Ft. Wilderness Cabins becoming DVC?

[DonMacGregor]

May be nothing, but it's interesting to me that the Master Declaration mentions they intend to develop a "Resort Complex" and "Hotel" at the Cabins. I haven't seen the phrase "Resort Complex" in prior declarations for other resorts.

View attachment 824223

Now THAT is an interesting catch.

 

[Jlo85]

May be nothing, but it's interesting to me that the Master Declaration mentions they intend to develop a "Resort Complex" and "Hotel" at the Cabins. I haven't seen the phrase "Resort Complex" in prior declarations for other resorts.

View attachment 824223

I did find "Resort Complex" in the Saratoga Springs declaration (They referred to Saratoga Springs as a "Resort Complex"), but that was back in 2007. Could it be keeping their options open for Reflections? I'm not sure if the lands for Reflections was added to the Cabins.

 

[bama_ed]

May be nothing, but it's interesting to me that the Master Declaration mentions they intend to develop a "Resort Complex" and "Hotel" at the Cabins. I haven't seen the phrase "Resort Complex" in prior declarations for other resorts.

View attachment 824223

The River Country property down by Bay Lake at Fort Wilderness with the delayed, poorly thought out, and lamely designed resort got put on hold. That might be the "Resort Complex" referenced there.

They've sunk so much money into that property to clear it. They want to get some money out of it. The cabins' clock is ticking so that DVC option has to go now/first. But they will come back to Bay Lake soon. Waterfront property should be an easy sale if they don't screw it up.

I pray they will put something in there that REMOTELY fits with the existing FW/Settlement frontier vibe. Somehow. In any way. But I may be asking for too much.

 

[Sandisw]

The plot thickens...

If members are not deeded owners of property, but merely "users" of the vacation plan, then they perhaps would not be allowed to rent their points at all because they don't "own" the property to rent? Like the use plan could be non-transferable to non-members?

And since the units are not deeded, could a "use plan" give them the ability to adjust points across units with abandon? Yes, they've done it before in a few instances, but given the legal push-back, they've seemed to reluctant to repeat that tactic. But would this structuring open the door to being unconstrained in "balancing" point charts between units/room types?

They have already given the trust members who buy into the cabins resort use plan the right to rent a reservation using their points.

But, they have included language that tightens up what DVC could use to limit renting. IMO, The big one being the repetitive use of a rental site…

What this seems to allow is that accommodations can be put into the same trust use plan and not be located at the same place. And, they can move points between all accommodations in that plan

So, in theory, it sounds like could out the cabins and Poly tower, for example, in the same plan and then if needed ,shift points between both as long as total stays balanced.

 

[New Mouse]

I pray they will put something in there that REMOTELY fits with the existing FW/Settlement frontier vibe. Somehow. In any way. But I may be asking for too much.

With the distinctly themed Polynesian apartment building going up now, I'd say the chances are not good.

 

[dioxide45]

I only know enough about this stuff to be dangerous and I have skimmed through most of the recent pages. So perhaps this is already mentioned and I missed it, but it seems that perhaps they are conveying points to the Palmetto Trust based only on the Trusts ground lease rights and not necessarily the individual cabins themselves? Looking at what was conveyed with the 229,820 points, it just looks to be acreage.

 

[Genie+]

They have already given the trust members who buy into the cabins resort use plan the right to rent a reservation using their points.

But, they have included language that tightens up what DVC could use to limit renting. IMO, The big one being the repetitive use of a rental site…

Seems reasonable. If all somebody does is a never-ending stream of rentals for profit, that’s not personal use.

What this seems to allow is that accommodations can be put into the same trust use plan and not be located at the same place. And, they can move points between all accommodations in that plan

So, in theory, it sounds like could out the cabins and Poly tower, for example, in the same plan and then if needed ,shift points between both as long as total stays balanced.

Solves the demand issue? Trends change and development continues. Balancing the whole trust could help.

 

[dioxide45]

Solves the demand issue? Trends change and development continues. Balancing the whole trust could help.

For a long time we though MVC could do this with their trust and to date (13 years) they haven't done a trust wide rebalancing of any kind. The problem comes up when they allocate accommodations from specific resorts and assign those accommodations a certain value of points. Once they do that I don't think they can easily reallocate the number of points across resorts. Perhaps theoretically possible, but I don't think we have seen it happen in any timeshare trusts so far.

 

[ocdb8r1]

For a long time we though MVC could do this with their trust and to date (13 years) they haven't done a trust wide rebalancing of any kind. The problem comes up when they allocate accommodations from specific resorts and assign those accommodations a certain value of points. Once they do that I don't think they can easily reallocate the number of points across resorts. Perhaps theoretically possible, but I don't think we have seen it happen in any timeshare trusts so far.

I think rebalancing across multiple properties within the trust would be difficult as the point "value" of each property would seem to have been set legally once put into the trust.

However, what we have seen with Marriott (so we know it's legally possible) is that the seasons and points requirements for the trust can vary (sometimes wildly) from the seasons and points requirements for each individual property's own HOA/use plan. This means that theoretically Disney could vary seasons and points charts for "Trust" reservations from those for "home resort" points charts - although I don't know why they would. Theoretically nothing in the Buena Vista Trading Company docs (which are what currently govern the 7-month non-home resort reservation) prevents them from making the seasons or points charts different for non-home resort reservations.

 

[Sandisw]

I think rebalancing across multiple properties within the trust would be difficult as the point "value" of each property would seem to have been set legally once put into the trust.

However, what we have seen with Marriott (so we know it's legally possible) is that the seasons and points requirements for the trust can vary (sometimes wildly) from the seasons and points requirements for each individual property's own HOA/use plan. This means that theoretically Disney could vary seasons and points charts for "Trust" reservations from those for "home resort" points charts - although I don't know why they would. Theoretically nothing in the Buena Vista Trading Company docs (which are what currently govern the 7-month non-home resort reservation) prevents them from making the seasons or points charts different for non-home resort reservations.

The way that DVCs plan is written and the way I am reading it, it that they active property into the trust use plan and that is the point total that counts that must remain balanced.

So, let’s say they activate cabins and Poly tower rooms under the same plan. All those now become one “resort”, even if located on different site.

If everything is activated and sold in the same plan, then that become the total for the charts and that total has to balance. It is no longer across each location.

In theory, I don’t see them being that drastic. But, it would allow them to go across rooms sizes at one location without issue.

 

[Unclelude]

However the underpinnings of the system shake out, I hope they don't upset the day to day 'applecart' too much.

If the multi-resort 11-month booking thing happens, I don't see how that doesn't eventually morph into no advantage ( and you know you will have to pay dearly for it ). The only thing available at 7monrhs (for those that don't join the borg) will be bungalows, copper cabins, and theme park view 1 BR.

Maybe the trust will be the 'upgrade path' for 'white card scum' ... So they can finally get sparkly wristbands at Aulani!

Is there anything this trust thing *can't* do??!?

Good Luck, Have fun!

 

[MonaMN]

Fascinating stuff. I still like the idea of the Cabins and am considering jumping in... the layout and size makes a lot of sense for our family and what we like. At this point I don't have major concerns about moving to a trust, other than trying to understand how trust points and deed points might be able to be used at 7 months. We currently only have one resale contract so we're considering adding direct, but being able to combine them will be important. I'm sure that's just one of MANY "what if" questions they're working on prior to announcements.

As to those who have wondered why they didn't come out with various pieces of information sooner... having worked in corporate America for a while, perhaps you'd be surprised at how often things are up in the air until the last minute. Lots of decisions that take way longer than they should to make!

 

[han22735]

In theory, DVC could create different trust "collections." For example, Marriot has a "Luxury" collection (with the Ritz properties), though technically it's all still in the same trust.

But I've changed my tune and think this trust was made specifically for CFW because of the Mobile Home issue.

I think a trust makes a lot of sense for Disney, but I think they would be implementing it differently (with different branding) if that was their intent.

I agree with you completely. I think this also has nothing to do with the "trust" plan across DVC and all to do with the "mobile home" rules in FL. But we shall see.

 

[dioxide45]

I agree with you completely. I think this also has nothing to do with the "trust" plan across DVC and all to do with the "mobile home" rules in FL. But we shall see.

I'm also in the same boat. They can't seem to deed the cabins as real property, thus they needed something new to sell the cabins. Can they add additional resorts or real estate to the Palmetto Trust? Yes. Will they? Maybe not. Corporate lawyers will always add any and all contingencies to legal documents. They don't want to lock themselves out of potential future changes. Thus the ability to add other use plans in the future. I don't really see it happening, but not saying it can't

 

[Jlo85]

This is the specific statute:

320.015 Taxation of mobile homes.—
(1) A mobile home, as defined in s. 320.01(2), regardless of its actual use, shall be subject only to a license tax unless classified and taxed as real property. A mobile home is to be considered real property only when the owner of the mobile home is also the owner of the land on which the mobile home is situated and said mobile home is permanently affixed thereto.[…]

We could also maybe extrapolate that perhaps DVC benefits if the Cabins are NOT real property = no property taxes on the cabins themselves = lower dues.

 

[dioxide45]

This is the specific statute:

320.015 Taxation of mobile homes.—
(1) A mobile home, as defined in s. 320.01(2), regardless of its actual use, shall be subject only to a license tax unless classified and taxed as real property. A mobile home is to be considered real property only when the owner of the mobile home is also the owner of the land on which the mobile home is situated and said mobile home is permanently affixed thereto.[…]

We could also maybe extrapolate that perhaps DVC benefits if the Cabins are NOT real property = no property taxes on the cabins themselves = lower dues.

I am getting the impression that they may be leasing the cabins to the association. Thus there may be lease payments to be made. Not sure how that would work. Of course the association or trust will be responsible for tax related to the ground lease?

 

[Sandisw]

However the underpinnings of the system shake out, I hope they don't upset the day to day 'applecart' too much.

If the multi-resort 11-month booking thing happens, I don't see how that doesn't eventually morph into no advantage ( and you know you will have to pay dearly for it ). The only thing available at 7monrhs (for those that don't join the borg) will be bungalows, copper cabins, and theme park view 1 BR.

Maybe the trust will be the 'upgrade path' for 'white card scum' ... So they can finally get sparkly wristbands at Aulani!

Is there anything this trust thing *can't* do??!?

Good Luck, Have fun!

They can’t add more points to the system once they add a resort and activate it with a set of points.

So, the 30 cabins that have been added have 229 k points. Thst id all they can attach to them when it comes to sales.

If they end up adding all 300 or so, it could end up 2 million…and that has to stay balance.

But, a trust gives them the option to put rooms from multiple locations under one umbrella. So, say they activate some Poly tower rooms into the same plan as the cabins, and it’s 500k if points, they now have 3.5 million that can be reallocated across the rooms but the totals can never go higher.

 

[Sandisw]

I am getting the impression that they may be leasing the cabins to the association. Thus there may be lease payments to be made. Not sure how that would work. Of course the association or trust will be responsible for tax related to the ground lease?

The way I am reading it they are leasing them to DVD. But there is just way to much in their to suggest this is a one and done situation

 

[Sandisw]

The updated POS documents from the end of the year..which happen to add current budget….does now officially list the cabins as the resort use plan.

So, it’s not been officially added to current resort POS…or at least the multi site POS.

I don’t believe there is any mention of Poly tower yet.

 

[Lorana]

They can’t add more points to the system once they add a resort and activate it with a set of points.

So, the 30 cabins that have been added have 229 k points. Thst id all they can attach to them when it comes to sales.

If they end up adding all 300 or so, it could end up 2 million…and that has to stay balance.

But, a trust gives them the option to put rooms from multiple locations under one umbrella. So, say they activate some Poly tower rooms into the same plan as the cabins, and it’s 500k if points, they now have 3.5 million that can be reallocated across the rooms but the totals can never go higher.

But wouldn't they have to maintain the same "actual" points in the resort they pulled from. So if they added 500k points from Poly Tower, they could never book more than 500k Poly Tower points in a year, because otherwise they would be taking away from deeded owners, whose own contracts guarantee them their points in a given year. Like, the trust could create whatever point charts they wanted, but they'd still have to be beholden to the restrictions of point usage of the resorts they took them from in order to not violate the contracts of existing (deeded) owners.

I imagine, though, that if a deeded owner used their points at the cabins, which were solely trust, it would act as a swap, sort of the way it works with Interval now.