The weeks they are looking to convert to float are 1-50 in the 33 units. So it isn't less desirable weeks. It looks to perhaps be units where they haven't sold a single week from yet. So they are unbroken units. They will sell weeks 51 and 52 at fixed. So they will have a season that is weeks 1-50 at these 33 units. It is quite possible that they will dump them in to the new Pure Points since that will just be a land based trust.
Edited to add: Thinking about this more. Hyatt doesn't need the weeks to be floating in order to dump them in to Pure Points. They could do that now with any week at any resort. Not sure the motive behind this. It is probably easier to sell a float week given how the industry has changed.
I agree with you, dioxide45 that we should know the real motive behind this.
but bringing it back around, if you owned a fixed week in Kaanapali (like us), would you
1. vote for letting float week units happen
2. vote against
3. not care either way since you could always use your fixed week? (-:
A few of us don't see it that way, John. Please, read page 6 where they struck-through the following text. Are you sure that you know what that means?
The paragraph starts with a faint or greyed out heading of the word "Weeks".
Then the words "Fixed Weeks" are added (double underlined) plus more text and then the important strike-through text that may affect us who bought at the Hyatt Residence Club in Maui (H.M.K), including you. If anyone wants to read these documents, I will try to attach them in a private conversation or even here in this thread if that works.
This is how MAD I am at the Hyatt and ILG for not letting us know that a sale was pending in March 2014 when we bought. That sale had to be in the works already but it wasn't mentioned.
To me that is leaving off a very important material fact to a prospective buyer and may affect others too who bought in the first few months when they started selling the resort until it was announced publicly so was no longer a secret.
We wouldn't have bought there if we knew this fact because our plan was to mainly use our week in this Hyatt Residence Club tower (H.M.K) on the
main Ka'anapali Beach in a 1 BR ocean view condo on the higher floors (5 - 10) and not on a different beach somewhere in Maui where there may be a sewer smell or anywhere else where there is a beach and not just in a "same Resort Unit Type unit" anywhere. This is not what we bargained for!
Here is the struck-through text
"In the event that the Resort Agreement is terminated (letters bolded by me) in accordance with its terms, the owner of each Timeshare Interest shall nevertheless retain the exclusive right to reserve and use a Fixed Week in a Resort Unit of the same Resort Unit Type in which the Timeshare Interest is owned."
Doesn't this mean that we no longer have this right when the Resort Agreement is terminated since it is struck-through? They certainly do not explain it well except that "nothing changes for the fixed week owners" in the cover letter we received the second time. It seems to stay the same for a fixed week owner of week 52 and 53 but not for any other weeks as far as I understand it.
It is my opinion that ILG should have explained it in layman's language to all of us like they do in our voting booklet because that language is often also hard to understand plus they give us the "for" and "against" explanation too in simple English. Here, they gave us nothing and it is almost like they do not want us to understand what it means but, legally, they have to let us know.
When we bought, our salesman told us that all our rights, including using the Hyatt Resort amenities next door, would stay with the contract and transfer to the next owner. Is that still the case?
He also told us that ILG had the right to use their name on the Club as long as the quality remains to the Hyatt standards plus they wanted them to build a certain amount of new resorts within a reasonable time.
As far as I know, they haven't built one single resort yet since 2014 so I wonder if the developer of our resort wants to pull a group of condos out as that is his right to do. We were aware of that but not that they also had the right to take away what was deeded to us and is recorded too in the State of Hawaii.
Our salesman made a big deal about the fact that some other resorts lose these perks when the contract is sold but not here. I don't even care about losing the hotel amenities either or if II is replaced with RCI but I do care if we lose our location where we bought at a developer's high purchase price for the view and quality of the resort. This is totally unfair how they will change our legal documents when this 2nd amendment is replacing what we bought.
I wonder if the next step will be that we are no longer allowed to sell it ourselves if we want to keep these perks for the next owner or if we still can rent our week if, for any reason, we cannot use it ourselves one year. I knew already that we can use one of their brokers and pay a 25% commission but we could also rent the condo out ourselves, if we wanted to do that, or sell the condo with no perks taken away.
There were rumors floating around about a Marriott merger (which is less likely now from what I read
on June 30 in Trading Alpha) but that was only a personal opinion.
Even Hilton is rumored too but, if that is true, then we will have RCI as the exchange company, I guess. Not that I care because it was never our plan to use any exchange company or visit another Hyatt resort since we only own one Hyatt timeshare but it will affect people who like to make exchanges with II and the other perks they have with them.
There is a lot of text that the proposed "floating unit owners" also need to read when they buy at this resort so start bugging them to get that information shown to you when you go on a presentation there and have them explain it to you in simple, plain English. I have seen some interesting terms mentioned that I have not seen before but too much to add on to this long post already. We never liked floating units so I didn't even finished reading it.
I have guessed the 33 units and their associated weeks would be "walled off"- we never seem them, they don't see us. As if the resort were smaller. But that's my guess.
But for the proxy - it seems easier than that to me gdon... We know that no more than 20%-25% of the non-developer owners will probably vote (see previous post on this)... and even if every single one of those votes was a "no" that wouldn't be enough to counter the developers' yes votes. So even if you had an agent there it wouldn't matter.
So it remains simple- if you don't want this to happen- don't vote at all.
Any vote, yes or no, helps establish a quorum. And if there'
s a quorum, this will happen.
John