February direct sales but also debate about trusts

[Cabius]

The cabins don't need to have wheels to be a temporary structure! The current cabins are the 2nd version of cabins at fort wilderness, the new DVC cabins will be the 3rd version. It is likely there will be a 4th version within the next 20-30 years prior to the CFW contract's end date. Disney literally removes the old cabins roughly every 20 years when they're done with them, and then sells them! Disney would not legally be able to sell them in 20+ years if DVC chose to use a deed at CFW!

It doesn't need to be an RV or have wheels to be a "temporary structure"

I think about in these terms: what would happen if, in 25 years, one or more of these structures were destroyed or sold, and replaced with new ones?

• With the new legal model... nothing! Owners have a right to use the resort facilities, and swapping out one physical structure for another is no more complicated than any other hard goods renovation.
  
  
• With the old legal model... it's complicated! Owners held a deeded interest in physical property that was carted away and destroyed, sold, etc. New physical property now sites on the same land. Can Disney just sell off "my" unit and replace it with a new one? If "my" units gets burned to the ground, what rights do I have?

From that perspective, it isn't about whether it has wheels, or a chassis, or was manufactured on- or off-site. (I mean, that may also matter; I know both State and Federal law care specifically about chassis placement and roofing materials, though I think that's primarily for the purpose of financing.)

It REALLY matters whether there is a world in which they want to replace the cabins in the next 50 years.

• This could be because it makes more sense for Disney to replace them at some point, as they've done twice already.
  
  
• It could be because small standalone structures are much more susceptible to a total loss event -- fire, major storm damage -- than a huge building that is more likely to be partially damaged than destroyed outright.

But in either case, the new legal model provides clarity and protection both for Disney and for DVC Owners, while allowing for the flexibility to renovate the physical inventory in whatever way makes sense to them decades in the future.

Did they absolutely have to shift to a RTU model for this? Probably not. But (1) it de-risks the relationship for all parties involved, and (2) it's specifically rooted in the type of property they are selling.

It's impossible to argue against the claim of secret insider knowledge, so we'll just have to slog through some level of epistemic closure for few months or years. But there's really a clear, Occam's Razor explanation for why DVD would pursue this approach for this property, independently of any desire to further muddy the waters of an already complicated product.

 

[Cabius]

But, there is no reason to assume that selling all future properties at RTU vs leasehold deeds is out of the realm of possibility.

For the record, I totally agree that it is possible, and I assume you agree that it is possible they won't. It's certainly a legal possibility, and certainly not a legal requirement for them. It's all down to probability and value.

Is it a fait accompli, such that it makes sense to describe 'how the trust will work', or is it idle speculation about a mere potentiality?

Would be the best thing to ever happen to DVC, or just the most recent in a series of idiotic mistakes?

Obviously we have different perspectives there!

 

[maui22]

If they find a way to enhance CFW points with some booking privileges at the tower (10 months?), they can sell CFW points to people who are mainly interested in the tower. This results in many more points DVD can sell to people who want access to the tower.

CFW dues are 47.7% higher than PVB dues. If Poly tower dues are close to PVBs, I hope every Disney guide and sales associates tell people not to buy CFW to use at Poly tower.

Legally, they can do many things, but is this good for their business?

 

[Sandisw]

I think about in these terms: what would happen if, in 25 years, one or more of these structures were destroyed or sold, and replaced with new ones?

• With the new legal model... nothing! Owners have a right to use the resort facilities, and swapping out one physical structure for another is no more complicated than any other hard goods renovation.
  
  
• With the old legal model... it's complicated! Owners held a deeded interest in physical property that was carted away and destroyed, sold, etc. New physical property now sites on the same land. Can Disney just sell off "my" unit and replace it with a new one? If "my" units gets burned to the ground, what rights do I have?

From that perspective, it isn't about whether it has wheels, or a chassis, or was manufactured on- or off-site. (I mean, that may also matter; I know both State and Federal law care specifically about chassis placement and roofing materials, though I think that's primarily for the purpose of financing.)

It REALLY matters whether there is a world in which they want to replace the cabins in the next 50 years.

• This could be because it makes more sense for Disney to replace them at some point, as they've done twice already.
  
  
• It could be because small standalone structures are much more susceptible to a total loss event -- fire, major storm damage -- than a huge building that is more likely to be partially damaged than destroyed outright.

But in either case, the new legal model provides clarity and protection both for Disney and for DVC Owners, while allowing for the flexibility to renovate the physical inventory in whatever way makes sense to them decades in the future.

Did they absolutely have to shift to a RTU model for this? Probably not. But (1) it de-risks the relationship for all parties involved, and (2) it's specifically rooted in the type of property they are selling.

It's impossible to argue against the claim of secret insider knowledge, so we'll just have to slog through some level of epistemic closure for few months or years. But there's really a clear, Occam's Razor explanation for why DVD would pursue this approach for this property, independently of any desire to further muddy the waters of an already complicated product.

I definitely think selling the cabins this way is a big benefit and made the perfect project to start with in moving this way for the future..which I am confident it will be.

But, our current contracts do define what happens with casualty..if our units are destroyed and not rebuilt, we get the insurance payout for them. If they are, then the contract defines what options can be used for owners directly impacted.

ETA: IIRC, all previous projects came out with great initial incentives…to bring this back to sales…and this did not. Why?

Plus, Disneys job announcement for that one DVC position included the opportunity to help grow the project into “DVc 2.0” certainly implying something different.

 

[mkatsy]

The cabins don't need to have wheels to be a temporary structure! The current cabins are the 2nd version of cabins at fort wilderness, the new DVC cabins will be the 3rd version. It is likely there will be a 4th version within the next 20-30 years prior to the CFW contract's end date. Disney literally removes the old cabins roughly every 20 years when they're done with them, and then sells them! Disney would not legally be able to sell them in 20+ years if DVC chose to use a deed at CFW!

It doesn't need to be an RV or have wheels to be a "temporary structure"

Don’t shoot the messenger I come in peace. The state of Florida considers them to be permanently attached to the ground. Disney received a “Timeshare Estate” for CFW. Florida Statute 721.05 (34) expressly prohibits the issue of a timeshare estate to a Trust, if that Trust contains any personal property [721.53 (1)(e)]. A timeshare estate is a parcel of real property under Florida law.

 

[Massachusetts]

Don’t shoot the messenger I come in peace. The state of Florida considers them to be permanently attached to the ground. Disney received a “Timeshare Estate” for CFW. Florida Statute 721.05 (34) expressly prohibits the issue of a timeshare estate to a Trust, if that Trust contains any personal property [721.53 (1)(e)]. A timeshare estate is a parcel of real property under Florida law.

In terms of taxes: does a trailer owner in Florida pay excise taxes or ONLY real estate taxes? Here in Massachusetts the trailer owner pays excise taxes separately from RE Taxes which are paid by the owner of the land.

 

[mkatsy]

In terms of taxes: does a trailer owner in Florida pay excise taxes or ONLY real estate taxes? Here in Massachusetts the trailer owner pays excise taxes separately from RE Taxes which are paid by the owner of the land.

Trailers on leased land are considered personal property in the state of Florida. However, vacation rentals and timeshares are not homestead properties, and have their own very specific and arbitrary laws.

 

[Sandisw]

In terms of taxes: does a trailer owner in Florida pay excise taxes or ONLY real estate taxes? Here in Massachusetts the trailer owner pays excise taxes separately from RE Taxes which are paid by the owner of the land.

From what I have found, these new cabins are not defined as a trailer in any way. They are being permanently built right on the land.

 

[mkatsy]

From what I have found, these new cabins are not defined as a trailer in any way. They are being permanently built right on the land.

The state of Florida has ultimate jurisdiction, and by issuing the Timeshare Estate, they have deemed them real property. As real property, they could have also been brought into the system as a leasehold condominium, but Disney chose the Trust. I certainly don’t know why EXCEPT that it is NOT because they are personal property.

 

[Sandisw]

The state of Florida has ultimate jurisdiction, and by issuing the Timeshare Estate, they have deemed them real property. As real property, they could have also been brought into the system as a leasehold condominium, but Disney chose the Trust. I certainly don’t know why EXCEPT that it is NOT because they are personal property.

And that explanation matches info I have gotten, not to mention it is supported in the updated Multi site POS that was done October 2023.

It was actually reading of that POS that prompted to ask questions about it. I was looking to see if they had yet changed any language regarding the new tower.

Last year, it was how we discovered the rooms for VDH, and restrictions had been added.

 

[DougEMG]

My personal belief is that all resorts going forward will be sold as a trust. My reasoning is that with a trust model Disney has much much much more control over how things run and Disney does love to be in total control.

Allocate points across any rooms they want, no problem.
Set whatever rules they want around renting, no problem.
Revoke a membership as soon as any dues are late, no problem.

Would they even go so far as to make it impossible to sell your membership? Can you do that now with say a country club membership, I have no idea, but I am sure they would like that.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I definitely think selling the cabins this way is a big benefit and made the perfect project to start with in moving this way for the future..which I am confident it will be.

But, our current contracts do define what happens with casualty..if our units are destroyed and not rebuilt, we get the insurance payout for them. If they are, then the contract defines what options can be used for owners directly impacted.

ETA: IIRC, all previous projects came out with great initial incentives…to bring this back to sales…and this did not. Why?

Plus, Disneys job announcement for that one DVC position included the opportunity to help grow the project into “DVc 2.0” certainly implying something different.

But why would the cabins be the perfect project with which to implement this strategy if most people don’t care about them, sales are poor, and almost none of us want to stay there?

 

[mkatsy]

And that explanation matches info I have gotten, not to mention it is supported in the updated Multi site POS that was done October 2023.

It was actually reading of that POS that prompted to ask questions about it. I was looking to see if they had yet changed any language regarding the new tower.

Last year, it was how we discovered the rooms for VDH, and restrictions had been added.

Could this be a slip? On March 1st a notice of commencement was filed for an electrician to work on the lighting and speaker at the pool of address 4601 Floridian Way (Poly Tower). However, the folio ID used on the document was 11-24-27-2010-00-001 (Disney's Polynesian Villas & Bungalows Leasehold Condominium). Hmmmm .... you're not supposed to do that. Technically, it should have the hotel folio ID (11-24-27-0000-00-007) at the top ... unless of course, you know it's going to end up at 11-24-2010-00-001 eventually.

 

[Sandisw]

But why would the cabins be the perfect project with which to implement this strategy if most people don’t care about them, sales are poor, and almost none of us want to stay there?

Because they have to start somewhere and the nature of it allows them to transition there if they goal is to have a product that has a different structure.

Just because you don’t want to stay there doesn’t mean others do not. While it may be not a first choice for home resort right now…think the price and weak incentives played a role…it still is something I think owners will want to stay at occasionally.

 

[Sandisw]

Could this be a slip? On March 1st a notice of commencement was filed for an electrician to work on the lighting and speaker at the pool of address 4601 Floridian Way (Poly Tower). However, the folio ID used on the document was 11-24-27-2010-00-001 (Disney's Polynesian Villas & Bungalows Leasehold Condominium). Hmmmm .... you're not supposed to do that. Technically, it should have the hotel folio ID (11-24-27-0000-00-007) at the top ... unless of course, you know it's going to end up at 11-24-2010-00-001 eventually.

I’d say yes, that would be a very big piece that moves it being sold that way.

It would also be the first offical document filed that is attached to it…so I’d say it moves it to 99% for me that the project will not be sold differently.

ETA: that document seems to be one of the long houses? Or was it just to show that it had the same ID?

 

[mkatsy]

I’d say yes, that would be a very big piece that moves it being sold that way.

It would also be the first offical document filed that is attached to it…so I’d say it moves it to 99% for me that the project will not be sold differently.

ETA: that document seems to be one of the long houses? Or was it just to show that it had the same ID?

I probably uploaded the wrong document. The correct one is for the tower. There are two more that come after it for support structures for the water feature that also have the leasehold condo ID on them. I looked at the last NOC filed on the tower in 2023 and it had the hotel ID, so it appears to be an intentional change. I’ll see if I can put links to the documentation when I get home

 

[maui22]

Because they have to start somewhere and the nature of it allows them to transition there if they goal is to have a product that has a different structure.

Just because you don’t want to stay there doesn’t mean others do not. While it may be not a first choice for home resort right now…think the price and weak incentives played a role…it still is something I think owners will want to stay at occasionally.

I agree, people want to stay there.

Unless I'm missing something, the initial price is tiny factor. For simple math, if they drop price to $150/pt over 50 years, that's $3/pt. Dues are $12.16 per point, every year. Dues go up every year on top of that. On another thread, someone posted what to roughly expect for HHI and VB in 2041.

Every time a CFW owner stays somewhere else, they are paying a lot of money for someone else to stay at their home resort.

 

[maui22]

Disney and the Governor kissed and made up today, that's a win for everyone. Now file that Poly paperwork!

Perhaps a coincidence? Same day this was announced, 26 Notice of Commencement documents for work on Timberline Drive appear on the county web site. These are all by Poli Construction Inc who did work in the past at Fort Wilderness. Trail's End Restaurant shows on their web site, so it's probably cabin installation work.

 

[Sandisw]

I probably uploaded the wrong document. The correct one is for the tower. There are two more that come after it for support structures for the water feature that also have the leasehold condo ID on them. I looked at the last NOC filed on the tower in 2023 and it had the hotel ID, so it appears to be an intentional change. I’ll see if I can put links to the documentation when I get home

Finding the 2023 document with the hotel vs condo number, I think confirms it’s going to be included into PVB and they will not deviate from what they said in December.

If I was interested in PVB resale and access to the tower these documents would be enough for me to take that gamble now.

 

[maui22]

Finding the 2023 document with the hotel vs condo number, I think confirms it’s going to be included into PVB and they will not deviate from what they said in December.

If I was interested in PVB resale and access to the tower these documents would be enough for me to take that gamble now.

Hope you don't mind asking, but how are you seeing the document?
When I search the occompt website for that date, I see only two Notice of Commencement documents with the name Disney.