)

That is true, BUT!!!??? - that is because they are heavy with studios and 1Bd villas - HOWEVER they do not account for the same relative occupancy (or space per VOI) - how is that fair or equitable? How much are VGV MFs going up? Compared to BV/CV/etc? Are we paying for more resort services that BV/CV/etc - and not even being at the Main resort. One example - we have our own pools which we pay for - and pay more disportionally for the Main pool? WTF?

Anyone feel like chiming in?
Can we temp ban on the Salty ban?

One could argue that any increase in MF is mitigated by the increase in the number of SOs (and SPs) which were extended to Virgin Grand. It would've been easy for Starwood to exclude that phase from the bump.

 

[tomandrobin]

http://www.on-stjohn.com/2014/11/26/new-westin-signs/

I miss the sea turtle...

boring......

 

[DavidnRobin]

One could argue that any increase in MF is mitigated by the increase in the number of SOs (and SPs) which were extended to Virgin Grand. It would've been easy for Starwood to exclude that phase from the bump.

These were already given - this is about future increases in MFs

 

[okwiater]

These were already given - this is about future increases in MFs

They were given when the plans began to move forward on CV and presumably the 4th and final phase. No doubt Starwood had already considered HOA bylaws including impacts to VGV and BV in determining how they would implement the plan.

 

[LisaRex]

That is true, BUT!!!??? - that is because they are heavy with studios and 1Bd villas - HOWEVER they do not account for the same relative occupancy (or space per VOI) - how is that fair or equitable?

True, but this methodology favored you when there were a lot of hotel rooms. Had they assessed it based on square footage back then, VG would have been hit really hard.

I think that if/when the last hotel rooms are converted to TSs, the 4 phase HOAs can perhaps come together and come up with a more equitable calculation, if such a thing exists. IMO, it'll always be difficult because the people who have private pools are going to argue that they don't use the main pool, so why should they be essentially charged twice?

 

[okwiater]

True, but this methodology favored you when there were a lot of hotel rooms. Had they assessed it based on square footage back then, VG would have been hit really hard.

I think that if/when the last hotel rooms are converted to TSs, the 4 phase HOAs can perhaps come together and come up with a more equitable calculation, if such a thing exists. IMO, it'll always be difficult because the people who have private pools are going to argue that they don't use the main pool, so why should they be essentially charged twice?

I'm an owner at VGV, and I still think VGV should pay for its fair share of the main resort amenities, even though VGV is located further away and has its own pools. Whether or not they make use of them, VGV guests still have free access to the main resort pool and amenities. The additional VGV pools are a more private (albeit smaller) alternative that adds value to VGV.

It's worth also noting that VGV Pool Villa owners have been helping to maintain the VGV pools even though they have almost no use for them, yet studio and 2-bedroom VGV owners weren't complaining about having their pools subsidized, now were they?

 

[LisaRex]

It's worth also noting that VGV Pool Villa owners have been helping to maintain the VGV pools even though they have almost no use for them, yet studio and 2-bedroom VGV owners weren't complaining about having their pools subsidized, now were they?

They will now that you thought of it!

My point is that it'll be hard to come up with a method that will satisfy everyone.

 

[DavidnRobin]

well - only 2 people care enough to respond… (sadly)

okwaiter - I guess we will have to disagree on this point - the SO increase for VGV was to bring it in-line with the BV and CV villas (this was stated as the reason by SVO/SVN/WSJ) - this MF increase being discussed extends beyond BV/CV and towards future expansion.

My comment wasn't purely about VGV paying for the Main Resort (which will now increase disproportionally). My issue was that it appears it was done on a per VOI basis - and that means that the numerous low occupancy VOIs in VGV are being weighed heavily - and not based on occupancy. And that unfairly results in higher MFs for VGV- that does not represent in a real increase in usage by VGV.

Fine by me if you are happy with it and feel it is justified. I am not happy about it because I think (IMO) that it is unfair for the reasons mentioned.

however, other VGV owners appear to be apathetic based on the silence.

Me? I want to know exactly what kind of increase we need to be prepared for in the future (will 2015 be our last stay at WSJ-VGV?). Plus we are about to get screwed (again) when it comes to Property Taxes as it appears the new Governor is looking at TSs are to gain even more revenue (btw, he is planning on recalling the last Prop tax bills…)

 

[DavidnRobin]

They will now that you thought of it!

My point is that it'll be hard to come up with a method that will satisfy everyone.

arg - are we creating new 'facts'?

At VGV - the non-pool villa owners do pay for the pool villas - and visa-versa (per CCRs).
It goes towards to same total upkeep for pools/patios/BBQs as a whole in our budget that is then divided per VOI type based on a percentage established by CCRs.
Pool villa owners and non-pool villa owners do not have separate charges here. Meaning pool-villa owners do not pay for their pools separate, and then also pay for our pools. The MF bills always stay proportional.

What should be discussed in non-VGV owners (e.g. BV) are taking the shuttles up to use our pools which they do not pay for.

 

[okwiater]

okwaiter - I guess we will have to disagree on this point - the SO increase for VGV was to bring it in-line with the BV and CV villas - this MF increase being discussed extends beyond BV/CV and towards future expansion.

My point was that Starwood didn't have to bring VGV in line with BV/CV. There is precedent for similar units in different phases having different SO values -- see SBP Plantation vs. Palmetto. They certainly didn't stand to gain much by increasing SO values for a sold out phase. So, the increase is at least a decent consolation prize in my eyes. I of course respect your disagreement.

My comment wasn't purely about VGV paying for the Main Resort (which will now increase disproportionally). My issue was that it appears it was done on a per VOI basis - and that means that the numerous low occupancy VOIs in VGV are being weighed heavily - and not based on occupancy. And that unfairly results in higher MFs for VGV- that does not represent in a real increase in usage by VGV.

Fine by me if you are happy with it and feel it is justified. I am not happy about it because I think (IMO) that it is unfair for the reasons mentioned.

however, other VGV owners appear to be apathetic based on the silence.

Me? I want to know exactly what kind of increase we need to be prepared for in the future (will 2015 be our last stay at WSJ-VGV?). Plus we are about to get screwed (again) when it comes to Property Taxes as it appears the new Governor is looking at TSs are to gain even more revenue (btw, he is planning on recalling the last Prop tax bills…)

I agree that it may not be the fairest. But it's always going to be imperfect and until recently VGV may have even been the beneficiary of the imbalance. Also, it's the way the docs were written and I don't see it changing.

 

[czar]

I think you're correct. Acc to my calculations (based on the remaining 96 hotels rooms being converted into 66 TSs), VG owners will get hit pretty hard.

This chart seems like there already would have been a large, one-time increase in VG MF when BV came into fruition - for those of you who owned during that time, was that the case?

I have no doubt that Stareood will do whatever is to their advantage, and keeping the actual costs of MF low and their benefit from that as highs as possible seems to be in their best interest. And for CV, look at how high those MF are already for the amount of space you get. MF at WSJ seem to make no sense.

 

[LisaRex]

arg - are we creating new 'facts'?

No one is making up "facts." We're saying that no matter what method you come up with, someone will complain.

BTW, I've done an analysis on how the common areas are billed. To the left is the current configuration. To the right is if the hotel rooms were converted to TSs. (I had to make an educated guess as to the number and type of villas at CV because I can't seem to find accurate information.) If my numbers are correct, based on today's setup, VG owners' share wouldn't change appreciably (31.08% v 31.50%) no matter what method they used.

However, if they changed to the "max number of occupants" method, BV and CV's MFs would increase dramatically because they are being heavily subsidized by the hotel side. (The hotel side is paying 32.43% of the common area using the "number of units" method. Using the occupant method, it'd be reduced to just 12%.

(Note that Starwood's max occupancy for all their hotel rooms is 2, according to their website.)

 

[czar]

Isn't changing the docs extremely difficult? I'm thinking about what it would take (still) to get that permanent wall installed in VG, so changing the actual legal docs would seem like an impossibility even if the boards agreed in the change, right? So are they using a distribution of common area charges based on a per unit charge or per occupant? Do BV and CV have the same wording in their docs too?

 

[DavidnRobin]

No one is making up "facts." We're saying that no matter what method you come up with, someone will complain.

My comment was to the comment (not by you)…
"It's worth also noting that VGV Pool Villa owners have been helping to maintain the VGV pools even though they have almost no use for them, yet studio and 2-bedroom VGV owners weren't complaining about having their pools subsidized, now were they? "

this is not true (aka not a fact) … both pay for each others pools.
btw - Pool villa owners can use the pools by B31-B34 (as they help pay for them), yet we cannot use theirs unless we get invited - so if anyone were to complain in this untrue scenario it is the non-pool villa owners…

Thanks for the number crunching… In B32-B34 there are 10 studios and 10 1Bd per building (and 4 2Bd TH) - B31 is configured a bit differently as they also have 2Bd Premium layouts.

Regardless… the letter from VGV BOD is stating that as the the resort fazes out hotel rooms - VGV Owners will see an increase in MFs at a higher percentage than BV/CV due to the overall representation of the number of VGV VOIs at WSJ.

I have been okay with paying our fair share up until now - but the future increase is unfair IMO as it is disproportionate to the usage (especially since we maintain - and use - our own pools). I am not saying that we shouldn't pay for the Main Resort (we have and continue to do so) - but a large disproportional increase in MF for VGV owners because they are getting rid of hotel rooms - It is my opinion that VGV owners are getting screwed because of the calculus involved.

If VGV Owners are fine with it - so be it. (besides we have little choice) But, how much is this suppose to be? Will my MFs go up to $3000/yr ???
Will it be enough for me to walk away since I am paying more, but get zero increase in benefit?

 

[DavidnRobin]

This chart seems like there already would have been a large, one-time increase in VG MF when BV came into fruition - for those of you who owned during that time, was that the case?

I have no doubt that Stareood will do whatever is to their advantage, and keeping the actual costs of MF low and their benefit from that as highs as possible seems to be in their best interest. And for CV, look at how high those MF are already for the amount of space you get. MF at WSJ seem to make no sense.

It wan't a large one-time increase due to BV - it was due to the much needed refurbish (and delinquencies) - and only came down a bit when it was over to keep the RR up to expectations.

Our MFs went from $1600 to $2800 down to a steady $2400 (for last 3 years)…
btw - I am okay with $2400 for 2bd TH - but if it goes much higher because for some reason we have to compensate for SW decision to convert hotels to SVCO TSs (only benefits them…) - I am out.

 

[czar]

It wan't a large one-time increase due to BV - it was due to the much needed refurbish (and delinquencies) - and only came down a bit when it was over to keep the RR up to expectations.

Our MFs went from $1600 to $2800 down to a steady $2400 (for last 3 years)…
btw - I am okay with $2400 for 2bd TH - but if it goes much higher because for some reason we have to compensate for SW decision to convert hotels to SVCO TSs (only benefits them…) - I am out.

I recall reading about the large increase in MF from the refurb, but according to the chart, VG went from 25% to 29% of the units when BV was executed, so my reasoning was that if paying for a larger % of common property had that much impact, that 4% increase should have had a large impact on MF that people would have reported on. If it didn't, then I wouldn't expect a similar percentage increase (31% to 35%) to have a large impact either. Perhaps the increase in MF they were referencing was just that, an increase, without reference to size.

I don't disagree with the points about equity regarding number of units, use of facilities, etc., I'm just saying that perhaps the overall effect will really be fairly negligible compared to where things stand now.