• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Westin St. John [Master Thread]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Westin5Star

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
992
Reaction score
0
Points
376
Location
Florida
As you can see I don't follow rules very well:

Willy T's makes a great Bushwhacker? I need to check this out - unfortunately not until June 2013.

Of course - after a couple of Bushwhackers - this sign is totally disregarded...

WillieT.jpg

Oops I fell- It must have been that Bushwacker!

435.jpg
 

DavidnRobin

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
11,813
Reaction score
2,224
Points
698
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Resorts Owned
WKORV OFD (Maui)
WPORV (Kauai)
WSJ-VGV (St. John)
WKV (Scottsdale)
Message from WSJ-VGV HOA BOD Owner Reps

March 2012
Message From Your Virgin Grand Owner-Elected Representatives

Dear Fellow Virgin Grand Owner:
As you know, we are your owner-elected representatives on the Board of Directors of the Virgin Grand Villas - St. John Condominium Owners Association. We have recently returned from the 2012 annual meeting and a regular Board meeting. Prior to the actual meeting, we toured the property to check on the status of ongoing improvements.

Property update:
Except for a few punch list items and the restoration of some foliage, the refurbishing project is complete, and no additional funds will have to be devoted to that project. The buildings have new stucco and new roofs, doors and windows. We have received many supportive notes from owners who like the new look of the buildings and the noise-reducing, energy-efficient doors and windows. We continue to appreciate owner feedback (positive or negative).

The pool between building 31 and 32 has been resurfaced, and the deck around it has been re-tiled. The new tiles are a real hit with owners to whom we have talked, because they do not get hot even in direct sunlight. The waterfall has been replaced, and the pool area now has improved, built-in grills. The entrance to the pool area between buildings 31 and 32 has been rebuilt; there is now a ramp that can accommodate a wheelchair. In the near future, a lift will be installed at the side of the pool to enable people with limited mobility to enter the water. This will bring the pool into compliance with the new regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Also, while some plantings were lost during the reconstruction, the pool area will soon acquire new landscaping to make it more attractive. Later this year, the same improvements will be made to the pool between buildings 33 and 34, and that pool will then be compliant with the new ADA regulations. That pool will be out of service for about three weeks during construction.

We observed that there is, at present, no awning or bench for people to use while waiting at the iguana stop in front of the pool between buildings 31 and 32. Management agreed that shade and a bench should be restored, and options are currently being considered. Similarly, the upper pool will have an awning and a bench after the resurfacing and other improvements have been completed.

We are aware that not much shade is provided by the umbrellas at the tables on the two pool decks, and that there is essentially no shade over any of the chaises on those decks. We have asked management to investigate whether some additional shade can be provided at a reasonable cost, though such a project is complicated by the fact that the wind on the hillside might be inconsistent with solutions that would work at lower levels.

In buildings 41 and 42, the pools and patios have been resurfaced, new pipes have been installed, and the waterfalls and lights in the pools have been replaced. New built-in grills have been installed. In buildings 43 and 44, new grills and new outdoor spas will be installed this year. In buildings 41, 42 and 44, thirty-nine (39) individual air conditioners have been removed and replaced with central chilled water plant (pictured below) for all four buildings.

This change will lower electricity costs and therefore help to keep maintenance as low as possible. In addition, solar water heating evacuated glass tubes, not visible from the ground, have been installed on the roofs of those buildings. These tubes absorb heat from sunlight and, through heat exchanger, provide over 80% of the domestic hot water to the four buildings, further cutting our electric bill. Finally, the first group of photovoltaic cells will be installed on the roofs of those four buildings within the next few months and will also cut our electric bill. These cells are projected to save us up to 40,000 kilowatts per year. Later in the year, a second set of photovoltaic cells will be installed on the hillside, in an area that will not be an eyesore. Thirty-seven (37) pool pumps have been replaced with energy-saving equipment, and 650 light fixtures, using 75 to 100 watts each, are being replaced with 13 watt LED bulbs. The resort has already cut electrical consumption by 50% since 2008. At a current cost of 44 cents per kilowatt-hour in the U.S. Virgin Islands, these savings are substantial. You can help, too: please turn off air conditioning and interior lights while you are out of your unit during the day. This will help significantly to keep down future maintenance fee increases.

One more minor notes,

--We noticed that only one towel hook graces the bathrooms in the studios and one-bedroom units. More towel hooks have been ordered and will be installed over the course of the next year (probably during the one week each year when the unit is out of service for maintenance).

--The television and internet systems are being upgraded. The new television system will include PBS-TV and many of the channels will be in HD. HBO is being replaced by Showtime; this is a system-wide change for the entire Starwood system.

--A telephone has been placed in the main parking lot near the fitness center, so if you park there with luggage or groceries, you will not have to enter the fitness center or walk to the main lobby to call for a cart to go to your villa.

--The engineering department has begun a program of inspecting every unit for engineering problems (such as poorly functioning ovens or refrigerators) every three months.

--We are considering whether folding chairs could be stored in the closets of the two-bedroom units so that four people could have breakfast on the balconies.

--We have hired an acoustical engineer to advise us whether a sound barrier could be provided in the upstairs bedroom in buildings 41 and 42 to provide greater privacy to people occupying the two wings of that bedroom without creating a permanent wall that would require unanimous approval of all owners of the unit in question.

--Management is checking on the costs of putting waterproof cushions on the wooden balcony chairs.

Election of a director:
Robert Werbel was re-elected to a three-year term as an owner-elected director. The Board had appointed a proxy committee to vote shares for which proxies were not received, as required by the bylaws. A sufficiently large number of proxies were submitted and while the proxy committee did vote, the votes of the proxy committee did not change the outcome of the election. Mr. Werbel received the highest number of votes in combination of both limited and general proxies prior to the submission of the proxy committee votes.

Owners' electronic bulletin board:
As you know from our previous reports, management has been working to create a secure website for Virgin Grand owners on which an owner could (a) offer to exchange a unit with another owner, (b) offer a unit for rent, (c) indicate a week that the owner wanted to rent, (d) offer to sell a unit, or (e) indicate a desire to buy a particular unit type and week. The site would also enable owners to update their contact information and would include the on-line voluntary directory of owners. The project has moved more slowly than we hoped because of technical challenges, but we hope to have it active by the end of June. Taking the extra time to make sure the site will function properly and be self-administrating is worth waiting a little longer.

Rental of units on which maintenance had not been paid:
Last year, we were able to offer Virgin Grand owners a ten-day window during which they could rent, for the price of the maintenance fee, units that were unavailable to the owners because the owners had not paid their maintenance fee. The net rental paid by the owner was paid to our owners association and credited to the account of the delinquent owner. We hoped that this win-win-win offer could be repeated in 2012. However, management reported that only 15 units were rented in this manner last year, and that the cost of administering a special offer on last year's model could not be justified by the small revenue received.

Management is therefore working to develop a new system through which Virgin Grand owners could rent additional days or weeks (full week rentals would not be required), online, at any time during the year, at a substantial discount from Starwood's best available rate. The inventory would include not only units on which the maintenance fee was delinquent but also days or weeks still owned by Starwood and days or weeks acquired by the association through foreclosure or alternative processes and not yet sold to new owners. The rental income from time periods at the disposal of the association would be shared with Starwood to compensate it for its administrative costs. The Board asked management to report to it on alternative pricing models, with a view to determining the discount from Starwood's best available rate that would maximize the revenue by the Association.

Week 53:
We raised the issue of rental income from "Week 53", the week of use that occurs every few years becase a year last longer than 52 weeks. When Week 53 units are rented, who should receive the revenue: Starwood, or the owners association? We were informed that Starwood's position is that it never conveyed the use of Week 53 to the association, and therefore (a) it has no duty to pay maintenance fees on the week in question and (b) it may rent those weeks and keep all revenue. That is not our opinion. In our view, the original developers conveyed the entire property - all the land and all the weeks - for condominium use, and Starwood could not take back part of the property (that is, the right to receive revenue from Week 53) when it acquired the resort some years later. Neither interpretation is entirely free from doubt, so we asked that the Board obtain the opinion of an independent counsel, unaffiliated with Starwood, on this issue. The Board agreed to do so. The Board further agreed that we, as the two elected directors, select the counsel. (Note: At present, owners who own both week 52 and week 1 are offered the option of exchanging one of those weeks for week 53 when it occurs, and in any event we plan to continue to offer that exchange so that their weeks are not interrupted by a hiatus in which they have no housing).

Delinquencies, foreclosures, and resales:
The delinquency rate is slightly lower than it was at the same date for the last two years, perhaps a sign that the recession is lifting. Nevertheless, about 180 accounts remain delinquent and are not producing revenue for the association, requiring the rest of us to pay their share of operating costs. The owners in question are not permitted to use their units, and in addition we are moving to recover them through foreclosure (or, in appropriate cases, by allowing the owners to turn in their deeds in exchange for forgiveness of past due fees). We are working with counsel to foreclose in cases where the deeds are not relinquished through mutual agreement. Foreclosure proceedings have begun against 80 of those accounts, and other proceedings will be initiated. In addition, 26 unit weeks have been turned over to the association. Of these, 15 were sold to Virgin Grand owners in good standing at bargain prices through a special offer this year. Eleven (11) unit weeks remain in the possession of the association. A reminder: if you are in arrears and want to offer to turn in your deed in exchange for a release of your debt to the association, write one of us and we will put you in touch with Starwood Vacation Ownership's attorney.

Reserve audit:
We budgeted last year for a one-time expense to have our replacement reserve program independently audited by an outside company. That audit will be performed by a company called Association Reserves, and we will have the report in time for budgeting for 2013.

Two personal notes:
We noticed that the Freecycle shed, while very popular with owners in principle, was nearly empty when we visited it on Sunday, March 18. (By contrast, it was bursting last summer with beach chairs, children's play equipment, snorkel equipment, and unopened beverages.) This innovative way of sharing equipment (and saving money) will only work if we owners make it work; Starwood has no duty to restock it, nor do we plan to ask the Board to provide funds from maintenance fees to keep it stocked. When you are leaving the island, please consider leaving anything that others could use in the Freecycle shed next to the roadway leading up the hillside. If two or three dozen people each brought a single beach chair and left it in the shed during the next year, our Freecycling program would be a major success. Of course, all other equipment donations would also be appreciated.

On an even more altruistic note, during our trip to the annual meeting we met with Joe Kessler, the Director of Friends of the Virgin Islands National Park, a charitable organization that through volunteers helps to keep the park clean, maintains trails, offers educational programs, and advocates for park improvements. We both joined the organization (individual memberships are $35), because we use the park when we visit St. John and know that its existence is one of the things that makes our resort unique and particularly valuable. The organization's website is Friendsvinp.org. We encourage all villa owners to check out the website and consider joining this worthwhile organization. We would also be happy to hear from owners whether they would like to have the resort organize occasional events in connection with Friends of the Virgin Islands National Park - for example, opportunities to meet with fellow owners for the morning while helping to clean a beach or trail, or attending an educational program of the organization, which might be held at the resort.

We will report again after the next Board meeting at the end of June.

Philip Schrag
phil.schrag@gmail.com

Robert Werbel
robert.werbel@yahoo.com
 
Last edited:

LisaRex

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
6,792
Reaction score
317
Points
518
Location
'burbs of Cincinnati, OH
Resorts Owned
Used to own: WKORV-N; SVV - Bella
Thanks for posting, David. I'm not an owner at WSJ, but I love to see how the WSJ board communicates with its owners. I love that the Board is coming up with creative, and fair, ways to handle delinquencies. It is the way a Board is supposed to operate. And I wish other Boards, even those hand-picked by SVO, would operate in kind.
 

Ken555

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
14,522
Reaction score
5,638
Points
898
Location
Los Angeles
Resorts Owned
Westin Kierland
Sheraton Desert Oasis
Thanks for posting, David. I'm not an owner at WSJ, but I love to see how the WSJ board communicates with its owners. I love that the Board is coming up with creative, and fair, ways to handle delinquencies. It is the way a Board is supposed to operate. And I wish other Boards, even those hand-picked by SVO, would operate in kind.

+1

Fantastic!
 

DavidnRobin

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
11,813
Reaction score
2,224
Points
698
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Resorts Owned
WKORV OFD (Maui)
WPORV (Kauai)
WSJ-VGV (St. John)
WKV (Scottsdale)
Link to post with links to WSJ/StJ Trip Reports

I couldn't find these in the thread - so here they are in case anyone is interested - likely more in these trip reports than any StJ travel book you will find... Enjoy (brings back great memories...)

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1271378&postcount=8
 

DavidnRobin

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
11,813
Reaction score
2,224
Points
698
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Resorts Owned
WKORV OFD (Maui)
WPORV (Kauai)
WSJ-VGV (St. John)
WKV (Scottsdale)

TimW1

newbie
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Important Info on Jeep Rental on St. Thomas and bringing over to St. John

April 18, 2012


Government warns on car rentals




Image courtesy of St. John Car rental

If you're one of those people who rents a car at the St. Thomas airport, gets groceries at Tutu, and then takes the car barge across to Cruz Bay, read this.

The Bureau of Motor Vehicles has just reminded VI rental agencies and the barges it is illegal for a car rented on one island to be used on another.

A St. Thomas-registered car cannot go on the barge to St. John. So if you want to have a car, while staying on St. John, you have to rent from a STJ agency.

The notice (read it here, thanks to NoSeeUm's blog) says vehicles can legally be used "… only on the island … and may not be used on any other island … and shall not be transported for use on any other island." Violators could be fined a minimum of $1,000.

What's this mean to you? Well, if a St. Thomas rental company does rent you a car, and you take it to St. John, they risk having their business license revoked - and there are plenty of people who will be happy to turn them in. For instance, the car barge companies employees are likely to be reminded how to ID a St. Thomas car. (Not so subtle tipoff: the license plate begins with STT.) Second, folks who operate St. John car rental companies can be expected to be looking for STT cars on the island - and reporting them to Motor Vehicles.

There is no question that renting a car at the airport and then driving to Red Hook is easier than enduring 'taxi dispatch hell' at the airport and the annoyance of taking a cab but stopping at four hotels on your way to Red Hook where you may, or may not, catch the next ferry. Then again, there are those who question whether the convenience of tourists is a high priority for STT cab drivers.
 

TimW1

newbie
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Points
0
There have been a 60 Day Grace Period on the Above Jeep Rental Issue

Apparently, there is a 60 day grace period for this change to take affect, unless something more drastic takes place. If you are a person who rents a jeep on St. Thomas and brings it over on the ferry, after June 30 you will no longer be able. Please verify with your rental company in St. Thomas if this affects you.
 

ekinggill

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2011
Messages
175
Reaction score
25
Points
228
Location
Dallas
Can you provide a link to the source of this?

Thanks

April 18, 2012


Government warns on car rentals




Image courtesy of St. John Car rental

If you're one of those people who rents a car at the St. Thomas airport, gets groceries at Tutu, and then takes the car barge across to Cruz Bay, read this.

The Bureau of Motor Vehicles has just reminded VI rental agencies and the barges it is illegal for a car rented on one island to be used on another.

A St. Thomas-registered car cannot go on the barge to St. John. So if you want to have a car, while staying on St. John, you have to rent from a STJ agency.

The notice (read it here, thanks to NoSeeUm's blog) says vehicles can legally be used "… only on the island … and may not be used on any other island … and shall not be transported for use on any other island." Violators could be fined a minimum of $1,000.

What's this mean to you? Well, if a St. Thomas rental company does rent you a car, and you take it to St. John, they risk having their business license revoked - and there are plenty of people who will be happy to turn them in. For instance, the car barge companies employees are likely to be reminded how to ID a St. Thomas car. (Not so subtle tipoff: the license plate begins with STT.) Second, folks who operate St. John car rental companies can be expected to be looking for STT cars on the island - and reporting them to Motor Vehicles.

There is no question that renting a car at the airport and then driving to Red Hook is easier than enduring 'taxi dispatch hell' at the airport and the annoyance of taking a cab but stopping at four hotels on your way to Red Hook where you may, or may not, catch the next ferry. Then again, there are those who question whether the convenience of tourists is a high priority for STT cab drivers.
 
Last edited:

DavidnRobin

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
11,813
Reaction score
2,224
Points
698
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Resorts Owned
WKORV OFD (Maui)
WPORV (Kauai)
WSJ-VGV (St. John)
WKV (Scottsdale)
Can you provide a link to the source of this?

Thanks

http://www.on-stjohn.com/2012/04/18/sign-this-car-rental-petition-if-you-want/#comments

Including comments

There is a petition - I would suggest filling this petition out even if you do not rent on StT - my reason for this is that there only a limited number of 4WD on StJ and will give StJ rental companies more control and therefore better ability to fix prices and increase them. Plus if you need a large vehicles, they are very limited on StJ.

Looks like USVI Gov't is taking lessons from Maui - short-sighted.

I hope StT car rental companies fight this in court, and this changes back before June 2013
 

TimW1

newbie
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Governor Says No!

http://stthomassource.com/print/97666

Governor Says No to New Rental Car Rule




A day-long brouhaha over Motor Vehicle Bureau Director Jerris T. Browne’s Tuesday edict prohibiting St. Thomas-based rental cars from going on the barge to St. John ended with Gov. John deJongh Jr. putting an indefinite hold on the measure.

“Effective tonight until further notice,” Government House spokesman Jean Greaux told the Source Wednesday evening.

In a prepared statement, Greaux said the Attorney General's Office will examine both existing local and federal law to determine whether this order is in conflict with the Commerce Clause.

Additionally the governor's directive calls on Browne to make an assessment of each St. John car rental agency and determine whether there is a need to adjust the car rental company's fleet quotas.

The sudden enforcement of an old car rental law left St. Thomas car rental companies scrambling and visitors reeling as they learned they might have to change their plans. The news hit several travel forums early in the morning. By early evening, there were close to 200 entries on three separate travel forums complaining about Browne’s edict.

Many said they wouldn’t vacation on St. John any more if they had to rent their car on St. John.

“Between the rising airfare costs, closed businesses and now this?” said a comment by Caribbeanbeachchick on News of St. John. “There's more than two islands in the Caribbean. I'll take my business elsewhere thanks,” she wrote.

Companies mounted an email and phone campaign to Browne, the Tourism Department and Government House.

By midday, Browne was responding to missives from users of the travel forums that there would be a 60-day grace period rather than implement the law immediately as it initially appeared.

Greaux said the 60-day grace period was now a moot point since the governor’s order rescinds indefinitely Browne’s edict.

While Browne may have sent out form letters to those queries from travel forum sites, he did not respond to several phone calls from the Source.

St. Thomas resident Anna Clarke wondered why this law was being implemented now.

“It’s probably the taxi drivers,” she said. “I can’t see how anybody else would benefit from it.”

According to Browne’s Tuesday letter to the rental car companies, those that violated the law faced a $1,000 fine for each vehicle allowed to go to St. Thomas and/or losing their business license for more than six months.

The practice of bringing St. Thomas rental cars to St. John has increased substantially in recent years because it’s convenient and saves money for people who aren’t daunted by backing up the vehicle onto the barge. While they have to pay the barge cost of around $50 round trip, visitors save money on the taxi fares and baggage fees from Cyril E. King Airport to Red Hook or Charlotte Amalie ferry terminals and on ferry fares and the associated baggage fees.

They can shop on St. Thomas where the grocery selection is better and usually cheaper. While rental prices for four-wheel drive cars on both islands are often similar, vacationers who don’t feel the need to have this amenity rent smaller sedans at cheaper prices. Additionally many people taking day trips from St. Thomas to St. John bring their cars on the barge.

The impact on the St. Thomas car rental companies is huge. Alex Belmonte, who owns the St. Thomas-based Discount Car Rental, said that 70 to 75 percent of his business is by people who rent cars to take to St. John. He also said he has cars reserved for the next six months by people planning to take them to St. John.

“I’ll be out of business,” he said before Government House made the announcement.

He said that he has 10 employees and pays $8,000 a month to the government in gross receipts tax.

Bill Creque, who owns Dependable Car Rental on St. Thomas, said that the number of customers taking cars to St. John is growing and now accounts for 25 percent of his business.

He questioned the legality of the law since other vendors such as food suppliers face no such prohibition.

“I don’t think any jurisdiction has the right to restrict commerce. This bill has to be repealed,” Creque said.

Reached after the Government House announcement, Creque said he was relieved.

One customer who planned to rent from a St. Thomas company for his visit to St. John is arriving Thursday. Wayne Comeaux of Houston said before the news about Browne’s 60-day grace period hit the travel forums that he managed to get a St. John rental but it will cost him $250 more than he planned on spending for his 10-day trip. Additionally, he wanted to rent a soft-top, two-door jeep for him and his wife, but now he’ll have to make do with a larger car.

He said he was angry that the law’s enforcement was done without notice.

Another person with a planned visit called to say he’s now booked with a St. John car rental agency rather than risk not having a car. Jim O’Donnell of Scotia, N.Y., said he rented on St. Thomas for his two previous trips and he planned to continue doing so. He said that while car rental costs are about the same, he saves about $100 since he doesn’t have to pay taxi and ferry fares for four people.

“And there’s the ability to shop,” he said, adding that shopping on St. Thomas also saves money because groceries are cheaper.

The need to rent cars on St. Thomas for use on St. John began to escalate in part when St. John companies did not have enough cars available during the busy winter season. St. John Car Rental owner Albert Willis said the number of car rental slots on St. John is capped at 625.

“St. John has not had a quota increase in 20 years,” Willis said.

He estimated that about 300 to 400 St. Thomas-based rental cars come to St. John each week but Courtesy Car Rental owner Greg Edward said the number was 700 to 800 a week.

“It impacts our traffic and the impact is terrible for St. John businesses,” Edward said, adding that he can’t rent all his available vehicles because so many come from St. Thomas.

Both he and Willis said they’ve had people renting St. Thomas vehicles ask if they can park in their lots and request help when they’ve had a problem.

Barge companies stood to see a cut in their revenues from Browne’s edict. No one was available to respond at Boyson Inc. and no one called back from Love City Car Ferries and Global Marine.

Sen. Craig Barshinger called this a law with unintended consequences. While he said he understands the issue for St. John-based car rental companies, it restrains free trade between the islands.

He suggested that St. John car rental companies be allowed to set up shop at the airport but Edward said it would be cumbersome because there are 18 companies renting cars on St. John.

Barshinger said that allowing people to rent cars at the airport if they so chose better serves the tourists.

“We are a tourism economy,” he said.
 

DavidnRobin

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
11,813
Reaction score
2,224
Points
698
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Resorts Owned
WKORV OFD (Maui)
WPORV (Kauai)
WSJ-VGV (St. John)
WKV (Scottsdale)
This has been delayed for the immediate future, but still worthwhile to contacts Gov't folks to voice your displeasure or concerns (and I guess even if you agree - like you want StJ to use the Yosemite model and abolish cars). I had heard rumors that the 'taxi-mafia' was very strong in StT and StJ - this may be proof of this to some degree. It appears that this is a very poorly written law that is being over-interpreted (at least according to someone that looked it up) and was made so rental companies licensed on the 2 island did not open up opertions on the other, but was never made to prevent rental cars from crossing over on the car barge. Personally, I cannot believe that would hold-up against legal challenge (but what would I know...)

Legislature
www.legvi.org/index.php

Department of Motor Vehicles
jerris.browne@bmv.vi.gov

Governor of the Virgin Islands
john@governordejongh.com

Senator Craig Barshinger St. John
1(340)774-0880
carol@visenate.org Chief of staff

Senator Shawn-Michael Malone
Senatormalone@gmail.com
 
Last edited:

DavidnRobin

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
11,813
Reaction score
2,224
Points
698
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Resorts Owned
WKORV OFD (Maui)
WPORV (Kauai)
WSJ-VGV (St. John)
WKV (Scottsdale)
Staying at the W Barcelona - and just saw this in my email. Haven't had time to go thru but...




June 2012



Dear Fellow Virgin Grand Villas Owner:

As your elected representatives on the Board of Directors of the Virgin Grand Villas – St. John Condominium Owners Association, we recently participated in the Board’s quarterly meeting and as usual are providing this report to you.

Possible lawsuit against the Association
We begin with a matter that should be of particular concern to owners. Last October, about 230 of the Virgin Grand owners, representing about 6% of the total number of owners, filed a complaint against Starwood claiming, chiefly, that the millions of dollars approved in 2008 by the Board of the Condominium Association (with the concurrence of our predecessor elected representatives) for interior and exterior refurbishments was not lawfully authorized. The lawsuit also contends that Starwood’s continuing majority control of our Board is unlawful and that Starwood must turn over control to a majority of elected directors. We attach to this message a copy of the complaint (which is a public record), that these owners filed in the territorial court of the Virgin Islands. Click here to view the complaint.

In defending this lawsuit Starwood took the position, among other things, that because the Condominium Association (not Starwood) was the entity that had undertaken the refurbishment, the suit could not go forward without including the Condominium Association as an additional defendant. On June 19, the judge decided that the plaintiffs must either bring our Association into the lawsuit by suing it as an additional defendant or drop the lawsuit altogether. At that point, Starwood advised our Association that if the plaintiffs decide to continue with the lawsuit by suing our Association, we should hire our own law firm, at the Association’s expense, because the legal positions we take in the litigation may well diverge from those of Starwood.

If the plaintiffs proceed with the lawsuit we would have no choice but to defend against it, and the cost of doing so could well exceed $100,000. And that cost would have to be borne by all of us, in the form of increased maintenance fees, even if we were to prevail. We must defend against it, because the plaintiffs seek restitution of the millions of dollars that have already been spent for refurbishments from which we are all now benefiting. Although we think that the suit has little merit, if the plaintiffs prevail, most current owners would suffer a net loss because current owners would, through new significantly increased maintenance charges, have to pay damages to past owners, and many of us would end up paying ourselves. But we would all lose, because of the legal fees that we will all have to share in paying.

At our June 26 Board meeting, the Board authorized a first installment of up to $25,000 for legal fees for the defense of this lawsuit if the plaintiffs decide to proceed against the Condominium Association. And because the three Starwood employees who are the appointed members of our Board may have interests that conflict with those of the owners, the Board authorized the two of us, as owner-elected representatives, to select the law firm that will represent the Association. The court gave the plaintiffs until August 20 to join our Association as a defendant in their lawsuit, unless the plaintiffs decide not to proceed and choose to drop their lawsuit altogether.

We are sorry to bring you news of this unfortunate situation. We think that at the end of the day this is one of those lawsuits in which the only winners will be the lawyers.

Structural Waterproofing's suit
Many of you have heard, through an email from former owner Eugene Jaspan, about a second lawsuit against the Association – this one by Structural Waterproofing, one of the contractors that worked on the exterior refurbishment. This is a fairly routine dispute between a contractor and a customer and not a cause for significant alarm. We do not agree with the description of the dispute that Mr. Jaspan circulated to many owners. In any event, Starwood is attempting to resolve the matter and to bond over the Structural Waterproofing lien to avoid any disruption of owner purchase or sale transactions. At this time we see no need for separate representation of the Association.

Refurbishment update
Most of the refurbishment has been completed, but the last stages were delayed by the dispute with a contractor referred to above. A new contractor has been engaged to complete the project. By October, the photo-voltaic (solar) cells that have been installed on the roofs of buildings 41, 43, and 44 will be hooked up to the power grid, and then we will begin the next phase of photo-voltaic cell installation to reduce our electric bill. Also within the next few months, the resurfacing and other work on the pool between buildings 33 and 34 will be done, landscaping work will be accomplished around both hillside pools, both pools will receive shade awnings and additional umbrellas, and the grills and spas for buildings 43 and 44 will be improved.

The TV and internet upgrades have nearly been completed (a few units don’t yet have HD TV sets, and the internet signal strength will be improved for two units that are having internet difficulties). Management is continuing to work on obtaining folding chairs for additional seating on the patios of the two-bedroom units and is looking into waterproof cushions for the wooden patio chairs.

Inventory in the freecycle shed continues to disappoint your owner representatives. There is a fair amount of children’s beach play equipment in the shed at mid-day on Saturdays, but the shed is nearly empty by the end of the day, and there have never been enough beach chairs or other types of inventory to reach a critical mass. Perhaps owners are reluctant to deposit equipment because they lack confidence that the shed is secure against pilfering. At present, we are leasing the shed. At our fall Board meeting, we will consider purchasing it, which would enable us to install a lock that would work with unit door keys. Purchasing the shed and an electronic lock would impose a one-time average cost of less than $5 on owners. If you have comments on this proposal (or other issues), we are of course interested in your views.

Reports expected
As you know from previous reports, we have commissioned an outside expert to give us a one-time audit of our replacement reserve program and an acoustical engineer to advise us on a better sound barrier between the upstairs bedrooms in buildings 41 and 42. We expect to receive both of these reports within the next few months.

Financial matters
As you know, when owners do not pay their maintenance fees in a timely fashion, they are “locked out” of their units and the rest of us must make up the lost revenue. As of the end of May, 286 accounts (of 4,179 total accounts billed) were locked out, liens have been filed against 251 accounts, and foreclosure proceedings have begun against 92 accounts. We project that, as in recent years, approximately 95% of owners will pay their maintenance fees rather than be locked out. If you cannot keep up your maintenance payments and would like to turn your deed over to the association in exchange for cancellation of your back-due payments (rather than have to deal with judicial foreclosure proceedings), we can put you in touch with the right people at Starwood with whom to discuss this matter.

Sale/rental/exchange website
Unfortunately, the owners’ website on which we have been working for about two years is still not ready for use. The design isn’t quite perfect, and website security is still not resolved. Board chair Teri Castleberry deserves our thanks for putting many days of her time into reviewing the work done so far by an outside contractor, and she is devoting still more time to this project. We are determined to make it work and regret that it is taking so long. We are aware that many, many owners are eager to see the owners’ bulletin board go “live.” We had hoped to roll it out by July, but it will not be in place before fall.

Owner rental offer
As you know from our last report, Starwood is unable to replicate the procedure used last year to realize revenue from locked out units by renting the weeks - for the price of the maintenance fee - to other owners. Too few weeks were rented to justify the cost of administration. So we have authorized an 18-month experiment that provides owners an exclusive benefit and maximizes revenue for the association. You will hear more about this directly from Starwood Vacation Ownership, but the essence is this: all the days that are available to rent from (a) locked-out weeks, (b) association-owned weeks, (c) developer owned weeks (about 7% of the development) and (d) weeks that owners have converted for starpoints to travel throughout the hotel system and staroptions that have not been spoken for by other network users will be made available to Virgin Grand owners for rental at a rate 40% lower than the lowest rate that Starwood is offering to the general public, plus a $20! per day resort fee (half the rate ordinarily charged to renters). That rate will in most cases be higher than the maintenance fee that we are used to paying for units of the size made available, but there are compensating advantages: (a) it will not be necessary to rent a full week, so if you snag a period adjacent to one of your ownership periods, you could extend your vacation for two, three or four days without committing to an entire week, (b) you will receive daily cleaning (as you would in a hotel) rather than a mid-week tidy-up, and (c) internet access will be provided at no additional cost. The inventory of available units and days will be made available to Virgin Grand owners, exclusively, on a special website; Starwood Vacation Ownership will be sending an email communication with details on how to access it.

2010 property tax bills
June 29 update - We have just learned the 2010 property tax bills will soon be available on the USVI website. SVO will be sending an email communication to owners on Monday, July 2nd with more details regarding the discount dates. Please be sure to monitor your email for this important communication.

Our very best to our fellow owners.

Philip G. Schrag
phil.schrag@gmail.com

Bob Werbel
robert.werbel@yahoo.com





This email was sent by SVO Management, Inc. You've received this email as a convenience
in the general course of communication regarding your ownership.

To ensure you receive your SVO Management, Inc. emails, please add
svomanagement@svomanagementinc.com to your address book. Do not reply to this email.

SVO Management, Inc.
9002 San Marco Court,
Orlando, FL 32819
CID 1926
 

Ken555

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
14,522
Reaction score
5,638
Points
898
Location
Los Angeles
Resorts Owned
Westin Kierland
Sheraton Desert Oasis
Two years?!?! Definitely sounds like a Starwood project! ;)

Sale/rental/exchange website
Unfortunately, the owners’ website on which we have been working for about two years is still not ready for use. The design isn’t quite perfect, and website security is still not resolved. Board chair Teri Castleberry deserves our thanks for putting many days of her time into reviewing the work done so far by an outside contractor, and she is devoting still more time to this project. We are determined to make it work and regret that it is taking so long. We are aware that many, many owners are eager to see the owners’ bulletin board go “live.” We had hoped to roll it out by July, but it will not be in place before fall.
 

gregb

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
45
Points
238
Location
Cupertino, CA
Resorts Owned
WKORN
The Owner Rental program sounds interesting. Let's hope it is successful and that *wood rolls out a similar program at other resorts.

It might also go some way towards blunting the criticism that *wood is keeping the best inventory for itself, and that "locked out" units are not benefiting the HOA.

Greg
 

LisaH

TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,963
Reaction score
656
Points
598
Location
SF Bay Area, CA
Staying at the W Barcelona - and just saw this in my email. Haven't had time to go thru but...

Totally unrelated but I was in Barcelona last week. A great restaurant named Aqua is very close to Hotel W Barcelona. If you see this post before you leave, you might give it a try. Great Tapas, right on the beach. The only problem is, like most of the good restaurants in Spain, it does not open until after 8pm and reservation is a must.
 

DavidnRobin

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
11,813
Reaction score
2,224
Points
698
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Resorts Owned
WKORV OFD (Maui)
WPORV (Kauai)
WSJ-VGV (St. John)
WKV (Scottsdale)
Totally unrelated but I was in Barcelona last week. A great restaurant named Aqua is very close to Hotel W Barcelona. If you see this post before you leave, you might give it a try. Great Tapas, right on the beach. The only problem is, like most of the good restaurants in Spain, it does not open until after 8pm and reservation is a must.

Thanks - my dinners are with my team, but they go to high-end places. Went to Tragaluz last night. I am at the W while everyone else is at the Hilton Diagonal Mar - my choice way better by far, And only 200E per nite (paying cash, but i would use SPs to stay here again). Room is surprisingly quiet considering how crazy it is here. Barceloneta is great place to be - perfect weather - been using metro/bus to get around instead of taxi for entertainment. Paella cooking class today then site-seeing. Wish Robin was here...:(
For some reason woke at 7am... Hanging out by the pool deck - it is really nice.

Maybe Westin5* should consider living here... :D


Surprised no comments on SVO VGV letter - oh well - life goes on
 

jarta

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,916
Reaction score
1
Points
273
Location
Chicago
David, ... "Surprised no comments on SVO VGV letter - oh well - life goes on"

Since you ask, life will go on (lol!):

"Jaspan Supporters" Suit:

1. Filed by 6% of WSJ owners. Minuscule popular support. The judge will notice that.

2. Only Starwood sued. The judge has now ruled that the WSJ HOA, which entity had to sign, authorize or ratify the contracts for refurbishment, is a party defendant whose appearance before the court is necessary to allow the relief requested. So, the HOA must be added to the suit or the suit must be dropped because no viable relief is possible without the HOA being ordered to do something. (Can't comment on the whole complaint. Not a WSJ owner who received a copy of the exact claims.)

3. You will know by August 20. That's the date the suit must be amended to add the HOA as a necessary defendant or be dismissed.

4. If added as a defendant, the HOA must hire an attorney and defend against the suit. Schrag and Werbel get to choose the HOA attorneys. (No mention of E&O insurance for WSJ?)

5. IMO, the suit is worthless and the assertion by Schrag and Werbel that only the lawyers will get rich is correct. Nevertheless, the HOA board has already authorized up to $25,000 to be expended to feed its attorneys - if that becomes necessary.

5. Conclusions. The Jaspan-allied plaintiffs are nasty enough persons to cause the rest of the WSJ owners to defend against their baseless lawsuit to roll back the refurbishment.

There is power, authority and a fiduciary duty for the HOA board to preserve the value of the property for the owners it represents. It looks like that was done in an annual budget process and, therefore, there was no special assessment (raising of money by an assessment outside of the normal budget/MF cycle).

If the suit continues, I'd expect counterclaims to be filed against the "Jaspan Supporter" plaintiffs. I assume they have been advised as much.

The more common way to fund necessary, deferred maintenance is for the HOA board to take out a loan secured by MF payments, use the loan proceeds to cure the necessary deferred maintenance and pay off the loan over time with the increased assessments. Perhaps collections of MFs were low enough or other annual repair work so expensive at WSJ that repayment of a loan for refurbishment could not be guaranteed by a loan and an assignment of the MFs at WSJ.

"Structural Waterproofing Suit"

1. The HOA board does not agree with Jaspan's description of the mechanic's lien suit.

2. Nevertheless, Starwood, the property manager, is seeking a bonding/insurance company to secure a bond that will be filed with the court from a bonding/insurance company (make a 3rd party promise to pay money if the HOA does not) sufficient for any amount claimed by Structural Waterproofing from the HOA. (Yes, a fee will be charged for issuing the bond for the HOA and it will be paid for from the MFs.)

3. Once the bond is filed with the court guaranteeing payment of any judgment amount sought, the lien can be released by the court and, to the extent there is/was a claim made against title to any individual's week, it is gone and the suit becomes one for the secure "pile of money" represented by the bond filed with the court.

4. Schrag and Werbel refer to the proceedings in the Structural Waterproofing suit as "fairly routine." I'd take them at their word. And, if the work was not done well, there will be no liability for the HOA.

5. Conclusion: Seems like any trouble in Paradise is well under control on this suit. Salty
 
Last edited:

WildJohn

newbie
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Regarding the suit

5. Conclusions. The Jaspan-allied plaintiffs are nasty enough persons to cause the rest of the WSJ owners to defend against their baseless lawsuit to roll back the refurbishment.


Jarta, I agree with everything you say. Just one thing that's being left out. Jaspan doesn't even own anymore. He is merely the acting on behalf of Tom DeClemente, who owns 14 weeks of pool villa units and has his own personal, selfish reasons to want to reduce maintenance.

Regards,
John
 

jarta

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,916
Reaction score
1
Points
273
Location
Chicago
WildJohn, ... IMO, then Jaspan should be more discriminating in picking the people he will shill for. Salty
 

Jocdocnh

newbie
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New h
Recent tIme in 4111

Just wanted to note that the "new" Internet has a lousy signal in 4111. When we were there in April we complained about it. I think the antenna is actually on the back of the building facing away from the units and a second one is facing across towards the other pool villa buildings. If you walk around there with an iPad there are a lot of large dead spots. I had almost no signal inside the unit at all. Having said that, the renovations of the pool and patio were very nice and well done. The new sliders however were NOT well installed. One of my guests owns a glass and window business and couldnt believe how bad the installation was. In the master bedroom there was an opening to the outside you could put your entire hand into and see daylight right thru. Duck tape solved it for the time being..they really should make their contractor come back and fix the installs. There were holes for locks with nothing in them in the windows over the sink also.*
I suspect the owner's Free-sharing. Building is not going To work as long as Westin staff can help themselves..I saw some of their staff in and out of there, nothing worth taking when we were there, also nothing worth sharing. Owners for 10 years and we are NOT cranks but are in the suit,not because we aren't happy with the renovations but with the way it has been done. The board should be mostly owners at this point NOT stacked with Westin employees. We have been greatly misled over the years by Starwood in many instances and this is the result. Things are better but do need to change. We have paid the ever increasing fees and are still happy to go every year but there needs to be changes. Why does Starwood NOT resell units for owners? Seems like good business especially as they have shrinking inventory to offer. Also, they are not willing to take a trade up unless there is substantial profit even when you offer to pay the closing. Not right. Week 53? If they own it then they need to pay the maintenance. Can't own it rent it use it to count as Starwood owned weeks to control the board and not pay.

Sent from my iPad
 

yogiwine

TUG Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Port Aransas, Texas
For the Starwood Lovers

5. Conclusions. The Jaspan-allied plaintiffs are nasty enough persons to cause the rest of the WSJ owners to defend against their baseless lawsuit to roll back the refurbishment.


Jarta, I agree with everything you say. Just one thing that's being left out. Jaspan doesn't even own anymore. He is merely the acting on behalf of Tom DeClemente, who owns 14 weeks of pool villa units and has his own personal, selfish reasons to want to reduce maintenance.

Regards,
John

My, my, my . . . where do you people get your information and are you so gullible to believe the BS werbel and schrag dish out - most of which they are directed to do so by Starwood.

If the complaints of "6%" of the owners at WSJ are baseless, why is starwood trying to find a way to settle out of court?

Do any of you werbel/schrag followers know that there is a lien against the WSJ Grand Villas for $750,000.00 from one of the contractors who they have not paid for the refurbishing contract? According to w/s this is a routine matter and happens all the time with condo refinishing. Bull! I've owned a number of condos over the year, and not just timeshares, and it was never a routine matter to have a lien put against our property for failure to ABIDE BY THE CONTRACT! In that law suit, of which werbel and schrag are named, Starwood has authorized the use of HOA funds to pay for their legal bills! Wow, just where I want my annual fees to go!

There are a few of us who have been lucky enough recently to "give away" our units just to get out from under all this brooha, but because of the current litigations, all of our closings are on hold. One more reason I'm over joyed to own a unit at WSJ.

Maybe it's time for the rest of you owners to open your eyes and hears and listen to the truth!

Regards,
Yogi
 

LisaRex

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
6,792
Reaction score
317
Points
518
Location
'burbs of Cincinnati, OH
Resorts Owned
Used to own: WKORV-N; SVV - Bella
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top