Any chance DVC permanently closes VGC?

[CmdrThor]

Timeshares can and do go out of business regularly. Has anyone considered the possibility of this happening at VGC? Can one DVC resort go bankrupt without the rest? It seems like it could be possible for DVC to offer VGC members either an equivalent number of points at another resort, or just walk away. With the current situation in California it is hard to guess when it ever could reopen. I think this casts a huge shadow on the possibility of the new Disneyland Hotel tower opening as well.

 

[BillPA]

Never going to happen as long as Disney is still around. At least not until the 50 lease runs out.

 

[RoseGold]

VGC is maintained by dues, which were already paid, whether it's open or not. I'm not sure why you think that would cause them to be bankrupt. It's such a small amount of points in the system, I'm sure DVD has no problem absorbing them. Much easier than Aulani, which is a beast.

There are no signs that DL Tower is anything but full speed ahead, like the Star Wars hotel. Demand is there and the project goes on.

 

[CmdrThor]

VGC is maintained by dues, which were already paid, whether it's open or not. I'm not sure why you think that would cause them to be bankrupt. It's such a small amount of points in the system, I'm sure DVD has no problem absorbing them. Much easier than Aulani, which is a beast.

There are no signs that DL Tower is anything but full speed ahead, like the Star Wars hotel. Demand is there and the project goes on.

But if VGC is trading points out to DVC, but nothing is trading in, there is an imbalance there. Why should VGC owners get to continue to be able to use their points at resorts that are open and supported by other association's dues if no one can use their points at VGC? If it is going to be unavailable for years, they should be removed from the Club. It seems like this part of the Multi-Site POS should take effect:

8. Deletions.
Existing DVC Resorts may be deleted as DVC Resorts as follows: a. Deletion by Casualty. In the event of a casualty that results in Vacation Homes or facilities of a DVC Resort being unavailable for use by Club Members, BVTC shall notify all affected Club Members of such unavailability of use within thirty (30) days after the event of casualty. Any insurance proceeds resulting from a casualty shall be applied to either the replacement or acquisition of additional similar Vacation Homes or facilities or, in lieu thereof, disbursed to affected Club Members at the DVC Resort as their share of the non-reconstructed or replaced Unit, in accordance with the DVC Resort Documents, resulting in their withdrawal from participation in the DVC Reservation Component so that Club Members will not be requesting reservations for available Vacation Homes on a greater than "one-to-one use right to use night requirement ratio," as that term is defined in Section 721.05(25), Florida Statutes.

Any replacement of Vacation Homes or related facilities of a DVC Resort due to casualty shall be made so as to provide Club Members with an opportunity to enjoy a substantially similar vacation experience as was available with the deleted Vacation Homes or related facilities, as determined by BVTC in its sole, absolute, and unfettered discretion. In determining whether the replacement Vacation Homes and related facilities will provide a substantially similar vacation experience, BVTC shall consider all relevant factors, including some or all of the following: size, capacity, furnishings, maintenance costs, 29 14 location (geographic, topographic and scenic), recreational capabilities, demand, and availability for Club Member use. BVTC reserves the right, in its sole, absolute, and unfettered discretion, to reject replacement Vacation Homes and related facilities that do not meet its association criteria including the high standards of quality and customer service established by BVTC for all DVC Resorts from time to time.

 

[Sandisw]

But if VGC is trading points out to DVC, but nothing is trading in, there is an imbalance there. Why should VGC owners get to continue to be able to use their points at resorts that are open and supported by other association's dues if no one can use their points at VGC? If it is going to be unavailable for years, they should be removed from the Club. It seems like this part of the Multi-Site POS should take effect:

I am not an owner of VGC, buy my RIV POS says they can allow us to use points in the system if we lose the use of our resort. The board of the condo association can decide this even if it creates a more than 1:1 use,

Based on all I have read, what is happening is legal. Now, whether they would choose this as a long term option is anyone’s guess.

One option, as you say, is that any resort, at any time can be removed from the BVTC, so if this continues that may be the way they go...I doubt it though because the casualty I think is something that requires the place to be rebuilt.

However, it says it may be deleted, not that it has to be.

 

[CmdrThor]

I am not an owner of VGC, buy my RIV POS says they can allow us to use points in the system if we lose the use of our resort. The board of the condo association can decide this even if it creates a more than 1:1 use,

Based on all I have read, what is happening is legal. Now, whether they would choose this as a long term option is anyone’s guess.

One option, as you say, is that any resort, at any time can be removed from the BVTC, so if this continues that may be the way they go...I doubt it though because the casualty I think is something that requires the place to be rebuilt.

However, it says it may be deleted, not that it has to be.

I believe there are a lot of lawsuits right now between businesses and insurance companies regarding the definition of the term casualty. The pandemic is an event that is resulted in the DVC Resort being unavailable for use by Club Members for sure. Insurance policies typically spell out the named perils that are covered, but the POS is vague. With the way the clause was written it was obviously intended for insurance to either pay for the replacement or acquisition of "similar Vacation Homes" or be disbursed to Members, but since there is likely no insurance paying out for this casualty, DVC could potentially have the right to just shut it down. I'm sure they don't want to, but with the current government of California they may not have any other choice.

 

[Sandisw]

I believe there are a lot of lawsuits right now between businesses and insurance companies regarding the definition of the term casualty. The pandemic is an event that is resulted in the DVC Resort being unavailable for use by Club Members for sure. Insurance policies typically spell out the named perils that are covered, but the POS is vague. With the way the clause was written it was obviously intended for insurance to either pay for the replacement or acquisition of "similar Vacation Homes" or be disbursed to Members, but since there is likely no insurance paying out for this casualty, DVC could potentially have the right to just shut it down. I'm sure they don't want to, but with the current government of California they may not have any other choice.

The issue then becomes whether they have a legal right to shut it down when there is nothing wrong with it. The resort is not damaged and it was posted in another thread that hotels and timeshares in OC are allowed to be open right now.

The board can not just shut down the resort unless it falls under legal reasons. Keeping it shut temporarily right now due to pandemic or safety issues is broad enough to potentially justify the delay, but not a closing.

But, what valid reason would they have to simply close and leave owners with nothing? I cant think of any.

 

[Mazz519]

It will never happen DVC will eventually have to come up with something but it will never close a resort down

 

[DebbieB]

They could very well open it, hotels are not included in the guidelines. The WDW DVC resorts were open for 3 weeks before the parks opened.

 

[CmdrThor]

It will never happen DVC will eventually have to come up with something but it will never close a resort down

The only thing DVC would have to do is distribute the proceeds of liquidating the resort.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Grand Cali is 948 units.

VGC is 23 LO, 23 dedicated 2BRs and 2 grand villas.

If Disney were to decide to open the DVC, as they had to at WDW properties with closed hotels, I don't see them able to open any amenities. No spa, no dining, no pools. too small a property to carry the costs of the amenities solo.

And that is before reading the rules for outdoor pools. They cannot provide towels, people have to sign up for swim times, masks must be worn at all times save in the water, and all poolside furniture has to be removed. So, no loungers or tables. No bar service.

 

[StevenEven]

It’s crossed my mind, but I think it’s unlikely. I’m curious how that would functionally work, I feel that those who bought resale will get much less in value than original owners paid, but again very unlikely.

 

[starry_solo]

Grand Cali is 948 units.

VGC is 23 LO, 23 dedicated 2BRs and 2 grand villas.

If Disney were to decide to open the DVC, as they had to at WDW properties with closed hotels, I don't see them able to open any amenities. No spa, no dining, no pools. too small a property to carry the costs of the amenities solo.

And that is before reading the rules for outdoor pools. They cannot provide towels, people have to sign up for swim times, masks must be worn at all times save in the water, and all poolside furniture has to be removed. So, no loungers or tables. No bar service.

Yup. And if they did open with all those restrictions, people would scream foul...

 

[mamaofsix]

It will never happen DVC will eventually have to come up with something but it will never close a resort down

Back in February/March, a lot of people said Disney would never close it's parks. Yet, here we are. I don't think it's possible to predict with 100 percent accuracy that something will never happen.

 

[fumanchu2488]

The issue then becomes whether they have a legal right to shut it down when there is nothing wrong with it. The resort is not damaged and it was posted in another thread that hotels and timeshares in OC are allowed to be open right now.

The board can not just shut down the resort unless it falls under legal reasons. Keeping it shut temporarily right now due to pandemic or safety issues is broad enough to potentially justify the delay, but not a closing.

But, what valid reason would they have to simply close and leave owners with nothing? I cant think of any.

Could they just remove all 2021 points for VGC from the system and extend those contracts by 1 year? Or something similar? Seeing that their closure will be a year at minimum makes me wonder if that is easier.

 

[Sandisw]

Could they just remove all 2021 points for VGC from the system and extend those contracts by 1 year? Or something similar? Seeing that their closure will be a year at minimum makes me wonder if that is easier.

They have to do all new deeds, and the land lease would have to be extended,

It really wouldn’t be something easy to do because as soon as they extend the land lease, all owner would be extended, and I am not sure it would obligate them to cover running of the resorts then.

Again, even closed, costs are not 0...and, as I mentioned elsewhere, they are still allowing trading into the other resorts with those points. Does that play a role in figuring out what costs are? I don’t know,

But, DVCM takes there fee, property taxes still get paid, security was still a things, and who knows Who else is still making sure the resort is okay.

 

[DougEMG]

Don't timeshares normally go shut down when the owners can no long pay the costs to maintain the property?

I don't see this happening with VGC. Worst case, the resort stays shut for a long time, people default on their dues, Disney takes the points back for free. So I don't see any need for Disney to compensate owners for the closure or offer to buy them out or offer them points at another resort. While it totally sucks, the closure is an owner problem, not a DVC problem. And if DVC opened the resort without opening the hotel, watch owners scream as their MF sky rocketed to pay for running everything at the resort.

 

[DebbieB]

The only thing DVC would have to do is distribute the proceeds of liquidating the resort.

Who would buy it with no park open? I don’t think Disney would take a big loss on the the rest of it. It will eventually open. I think Newsome is playing politics, California government seems to want to make life difficult for Disney, proving they are in charge.

 

[CmdrThor]

Who would buy it with no park open? I don’t think Disney would take a big loss on the the rest of it. It will eventually open. I think Newsome is playing politics, California government seems to want to make life difficult for Disney, proving they are in charge.

Disney would buy back the villas and use them all as hotel rooms once the park eventually reopens. Even if that’s 2-3 years from now.

 

[eMoneyBug]

Disney Parks Blog showed Disneyland DVC in a video collage that showed upcoming exciting new things at Disney Parks around the world. So not only VGC here to stay forever, we are still adding the DL Tower.