After the dust has settled ( I think)

saluki · Feb 19, 2010

jerseygirl said:
You might want to consider the fact that "everyone else" is not sharing what they're doing with you. Heck, some of us even have official conference calls! You're a little late to the party -- seem to be only recently coming around to the possibility that everything might not be rosy at SVO.

Jerseygirl-

Major thanks to you & the others for your insights & effort on this. I'm glad you're on OUR side!

jarta · Feb 19, 2010

Fredm, ... I guess you have no proof.

You are saying, in a roundabout way, exactly what l2trade was saying. You do not like Starwood's internal trading system. You prefer that II be the only alternative to in season home resort use opportunities and that actual reserved weeks, not weeks comparable to owned weeks, be deposited for II external trades.

That's OK. We just disagree as to the internal Starwood system. I like the internal trading system. Many more Starwood owners use it (Staroptions) than use II - despite the fact that II gives the opportunity for 2 for 1 trades.

Also, for II trading the deposit of weeks comparable to owned weeks, rather than reserved weeks is gone. Either sue based upon supposed "rights" you have as an owner or accept the fact that 2 for 1 trades are still reasonably probable. But, don't make allegations without proof that Starwood is stealing deposited weeks for its own use prior to the 60 day period.

To each his own. ... eom

jerseygirl · Feb 19, 2010

saluki said:
Jerseygirl-

Major thanks to you & the others for your insights & effort on this. I'm glad you're on OUR side!

You're very welcome Saluki -- and, believe me, it's not just me. There are several others who wish to remain anonymous who are actively working for a fairer system. We are on the side of ALL owners -- SVN, non-SVN, elite, non-elite. We simply don't like being taken advantage of at every turn and are doing what we can to force more transparency and ultimately a fairer system for ALL. If every owner took the time to really understand the implications of the SVN system, as designed, they would almost assuredly come to understand that we would ALL be far better off with a system like Marriott's.

As I stated on another post recently, if the rumored upcoming Marriott system has been designed to be like Starwood's, Marriott owners need to think LONG and HARD about the implications. The changes will, on the surface, appear to benefit those with high value weeks. But, when the layers are peeled back, there will only be one real winner -- and it won't be the Marriott owners.

As I've also stated -- anyone with soft copies of resort-specific documents can help .................. please send a PM so we can make arrangements to collect as many as possible.

Fredm · Feb 19, 2010

jarta said:
Fredm, ... I guess you have no proof.

You are saying, in a roundabout way, exactly what l2trade was saying. You do not like Starwood's internal trading system. You prefer that II be the only alternative to in season home resort use opportunities and that actual reserved weeks, not weeks comparable to owned weeks, be deposited for II external trades.

That's OK. We just disagree as to the internal Starwood system. I like the internal trading system. Many more Starwood owners use it (Staroptions) than use II - despite the fact that II gives the opportunity for 2 for 1 trades.

Also, for II trading the deposit of weeks comparable to owned weeks, rather than reserved weeks is gone. Either sue based upon supposed "rights" you have as an owner or accept the fact that 2 for 1 trades are still reasonably probable. But, don't make allegations without proof that Starwood is stealing deposited weeks for its own use prior to the 60 day period.

To each his own. ... eom

Jarta, with all due respect, you do not understand.
So, I will leave it at that.

jerseygirl · Feb 19, 2010

jarta said:
But, don't make allegations without proof that Starwood is stealing deposited weeks for its own use prior to the 60 day period.

Quit putting words in other people's mouths. Not one single person on this thread has suggested that Starwood is stealing weeks. For an attorney, I'm frankly flabbergasted that you don't appear to understand the implications of this permitted activity (which negates the term "stealing," as we've all acknowledged):

SVN Operator has the right, but not the obligation, to reserve a number of Floating Vacation Periods from time to time at any time thirty (30) days after the beginning of the Home Resort Fixed Priority Period, and any unreserved Vacation Period after the Home Resort Fixed Priority Period, for the purpose of depositing the reserved Vacation Periods with an External Exchange Program on behalf of SVN Members based on SVN Operator's determination, in its sole discretion, of anticipated SVN Member demand to access an External Exchange Program or the Starwood Preferred Guest Program.

Especially as amended to remove the bulk banking side of things:

SVN Operator has the right, but not the obligation, to reserve a number of Floating Vacation Periods from time to time at any time thirty (30) days after the beginning of the Home Resort Fixed Priority Period, and any unreserved Vacation Period after the Home Resort Fixed Priority Period, based on SVN Operator's determination, in its sole discretion, of anticipated SVN Member demand to the Starwood Preferred Guest Program.

As it relates to the 4th of July rentals at WKORV, we ALL absolutely understand that Starwood might own the weeks. Hence the disclaimers such as this one:

Disclaimer -- This is a "what-if" scenario based on what the documents permit. I do not have any proof this is occuring. I just think we should be demanding full financial audits to determine just exactly where the money is going. As David has said .... follow the money .... follow the money. I'll add one more .... read your documents .... read your documents

What we're saying .... and I have to suspect that you truly understand this but for some unknown reason choose to twist it ... is that the system has been legally setup so that Starwood has the greatest advantages. It's that simple.

DanCali · Feb 19, 2010

jerseygirl said:
As I've also stated -- anyone with soft copies of resort-specific documents can help .................. please send a PM so we can make arrangements to collect as many as possible.

I assume you downloaded the WKV ones ?

Thanks on my behalf too!

Fredm · Feb 19, 2010

jerseygirl said:
If every owner took the time to really understand the implications of the SVN system, as designed, they would almost assuredly come to understand that we would ALL be far better off with a system like Marriott's.

As I stated on another post recently, if the rumored upcoming Marriott system has been designed to be like Starwood's, Marriott owners need to think LONG and HARD about the implications. The changes will, on the surface, appear to benefit those with high value weeks. But, when the layers are peeled back, there will only be one real winner -- and it won't be the Marriott owners.

Marriott would truly be crazy to implement a system like Starwood's.
Yes, there are rumors of some kind of a point based system.
I would not be surprised if something point-based happens.
If it does, it will be because it benefits Marriott. Not to improve a system that is already widely considered the best for its owners.
It will not be to fix what is not broken.

jarta · Feb 19, 2010

Fredm ... "There is no reason to implement a system such as this unless it is for the benefit of the operator."

We disagree. There is benefit to every other owner from the recently implemented Starwood/II system.

What was happening was that owners at Starwood resorts were reserving prime weeks in a season merely to deposit them in II for a 2 for 1 trade. Those owners were not using the weeks. They were not even, for the most part, renting them out.

Now, the prime weeks in a season are being returned to the pool of weeks that all owners at the resort are able to reserve, use and enjoy.

Any resort should be primarily for the use of the owners, IMO. They should have priority over and the the fullest use of the prime weeks in a season. II traders should not.

Just my opinion. And, I realize it's not very popular here among mostly II traders. ... eom

levatino · Feb 19, 2010

I would suggest, that counter to the name of this thread, the dust has not settled.

yucky!

DanCali · Feb 19, 2010

jarta said:
What was happening was that owners at Starwood resorts were reserving prime weeks in a season merely to deposit them in II for a 2 for 1 trade. Those owners were not using the weeks. They were not even, for the most part, renting them out.

Isn't exchanging part of timesharing? And isn't this what trading is all about? Maximize your trade value...? And with Starwood II priority those prime weeks were getting picked up by other Starwood owners using II. Since II is made available to all owners, I don't think anyone was getting shortchanged by this. It was, if anything, a process that was much more transparent and easy to follow - an SVO owners deposits a good week and another SVO owners gets it... Now we can only speculate on what is getting deposited, reserved by Starwood for its own rentals, and kept for SVN trades.

jarta said:
Now, the prime weeks in a season are being returned to the pool of weeks that all owners at the resort are able to reserve, use and enjoy.

Yes, Starwood can now deposit dog weeks into II. Who says other owners are now getting the prime weeks? In fact, they are not getting them if Starwood reserves those prime weeks to rent based on anticipated StarPoint conversions... No way to know unless we see the books... shouldn't we be entitled to see what's going on at our home resorts?

jerseygirl · Feb 19, 2010

jarta said:
Fredm ... "There is no reason to implement a system such as this unless it is for the benefit of the operator."

We disagree. There is benefit to every other owner from the recently implemented Starwood/II system.

What was happening was that owners at Starwood resorts were reserving prime weeks in a season merely to deposit them in II for a 2 for 1 trade. Those owners were not using the weeks. They were not even, for the most part, renting them out.

Now, the prime weeks in a season are being returned to the pool of weeks that all owners at the resort are able to reserve, use and enjoy.

Any resort should be primarily for the use of the owners, IMO. They should have priority over and the the fullest use of the prime weeks in a season. II traders should not.

Just my opinion. And, I realize it's not very popular here among mostly II traders. ... eom

Wow -- this is pulling one teeny tiny part of an argument that's been hashed and re-hashed and ignoring the much bigger picture. Amazing!

jerseygirl · Feb 19, 2010

DanCali said:
I assume you downloaded the WKV ones ?

Thanks on my behalf too!

Dan -- You're very welcome! Unfortunately, I was traveling and didn't pull them at the time. I don't need you to repost the links -- but can you just tell me what thread they're in (if you remember) so I can go back and add them to the inventory? I think we have the original CCRs ... but might be missing the SVN disclosure agreement associated with WKV and SDO.

Pit · Feb 19, 2010

jarta said:
Now, the prime weeks in a season are being returned to the pool of weeks that all owners at the resort are able to reserve, use and enjoy.

This is laughable. The prime weeks were already in the pool of weeks that all owners can reserve, use, and enjoy.

jarta said:
Any resort should be primarily for the use of the owners, IMO. They should have priority over and the the fullest use of the prime weeks in a season. II traders should not.

When owners, who pay the bills, choose to trade, rent, or occupy their week(s), they are using their ownership. Owner A has no priority over owner B, irrespective of how they use their ownership. Nor should SVN exchangers have priority over owners A or B.

jarta · Feb 19, 2010

DanCali, ... 1. You should be able to get infomation from Starwood and the HOA about what is going on. I am getting the latest WKV annual financial. It's a starting place.

2. "Starwood can now deposit dog weeks into II." I don't consider other weeks in the same use season as "dog weeks." And, it seems those "dog weeks" are still pulling 2 for 1 II trades.

3. "And with Starwood II priority those prime weeks were getting picked up by other Starwood owners using II." Very big assumption, but possibly true.

4. "Who says other owners are now getting the prime weeks? In fact, they are not getting them if Starwood reserves those prime weeks to rent based on anticipated StarPoint conversions" Owners have the ability to compete for reservations on equal terms with those using Staroptions. Under the Starwood Plan you posted, nobody uses Starpoints to rent anything except Starwood's owned units. If you have proof of otherwise, please post it. Starwood can rent what's left over at 60 days and the money is split with the HOA. See nodge's budget post.

5. Trading (internal or external) is part of timesharing. I just don't think trading should be used to deprive owners of opportunities to vacation at their home resort in prime weeks of a season. Starwood's internal system gives home resort owners a preference for 4 months. II's system which allowed reserving a prime week at 12 months out and handing the reserved prime week off to another II trader ( essentially, in return for a 2 for 1 trade) didn't give the home resort owners any preference - period.

So, the dust hasn't settled. Still being able to get 2 for 1 trades does not stop the attacks on Starwood for "stealing" weeks "for its own use" prior to the 60 day rental period. ... eom

l2trade · Feb 19, 2010

levatino said:
I would suggest, that counter to the name of this thread, the dust has not settled.

yucky!

So true! :hysterical:

Doesn't it feel like we are debating with Starwood's defense attorney? Same old tired excuses and distortions.

Fredm · Feb 19, 2010

jerseygirl said:
Wow -- this is pulling one teeny tiny part of an argument that's been hashed and re-hashed and ignoring the much bigger picture. Amazing!

Jarta gets it. He chooses to deflect it as a point of argument.
Practiced lawyers do that.

The question is why.

jerseygirl · Feb 19, 2010

Fredm said:
Jarta gets it. He chooses to deflect it as a point of argument.
Practiced lawyers do that.

The question is why.

You know, I think you're right (and I'm embarrassed that I haven't realized it before). I've seen the same technique several times. Failure to respond to my post #13 in this thread is just one example:

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114953&highlight=conde+starwood

jarta · Feb 19, 2010

Are we all sticking to issues today and not making it personal? Please refute what I am saying. You all know I am an attorney in Chicago with no connections whatsoever to Starwood. ... eom

DanCali · Feb 19, 2010

jerseygirl said:
Dan -- You're very welcome! Unfortunately, I was traveling and didn't pull them at the time. I don't need you to repost the links -- but can you just tell me what thread they're in (if you remember) so I can go back and add them to the inventory? I think we have the original CCRs ... but might be missing the SVN disclosure agreement associated with WKV and SDO.

It was somewhere in this thread - around page 3 but here is the info again:

CC&Rs

SVN Doc

If the links stop working you can use the Maricopa County recorder website:

http://recorder.maricopa.gov/recdocdata/

using document numbers: 2002 0790609 (CC&Rs) and 2002 0790610 (SVO Docs)

just search for these docs and the unofficial document can be downloaded for free by clicking the link embedded in the "number of pages"

Fredm · Feb 19, 2010

jarta said:
Are we all sticking to issues today and not making it personal? Please refute what I am saying. You all know I am an attorney in Chicago with no connections whatsoever to Starwood. ... eom

We have refuted what you have been saying.
We also give you more credit than to believe you do not get it.
Nothing can be more personal that you thinking us stupid.

Take it elsewhere.

jerseygirl · Feb 19, 2010

jarta said:
Are we all sticking to issues today and not making it personal? Please refute what I am saying. You all know I am an attorney in Chicago with no connections whatsoever to Starwood. ... eom

We're trying to stick to big picture issues, but attempts keep being made to throw the attention on tiny little side issues or change the direction of the discussion.

I am sincerely apologetic if you think it's personal. I have one goal and one goal only -- and that is to help all Starwood owners understand the nuances of the program and draw their own conclusions as to whether its been set up to benefit owners as a whole. When incomplete, incorrect, or inconsequential information is posted in what appears to be an effort to detract from the main discussion, I feel its appropriate to try to get it back on track. I truly have no desire to make it personal or attack any one particular poster -- just the information being posted.

DanCali · Feb 19, 2010

jarta said:
Starwood can rent what's left over at 60 days and the money is split with the HOA. See nodge's budget post.

I have seen nodge's budget post. I've also seen it's $40K/year. I've also posted a post (#103) with VERY conservative assumptions showing how a paltry 4 rooms per night rent for about 6 times more than that on an annualized basis... (assuming $200 per night and 300 days per year). In fact $40K is 0.55 1BR units per night rented out at $200/night for 365 days a year...

But I guess as long as the rental income is not zero, you are technically right - the money is "split" with the HOA - even if the split is 99% in favor of Starwood...

(and before you ask how I know this... I don't. I have no idea what the split is because it is conveniently omitted from the recorded documents. But would be happy if you enlighten all of us with numbers).

If $40K in rentals makes you happy as a WKV owner, even though that's literally less than 1 unit per day rented out, then you are probably in the minority.

By the way - I 'm a new WKV owner too now so at least we do have one thing in common in this thread.

jerseygirl · Feb 19, 2010

DanCali said:
It was somewhere in this thread - around page 3 but here is the info again:

CC&Rs

SVN Doc

If the links stop working you can use the Maricopa County recorder website:

http://recorder.maricopa.gov/recdocdata/

using document numbers: 2002 0790609 (CC&Rs) and 2002 0790610 (SVO Docs)

just search for these docs and the unofficial document can be downloaded for free by clicking the link embedded in the "number of pages"

Thanks Dan! They are now part of the official library of SVO-related documents!

l2trade · Feb 19, 2010

jarta said:
Are we all sticking to issues today and not making it personal? Please refute what I am saying. You all know I am an attorney in Chicago with no connections whatsoever to Starwood. ... eom

I'll refute: You just stated you have 'no connections whatsoever to Starwood'. Yet, you brag all the time about being Starwood 5* Elite. Hmm...

Honestly, I know that's not what you meant by saying 'no connections whatsoever'. I'm smart enough to understand what you meant in your quote above. I assume that you are smart fellow too. Please take that as a personal compliment. Yet, IMHO, this is an example of the kind of taking other people's posts out of context, distorting and changing the subject that I feel you sometimes do. It occurs often enough that I am beginning to honestly wonder whether your connections extend beyond the 5* Elite. Do you have some other undisclosed bias or motive? I'm all for respecting true differences of opinion and honest debate. Let's go there. Let's work together to move the discussion and debate forward.

DavidnRobin · Feb 19, 2010

As The Starwood Board Turns...
{I do not envy DeniseM...}

Sorry - this thread is hard to track (congrats... if that was intentional) - my response(s) is not II directed since I did not buy with the intent of using II (unless an emergency) - but more power to you in creating a fair usage system. My issue has been about overall transparency by SVO on the reasons for escalating MFs...

Getting back to some aspects in this thread regarding the usage of SVO of deliquent Owner's VOIs...

I sent a question into SVO (to ask SVO...) - and they actually responded as follows (my usual underlying sarcasm from my question edited...):

How does the HOA at a particular resort get reimbursed for VOIs that were taken over by SVO due to deliquent Owners not paying their maintenance fees?

If an owner’s Annual Fees are 120 days past due, the owner’s access to the account is denied. Starwood Vacation Ownership will attempt to rent the owner’s week in efforts to recoup the Annual Fees. If the Annual Fees continue to be past due, the account can be sent to foreclosure. {standard yada,yada, yada... deleted}

OK - fine - I did not really expect a different response, but interesting - because this allows a potential money trail to be followed - they explain that this is attempted to be rented in some manner and from the posts above it may appear as a line item on some MF statements - such as WKV. Does II usage falls under SVO usage during this period? If used via II - how then is the HOA reimbursed?