Westin St. John [Master Thread]

[tomandrobin]

This is an 8.46% decrease from 2011, and 2011 was a 6.65% decrease from 2010 - color me happy...

It also appears that SVN fees will once again go up - $125 for 1st and $158 for multi-week

That is good to read....hopefully there is a trickle down effect to Bay Vista units.

 

[DavidnRobin]

That is good to read....hopefully there is a trickle down effect to Bay Vista units.

One can only hope, but somehow doubt it - especially when subsidy ends and comes close to selling out.

The lack of 'good job' to the WSJ VG HOA BOD for the 2 back to back reductions in MFs is interesting - I am pretty sure that if the old 'Owner' board members were in control this reduction wouldn't have occurred.

Looks like I won't have to ship $100 to GeneNWendy...

 

[WildJohn]

Trickle Down to Bay Vista

That is good to read....hopefully there is a trickle down effect to Bay Vista units.

Tom, unfortunately for Bay Vista owners, I would have to agree with Dave. All timeshares (not just Starwood) artificially keep the maintenance fees low during the selling period by having the developer kick in a subsidy to pay for a portion of them. Once the selling period ends, fees will go up to some extent. While we're seeing a decrease in fees over the last 2 years as Dave points out, it's largely due to the refurbishment project nearing completion. Although they have gone down, as the owner board members mentioned to us in one of their letters, fees will never go back down to 2008 levels. This is mainly due to the developer removing the subsidy for VGV between 2009 and 2010.

There really should be a law that applies to all timeshares regarding the selling practices. However, most buyers are at largely fault as well. Supposedly 95% of all timeshares are sold at the initial sales pitch. People can't seem to resist the quarter million Starpoints (in the case of Starwood) offered to people for buying on the spot. If they treated this like any other real property purchase, they would take the information and bring it to their own attorney for review before making a commitment.

BTW, Tom you might want to check out the by-laws of Bay Vista. I believe your board is composed solely of 3 Starwood employees. I don't know if that will change at some point in time. We at least have 2 owner representatives who are doing an outstanding job. It's too bad we don't have majority control. Perhaps that will change one day, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[okwiater]

Tom, unfortunately for Bay Vista owners, I would have to agree with Dave. All timeshares (not just Starwood) artificially keep the maintenance fees low during the selling period by having the developer kick in a subsidy to pay for a portion of them. Once the selling period ends, fees will go up to some extent.

When I was at WSJ last month, we asked at the owners update whether there was any developer subsidy for the Bay Vista phase, and they told us no. Of course, I would want this in writing if I were ready to purchase a unit, but the salesperson seemed to know exactly what I was referring to and answered the question confidently. Do you have information to the contrary?

 

[WildJohn]

Regarding developer subsidy

When I was at WSJ last month, we asked at the owners update whether there was any developer subsidy for the Bay Vista phase, and they told us no. Of course, I would want this in writing if I were ready to purchase a unit, but the salesperson seemed to know exactly what I was referring to and answered the question confidently. Do you have information to the contrary?

That doesn't surprise me. The sales people are trained to lie through their teeth. If you're an owner at Bay Vista, get a hold of the most recent financials and see for yourself. I don't have specific evidence to the contrary other than the fact that every timeshare I know of (Starwood as well as every other timeshare company out there) keeps fees lower through a subsidy during the selling phase to be able to sell the units and then removes that subsidy when most units have been sold.

 

[DavidnRobin]

That doesn't surprise me. The sales people are trained to lie through their teeth. If you're an owner at Bay Vista, get a hold of the most recent financials and see for yourself. I don't have specific evidence to the contrary other than the fact that every timeshare I know of (Starwood as well as every other timeshare company out there) keeps fees lower through a subsidy during the selling phase to be able to sell the units and then removes that subsidy when most units have been sold.

Agree - get the most recent Annual Budget for WSJ-BV and look at the document listing revenues and expenses - the SVO subsidy will be listed there.

For WSJ-VG - SVO owns ~10% of the VOIs - they are unlikely to give up their majority on the HOA BOD. I understand there was a discussion regarding a law suit around this (and the recent refurb) - but it has been very quiet on that front - no one from the 'Coalition' seems to post here anymore. Either they do not want to show their hand - or no longer momentum to persue.

 

[jerseygirl]

The lawsuit is not quiet -- you've just been voted off the island!

I don't think it's appropriate to share the lawsuit info on a public board, but I'd be happy to send it to you -- just let me know.

Say to Robin for me!

 

[jarta]

"The lawsuit is not quiet ..."

No, the long-rumored lawsuit is non-existent. There is no lawsuit. If there was a lawsuit the allegations would be public knowledge, not the private knowledge of the perpetually discontented.

In addition to Starwood benefitting, didn't all those other, earlier Hillside/VG owners benefit from the developer subsidy by having lower assessments for all those years it was in existence? I would think they would be grateful for the subsidy as it un-naturally held their assessments down for years and years. Naw! Too much to ask.

The new, independent Hillside/VG board members never had a chance. Within a month after their election, rumors were flying from those who supported their candidacies that the new members were not doing enough to lower assessments at Hillside/VG by keeping up the pressure on Starwood to cut costs. Then came the floods last October.

It's a shame that WSJ is such a magical place and yet is so expensive to maintain. Poor initial construction (complicated by years of structures sitting uncompleted), a desultory work force, hurricanes and floods and/or erosion from runoff and cheapskate owners who voted down very necessary repairs have all left their toll on those who own and share in expenses at Hillside/VG. I think the HOA is trying. However, even with a large developer subsidy, Hillside/VG was barely keeping its head above water.

BTW, for the 10% retained by the developer (now Starwood) the annual MF per unit week is the same as for anyone else who owns there and, very importantly, Starwood always pays the annual assessments on its retained unit weeks. ... eom

 

[DavidnRobin]

The lawsuit is not quiet -- you've just been voted off the island!

I don't think it's appropriate to share the lawsuit info on a public board, but I'd be happy to send it to you -- just let me know.

Say to Robin for me!

That is one island I do not care to visit...

No need to send - I do not care because it is unlikely (IMO) to ever move forward - or if they move forward... well... good luck getting traction in the USVI or with the majority of Owners wearing rose-colored shades.

Robin sez 'Hi' back. We will likely not be going to STJ next June (breaking our 6 year streak), but both of us may have issues in going in 2012 (time-wise, not desire). It looks like we will only make WKORV next March.
[Post edited - Smacking David on the hand - DeniseM ]

 

[jerseygirl]

David -- Believe it or not, a staggering number of owners are participating. I couldn't believe it when I received the latest packet.

I don't care about 90% of the issues (basically water under the bridge stuff). I just want an owner-controlled board.

We're having trouble with 2012 also ...... still trying to work things out ...

 

[tomandrobin]

David -- Believe it or not, a staggering number of owners are participating. I couldn't believe it when I received the latest packet.

That is excellent news!

 

[DavidnRobin]

That is excellent news!

Hi Tom - Why is this excellent news? How exactly are the Owners going to get an Owner controlled board? From the opinions I have heard from some of the Owners - I am not sure this is necessarily a good thing... I want the resort to be kept up - others were supposedly fine with letting it get run down - which makes me worry.

jarta - the subsidy was not huge (the numbers were listed to you a while back...)... however, the previous 'Owners' on the board were obviously not up for keeping ahead of things - and I agree with the general context of your response - but they are seriously moving forward - which appears (IMO) to be the few misleading the many - did I say IMO? Does the HOA get to vote on whether we should sue ourselves?

wow - isnt it great to discuss things openly...
[Post edited - not nice to say bad things about biased and shady TUG advertising rules - DavinRobin]

 

[tomandrobin]

Hi Tom - Why is this excellent news? How exactly are the Owners going to get an Owner controlled board? From the opinions I have heard from some of the Owners - I am not sure this is necessarily a good thing... I want the resort to be kept up - others were supposedly fine with letting it get run down - which makes me worry.

I meant good news that owners are actually have an interest and are involved. From your post, I am assuming this is not a good thing?

 

[DavidnRobin]

I meant good news that owners are actually have an interest and are involved. From your post, I am assuming this is not a good thing?

No - I was seriously asking about your opinion - it wasn't clear if your post was around the Owners being more connected - or the path-forward the coalition decided to take (or being pissed off at Phil and Bob for attempting a reasonable and balanced approach - since they afterall supposedly was the reason they were elected).

Of course I want the Owners consoladated {sp?} and I want WSJ HOA transparency and accountability. You know how I feel about that - but I am also practical and certainly have no tolerance for focusing on the past which (from my encounter with a few coalition 'leaders') seems to somehow be their path forward to this objective. I am also in favor (and practice) of taking personal accountability for ones decisions and the resulting consequences, and not in favor of obstructionism as a path to resolution.
...but maybe that is just me as one of those CA tree-hugging hippie types...

 

[jerseygirl]

There is absolutely no bad mouthing of Phil and Bob in the current documentation.

Yes, one (or more) of the coalition leaders went off on Phil and Bob shortly after the election. But, I haven't seen it since. I don't think there's any reason to believe that Phil and Bob don't have the full support of the vast majority of the coalition. Of course, I can only speak for myself, but they certainly have my full support.

I think you would be pleased to see the direction it's taking David ... some of your assumptions might be based on early rants by certain "leaders." From my perspective, the attorney has a good feel for what's realistic ...

 

[DavidnRobin]

Thanks jg - you are correct - my assumptions are from my experience. To be clear... I did not say there was any bad mouthing of P&B in any documentation, or the Owners don't support P&B, but you are correct. If they have your support - and why I was asking Tom - is because I respect both of your opinions (but not the opinions of some key people that have taken the cause to fight SVO) - so that goes along way for a legal simpleton like me.

My concerns remain however... Along the lines of... Be careful what you wish for - it may come true.

You stated yourself that 90% of the issues were 'water under the bridge' - and these were my concerns when I had interactions with the group. I am sure I agree with most of what is in the package (whatever it is), but more about outcome and long-term security of OUR resort as I personally like being associated with Westin SVO properties (my bias). I know there have been threads about disassociated resorts from SVO (re: W5*), but I am not sure the outcome would benefit the long-term stability. Perhaps my views are wrong... If it comes to it - I hope so.

Thanks for the heads-up and input - I am sure I am not on anyone's XMAS list...

 

[jerseygirl]

You're on my Xmas list!

Re water under the bridge stuff -- we agree. Having said that, if a court of law were to determine that a Starwood controlled BOD took impermissable actions, etc., I'd like to see it remedied. I, for one, am tired of corporate America taking advantage of the little guy! If I still lived in Hoboken, I'd probably be down with the Hippies protesting Wall Street. Of course, I'd then probably get fired, since I make my living on Wall Street!

One big misconception -- the suit is NOT against the HOA. (Of course, that doesn't mean Starwood won't figure out a way for all of us to pay for half of it, while some of us are paying, by choice, for the other half! :hysterical: ) It's really a pretty simple matter of determining if certain current and past actions are/were permissable under USVI Condo Laws. If they are, so be it. If they're not, perhaps damages are owed, perhaps not. But, if the net result is an owner-controlled board and full transparency, it's all good. I don't see a downside, except for some money that is really just a very small drop in the great big bucket of expenses associated with owning at WSJ!

 

[WildJohn]

Regarding suit

Well said JG!! When Starwood sent out the 2010 maintenance fees, it was quite a shock to us all. The following sentence is a direct quote from them when I asked about the big increase. This had to do with us picking up the maintenance fees for those that defaulted.

"Being a condominium, all Owners share the responsibility for ensuring that the Association meets these obligations. As the economy improves and delinquencies eventually decline, allowances will be re-evaluated for a potential reduction. However for now, we must all share in ensuring expenses are fully paid and uncollectible accounts provisioned."

Effectively Starwood is admitting that VGV is a condominium. Guess what? Under condo rules in most jurisdictions, one is responsible for the space between their four walls and a small % of common elements (ie HVAC, roofs, ground maintenance, security, etc). They are not responsible for carrying the costs of those that default. This is different than co-op law (common in Northern NJ and New York) where one doesn't own the space they live in but a % of ownership equivalent to that amount of space. Under co-op law, Starwood might have justification in the quote above. However, they clearly say "As a condominium" It also makes sense that it be a condominium since everyone owns deeded, fixed weeks.

I believe that this attorney has a good approach, because condo law in USVI is pretty strict so I'm told.

 

[jarta]

WildJohn, ... "Guess what? Under condo rules in most jurisdictions, one is responsible for the space between their four walls and a small % of common elements (ie HVAC, roofs, ground maintenance, security, etc). They are not responsible for carrying the costs of those that default."

Guess what? You are 100%, absolutely wrong.

If there is a shortfall in assessment payments, that shortfall may be allocated and recouped in the next budget by billing all the association's owners. To do otherwise would be a violation of the fiduciary duty of the HOA to ensure that the association is on a solid financial footing.

Part of that fiduciary duty also includes the HOA board taking all necessary steps to collect delinquencies - by foreclosure if necessary. However, while taking the steps to collect delinquencies, bills have to be paid and the HOA board has a duty to see that the proper amount of funds is available to meet ongoing needs. ... eom

 

[Ken555]

I don't own at WSJ, but I do own a condo and am on the board (unfortunately). We just voted recently to raise our monthly dues because of increasing costs and more defaults from other owners. And, we are having a special meeting Sunday to approve our legal teams recommendation on proceeding with foreclosure proceedings on a unit (which I don't think we have ever done before). Timeshares may be considered condos, but all owners are ultimately responsible for keeping the HOA solvent. You may be able to chase the other owners and recoup unpaid dues, but whatever those dues were to pay for needs to be paid and the other owners will need to make up the shortfall. I can't imagine it being any other way.

 

[DavidnRobin]

Wow - an real interesting discussion. That is fantastic...

Did the board take liberties with the refurbish outside of their 'rights' - from what I can tell - yes.

Was I and others happy with this 'illegal' result? Hell yes - recall that I and another 3410 owner offered to buy a new couch with our own money... The place was decaying fast.

Did it cost too much? No doubt...

Is this defined as water under the bridge? Most definitely

Would an owner controlled board with 3 of 5 board members as owner reps be better? Most likely

5 of 5? Not so sure - and I would bet that it ain't going to happen and keep Westin name...

So what happens? someone owes the HOA $$$ - well that would have to be Starwood otherwise it will be us...

Will Starwood pay? Perhaps if there was something to after that would hold-up in court (given they have deep pockets) showing their woeful negligence ( or whatever it would be considered).

Thus the inherit problem (IMHO) is that the board at the time may have felt forced to somehow get the funds to refurbish the resort as to attempt keep the value of the resort - as that a good majority did vote yes - but no quorum achieved.

Should they have termed it differently? Handled it differently? allowed the replacement reserves to deplete? Failed to account for the economic downturn? Probably, but water under the bridge...

 

[DavidnRobin]

John - who would pay for the defaulted owners if not the HOA? Starwood? I am confused... Why are they responsible? They paid the MFs for the VOIs they own (~10%)

I do agree - and mentioned in this thread many years ago as to how much of the usage of those villas by SVO/SVN went back to the HOA? To me - that would be worth a lawsuit -I have always believed that is where we were/are screwed.

The increase in MFs starting in 2010 was to refurbish the resort - so it comes down to whether one was happy or not about the refurbish or the need? I have stated on which side I am on in this regard...

It was very disconcerting to me to hear about how many were happy with the status quo - keep the MFs and let the resort effectively go to crap... Or sit around with their ****s in their hands debating about it...

The refurbished happened - it is relatively nice - and way too costly. We are relatively happy... It got to competent members on the HOA to the conflict it created from the increase in MFs which included the increase from defaulting owners.

I would be happier with a resolution with Starwood support to get monies back to the HOA for VOIs that end up in SVOs hands vs essentially suing for something that was seriously needed IMO (and Robins...)

 

[jerseygirl]

It was very disconcerting to me to hear about how many were happy with the status quo - keep the MFs and let the resort effectively go to crap... Or sit around with their ****s in their hands debating about it...

I'm not so sure I believe this to be true. I think most owners wanted a refurbishment. But, they wanted competitive bids, a full accounting of where previously collected $$ labeled "reserve fees" went, etc. I think lack of transparency and the bait and switch from "special assessments require a vote" to "we can just add the $ into the annual budget" were the problem, not the refurbishment itself. Was the bait and switch a legal move? I don't know, but I'd certainly like to hear a VI judge's opinion on the issue. Again, if it was, c'est la vie. If it wasn't, hopefully it will make Starwood and other major developers think twice about following the rules in the future.

It's also a giant misconception to think this is the focus of the lawsuit. It's not.

David, I'm happy to send you copies of what I have. You've stated you have no interest. That's cool -- but, I don't think it's completely fair to speculate that it's a bad thing when clearly the underlying goals are owner rights and the increased value of WSJ. You don't have to agree with the tactics, but the "little people' I've spoken to who are involved are looking past the sometimes irrational ranting/raving and just hope to define boundries. Little people = majority owners. Starwood = hired help.

 

[DavidnRobin]

I'm not so sure I believe this to be true. I think most owners wanted a refurbishment. But, they wanted competitive bids, a full accounting of where previously collected $$ labeled "reserve fees" went, etc. I think lack of transparency and the bait and switch from "special assessments require a vote" to "we can just add the $ into the annual budget" were the problem, not the refurbishment itself. Was the bait and switch a legal move? I don't know, but I'd certainly like to hear a VI judge's opinion on the issue. Again, if it was, c'est la vie. If it wasn't, hopefully it will make Starwood and other major developers think twice about following the rules in the future.

It's also a giant misconception to think this is the focus of the lawsuit. It's not.

David, I'm happy to send you copies of what I have. You've stated you have no interest. That's cool -- but, I don't think it's completely fair to speculate that it's a bad thing when clearly the underlying goals are owner rights and the increased value of WSJ. You don't have to agree with the tactics, but the "little people' I've spoken to who are involved are looking past the sometimes irrational ranting/raving and just hope to define boundries. Little people = majority owners. Starwood = hired help.

I believe I said that most owners wanted the refurbish in previous posts - and that it was the disfunctional board (due to Starwood legacy of crappy communication databases - multiply for island time...) that screwed up - and I do not mean by not having a quorum (but in lack of process). I am also not saying that owners are irrational - even those that are... people are entitled to their opinions - as I am with mine.

I realize that that is not the crux of the lawsuit- as I am no dummy (well... not quite true) and it is more of a fundamental issue (re: CCRs) where the past board activities potentially opens a window of opportunity for board control and accountability/transparency (always my goal)... and all without seeing the package...

My speculations/discussions are based on understanding the fallacies with the biased system that has been set-up - and how they could be attacked. However, fundamentally (based on the broken system) the refurbish would have never happened (or would still be under discussion) - so I applaud them for getting it done in a sea of cats - regardless of the illegality (or kickbacks - hidden funds). I know that may sound strange - especially considering that I am still amazed that Goldman Sachs executives are not in prison (or at least a public flogging...) instead of flying around in jets - you know... the job creators. As Colbert joked - the only reason it hasn't trickled down is because we haven't given them enough. (told you I was a damn hippie anarchist). Sorry - was trying to tie in the Wall Street protests - but I also would want you to lose your job.

anyway... in agreement w/ jarta here - WSJ-VG was being run under-funded for years - regardless of the subsidy or not. (paying the piper... so to speak) This opinion is based on the MFs and experiences with my other SVO resorts - that are not in a place like STJ - were nature is constantly trying to take over.
Thanks for the offer - I think it wise for me not to get involved...yet. I will get involved if I believe it has a negative impact (if it blossoms). I will also give kudos with a successful outcome even if my position was opposite (I think you know that about me as you have seen both my light and dark sides... ). Perhaps - after December - but in the meantime I will try and not stir the pot. but, As the saying goes... sunlight is the best disinfectant.

okay... enough... - I hope you can tell where I am serious and being my normal sarcastic self w/o all the emoticons. I have nothing but respect of your opinion (and others) - but it is strange that little has been openly discussed - always makes me nervous. I have no issue openly vetting the issues, but I would imagine the lawyers would not want that... surprise. :ignore:

and that - to me - is also a fundamental issue...

as always - IMO... hope all is well with K+P

I dressed like Steve Jobs today...

 

[DavidnRobin]

Conde Nast Traveler: St. John ranks 2nd

Conde Nast Traveler - 2011 Readers Choice Awards
St. John ranks 2nd as Top Carribean Island

http://www.concierge.com/images/cnt/pdf/2011-Readers-Choice-Awards.pdf