DVC Club Level and Home Resort Survey

[Sandisw]

I don’t think they need to clarify further to individual members what they’ve already announced. Not sure if that’s even their policy anyway.

But, as we all know, time will tell!

They absolutely should if asked. I get no announcement but they had no problem with confirming over and over that BPk would be part of VGF

Guides said it, kiosk people said it, and so did DVC.

No matter what, this is not being treated the same way and that is fine. But people should at least be willing to acknowledge that they are not standing behind the comment when directly asked to.

Confirmation means just that and when you still have guides and DVc people not confirming it’s not official. Which means, it could still change until it is in writing.

 

[Paul Stupin]

Actually, I’d say they did not prepare to announce or they would have had the slide. They certainly did for CFW so why not Poly tower? IIRC, they had it on a slide at the 2022 meeting?

And, as one who is hesitant to believe it’s a done deal, not because I really care but just find the optics of what DVD is doing to be quite odd and refusing to stand by it.

Obviously, one camp was going to be right but this trust thing is as something no one predicted.

While it would be silly to do, I believe there is a way that it could be part of PVB and still be sold differently via the trust, which could be be up with a whole bunch of surprises.

I guess we will know exaclty what will happen in the next few months when they declare the project officially.

I remember that right after they started selling VGF2, DVC suddenly announced Poly2. Maybe we’ll get another announcement sometime this year, when we least expect it, regarding a beautiful new resort on the Refections parcel!

 

[Paul Stupin]

Did DVC make an announcement, or are you referring to the vague comment of Yvonne Chang that's been reported as somehow confirming that the Poly Tower will definitely become part of the existing PVB association? If that's what you're referring to, then I think there is much room for continued speculation given that's not even the words she used, as has been discussed and debated.

Doesn't it seem odd to make an official announcement at the tail end of the Q&A portion of the Association meeting that can't now be verified, clarified, or even found in ANY DVC information?

I'll believe it when DVC actually says ANYTHING about the Tower in writing.

You mean the ‘vague” comment where she said that their intention was that Poly2 be a part of the Poly1 association? What is vague about that? Its meaning seems pretty clear to me. Of course there’s some wriggle room there, but not really.

As Sandi says, we’ll know soon enough. I’m just inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Sandisw]

I remember that right after they started selling VGF2, DVC suddenly announced Poly2. Maybe we’ll get another announcement sometime this year, when we least expect it, regarding a beautiful new resort on the Refections parcel!

We could! I believe they announced CFW right after they started VDH sales.

 

[dioxide45]

You mean the ‘vague” comment where she said that their intention was that Poly2 be a part of the Poly1 association? What is vague about that? Its meaning seems pretty clear to me. Of course there’s some wriggle room there, but not really.

As Sandi says, we’ll know soon enough. I’m just inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

That wasn't actually what was said. The word association wasn't used. I pin the blame on people asking the question. The better question would have been "Will existing Poly owners be able to book tower rooms at the 11 month mark?" Do we even know the quote of the question asked?

 

[Paul Stupin]

That wasn't actually what was said. The word association wasn't used. I pin the blame on people asking the question. The better question would have been "Will existing Poly owners be able to book tower rooms at the 11 month mark?" Do we even know the quote of the question asked?

Whether or not the word “association” was used, I do think the implication was indeed pretty clear, which gets us back to the question of why would they deliberately try to mislead us? What would be the point of creating some sneaky bait and switch kind of scenario?

For me, it just doesn’t make sense, but I was also convinced for months that it would be a separate association!

 

[Sandisw]

Whether or not the word “association” was used, I do think the implication was indeed pretty clear, which gets us back to the question of why would they deliberately try to mislead us? What would be the point of creating some sneaky bait and switch kind of scenario?

For me, it just doesn’t make sense, but I was also convinced for months that it would be a separate association!

If they do something different, they will point to the statement that said “Our plan right now” and then explain why they made a different decision.

The only reason I can think of to use words like that…they never have before when discussing a new project, especially BPK which is the closest situation to this…is the trust creation which was not even filed yet at that point.

And it very well could just be added to PVB and sold as normal…but I also think people should be cautious in thinking.

 

[Sandisw]

That wasn't actually what was said. The word association wasn't used. I pin the blame on people asking the question. The better question would have been "Will existing Poly owners be able to book tower rooms at the 11 month mark?" Do we even know the quote of the question asked?

That is the exact question I asked in all my emails and the response to all was “ We can’t answer your questions”

I realize it might not be people high up who are answering but that is why I won’t believe it until it’s filed and done. No reason at this point to not confirm, like they did with BPK, if something else isn’t still being considered.

 

[walt34]

If they do something different, they will point to the statement that said “Our plan right now” and then explain why they made a different decision.

I'm trying not to jump into this again but 'our plans right now' would not be a good justification in this case because they have been working on the trust for quite some time. 'Our plans right now' implies the possibility of a later change in mind, not that they were planing something completely different already at the time of the statement.

Apart from that, I agree with your position on this: we should not take this statement as confirmation that Poly2 will join the existing association, because the rest of the communication does not fit. If this had been the official announcement, guides would confirm the statement.

 

[Hubalorian]

What surprises me is that there is no video of the question or at least the answer. Personally, if I attended the meeting, as soon as I heard that question, I would be pulling out my phone to record the answer plus reaction. It’s hard for me to fathom no one recorded this especially if you are reporting on the meeting as a whole.

I also am confused why members can’t get confirmation on a question and answer that occurred at an owners meeting. If I am unable to attend, I feel like I have a right to the information discussed at the meeting

 

[Sandisw]

I'm trying not to jump into this again but 'our plans right now' would not be a good justification in this case because they have been working on the trust for quite some time. 'Our plans right now' implies the possibility of a later change in mind, not that they were planing something completely different already at the time of the statement.

Apart from that, I agree with your position on this: we should not take this statement as confirmation that Poly2 will join the existing association, because the rest of the communication does not fit. If this had been the official announcement, guides would confirm the statement.

They don’t need to justify though. It gives them an out and since it isn’t being sold yet, it doesn’t really matter.

Here is my take on that comment though IF it has to do with the trust.

The actual question was if it would be the same or new association. Well, if adding to the trust was still a possibility, and it being added to that, it wouldn’t be a new association for the tower because that trust association would be in existence by the time they declare?

So, if they didn’t want to share that this shift was happening…and they have not because even guides are not yet discussing that in relation to CFW and it wasn’t offical yet…then maybe that was why?

I think a better answer would be “There is nothing offical” but they didn’t.

Heck, they didn’t even admit BLT was DVC until it was well into construction. So, they have a history of playing games.

Now, they are not coming out and stopping sites from saying it..but since those are not offical DVD communication, maybe they will just say it’s not on them.

As I have posted, it’s also possible that it can end up true but still not mean PvB owners get home resort and that it’s without restrictions. That was not asked so it’s been assumed.

If this survery had not happened, then I would be more inclined that it was the nature of the cabins that made them create it.

But, who knows. It just seems odd to me that a big project like this won’t have restrictions and I just have a feeling we are going to be surprised.

I am hoping for those who want it to just be done the same old way it ends up that way.

 

[J-Dog]

Rather than calling the statement either a blunder or a deception, how bout let’s just call it accurate? Why not actually take the words at face value and assume that the DVC spokeswoman is fairly competent? This strikes me as far more likely than creating a new narrative out of thin air, taking a fairly straightforward statement and desperately trying to completely reverse its meaning because, for some reason, you just can’t accept it.

Though I wish it was a separate association, I can see that keeping Poly2 in the same association, without resale restrictions, makes it an easy sell and a slam dunk. With VDH sales a bit wobbly, I don’t think this is the project they’d choose to introduce an entirely new, and potentially controversial systemic change.

If Poly2 were an entirely original, creatively themed, immersive, incredible resort, DVD might get away with such a big change. But it isn’t! It’s one prefab building with a small footprint and what looks like a somewhat unimpressive pool and splash pad, and some no doubt comparatively small one bedrooms. It’s probably a better fit with Poly1 anyway.

I agree. While Chang's comment may or may not have been officially approved or rehearsed, it strikes me as wishful thinking when people are assuming, with no concrete evidence, that she was just completely wrong/lying.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I agree. While Chang's comment may or may not have been officially approved or rehearsed, it strikes me as wishful thinking when people are assuming, with no concrete evidence, that she was just completely wrong/lying.

It may also be wishful thinking to presume/assume that she meant something when not actually saying it.

There's a whole lot of confirmation bias at play, on both sides of the argument.

 

[walt34]

There's a whole lot of confirmation bias at play, on both sides of the argument.

Exactly. We know nothing. Which is why I believe that the statement was messed up communication and that 'we have nothing to say' would have been the better answer. But we also only know if this is true after they tell us more.

 

[Sandisw]

I agree. While Chang's comment may or may not have been officially approved or rehearsed, it strikes me as wishful thinking when people are assuming, with no concrete evidence, that she was just completely wrong/lying.

Then explain why they won’t stand by it? If someone is reading things on the internet and wants to make sure it’s accurate, many at DVC are still saying “we have no information.
•?

So, there is a reason to take her words with a grain of caution and I think that’s where some of us are right now.

That doesn’t mean it won’t end up being part of PVB. But to say that Changs comment was officially confirming it and there is no doubt still?

That’s simply not accurate because her statement did leave it open. It may have been closer to it being part of PVB than it had in the past, but she left the door open which is we some of us are still not yet convinced it’s a done deal…and won’t be into it is officially filed.

Just like CFW..:until it was officially filed as part of a trust, none of us knew for sure that would happen.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I agree. While Chang's comment may or may not have been officially approved or rehearsed, it strikes me as wishful thinking when people are assuming, with no concrete evidence, that she was just completely wrong/lying.

It may also be wishful thinking to presume/assume that she meant something when not actually saying it.

There's a whole lot of confirmation bias at play, on both sides of the argument.

I don’t think there’s any confirmation bias in just taking Chang’s words at relative face value. Yes, she qualified them enough to give DVC an out, as any executive probably would, but it’s very difficult for me to believe that she would announce pretty clearly a specific intention to a bunch of DVC owners, hard line enough to attend the annual meeting, without following through.

To somehow believe that she made a mistake, that she blurted out a complete inaccuracy her superiors hadn’t approved, that she never should have said anything at all, that she couldn’t say what was actually going to happen because secret plans detailing DVC’s true intentions had not yet come to fruition, that her statement must be wrong because this isn’t how things were handled with BPK, that she must have been lying, all seem pretty far fetched. That’s way beyond confirmation bias and seems more headed toward fantasy.

 

[Sandisw]

I don’t think there’s any confirmation bias in just taking Chang’s words at relative face value. Yes, she qualified them enough to give DVC an out, as any executive probably would, but it’s very difficult for me to believe that she would announce pretty clearly a specific intention to a bunch of DVC owners, hard line enough to attend the annual meeting, without following through.

To somehow believe that she made a mistake, that she blurted out a complete inaccuracy her superiors hadn’t approved, that she never should have said anything at all, that she couldn’t say what was actually going to happen because secret plans detailing DVC’s true intentions had not yet come to fruition, that her statement must be wrong because this isn’t how things were handled with BPK, that she must have been lying, all seem pretty far fetched. That’s way beyond confirmation bias and seems more headed toward fantasy.

Except they won’t confirm it with owners…so explain why that is??

If the statement is meant to be a confirmation, then the answer now by guides should be the same “The plan right now is to make it part of PVB”.

No one seems to want to at least admit that DVC is not standing behind what was said

So, it’s not fantasy when some of us are getting a different message from official DVC sources and simply are not convinced things can’t change.

 

[J-Dog]

Except they won’t confirm it with owners…so explain why that is??

If the statement is meant to be a confirmation, then the answer now by guides should be the same “The plan right now is to make it part of PVB”.

No one seems to want to at least admit that DVC is not standing behind what was said

So, it’s not fantasy when some of us are getting a different message from official DVC sources and simply are not convinced things can’t change.

But not confirming what she said, and actually meaning the opposite of what she said, are 2 very different things.

Maybe she did blunder - because DVD was not yet ready to divulge that info for legal reasons with the timeline of the permitting process? But that's a whole lot different than her saying the total opposite of what they intended.

In the end, you may be right. But IMO, until we have actual evidence, I think we have to assume that her statement is factual. Or, at the very least, not assume her statement is dead wrong.

 

[Hubalorian]

But not confirming what she said, and actually meaning the opposite of what she said, are 2 very different things.

Maybe she did blunder - because DVD was not yet ready to divulge that info for legal reasons with the timeline of the permitting process? But that's a whole lot different than her saying the total opposite of what they intended.

In the end, you may be right. But IMO, until we have actual evidence, I think we have to assume that her statement is factual. Or, at the very least, not assume her statement is dead wrong.

I mean, I can’t even get it confirmed that question was even asked or an answer was provided. In my mind that’s a red flag for something. Why can’t they answer, yes this question was asked. I’ve seen the exact question and answer change based on the source. All of this does not equal a clear cut statement with definitive results

 

[Sandisw]

But not confirming what she said, and actually meaning the opposite of what she said, are 2 very different things.

Maybe she did blunder - because DVD was not yet ready to divulge that info for legal reasons with the timeline of the permitting process? But that's a whole lot different than her saying the total opposite of what they intended.

In the end, you may be right. But IMO, until we have actual evidence, I think we have to assume that her statement is factual. Or, at the very least, not assume her statement is dead wrong.

I don’t think any of us have said she was dead wrong but rather that her words may not be as confirmed as people are reporting.

Again; I am going by what I am being told by DVC over and over and others have been given the same run around. So, I have it in writing that they can not answer the question “if I own PVB points, will I be able to use them at 11 months at the Poly tower? Or “I headed Yvonne chang stated this is the current plan, did that happen?”

To me, that’s pretty solid evidence that iDVC seems to be distancing them from the statement,

Either that or all these different people are lying? Why would they do that?

That doesn’t mean it won’t become PVB but those of us who have spent a lot do time trying g to get further confirmation have reason to be suspect that this one comment was the offical announcement that PvB owners get 11 month booking or that it won’t have restrictions.

So, I certainly am not going to support it’s a done deal when that is not what I am being told.

I am taking her comment like the ones I am getting…it could be leaning PVB but they might still change their minds.