Yes, it goes without saying that with any real estate purchase, there is always a chance (and in some cases, a likelihood) of unexpected losses during the tenure of your ownership. But if you are a co-owner, the other party in the agreement is also expected to minimize losses and act in the best interest of the ownership as a whole, not just their specific stake. I do happen to know FL timeshare law includes stipulations that aim to ensure that. On DVC's part that means making concessions to affected members to minimize their loss to the greatest extent possible. On affected members' part, it means accepting those concessions and accepting any remaining losses. But the balance there is integral. DVC shouldn't be just sending an email to all members saying, "Too bad," and members shouldn't be expecting the full value of everything that's been lost. If that means direct financial payments (perhaps from insurance) that don't necessarily equal the explicit value of the lost points, then that would satisfy me. But there has to be a give-and-take. Disney shouldn't be using its leverage and somewhat advantageous position in an ownership agreement to tip that balance against the affected membership to minimize any more losses on DVC's part
Knowing Disney and all of the leverage and resources they have at their disposal, I think you and I agree that is more they *could* do, even if in the form of good will. No, it may not be in members' best interest to just extend banked points into the next year, but they certainly have other options like financial compensation. I know every Disney Resort (DVC and cash) has an insurance policy designed for closures just like this. They're not huge but perhaps affected DVC members get a tiny cut of ones at their resort. Idk. Yes, those remedies would undoubtedly result in increased expenditures on DVC's part (which right now would translate to losses), but I go back to the give-and-take balance I was discussing.
That's not even mentioning how they sell DVC, marketing it as with "Leave it to Disney dependability." When buying direct, DVC sells not only the real estate interest itself but the Disney reputation. This isn't just a timeshare anywhere, it's timeshare at Disney, by Disney. I remember a Guide advising me not to look at this as "just another timeshare because Disney advocates for its membership." He said something about them "remaining our Guests" or something like that. While that marketing is largely irrelevant in this circumstance, one has to question the ethics of marketing a purchase one way and then doing business in a way that might be perceived as undercutting those claims.
I also respectfully ask that you just stick to the argument here. I have put a lot of time and research into purchasing DVC, including seeking advice from members on this Board on whether it's a fit for me. That conclusion is ultimately my calculation, based on circumstances and factors to which nobody else is privy. Me questioning how DVC is handling this does not necessarily mean DVC never was for me because I somehow misunderstood what I was looking at. As I said, I respect and appreciate your perspective, and I'd hope you'd respect mine.