Current owners: Do you feel that renters are impacting resort availability?

[keishashadow]

What stands out is that getting what was normal has changed in the last 3-5 years, when the appeal of a great location, low point charts and moderate dues became obvious to those that want to make money by renting as opposed to vacationing

You make good points from AK & BW owner perspective

At the risk of ruffling feathers, I do have to chime in that we never really had a huge issue booking some sort of studio during popular time periods at either resort, even after the 7 month window.

That changed dramatically after SSR opened. So many more members piled into vying for that small ‘pool’ of studios

Not my intent to pile on, do find it funny when I’m chatting with members of some length who share they’ve never stayed at their home resort It’s always SSR being referenced.

YMMV

Thing is, all the strategies of member usage referenced here are currently perfectly permissible. the whole flexibility that DVC touts can easily work against some owners.

At least there are hints shared here that have helped me personally over the years

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

I really doubt they could move against a website, as such. They would need to move against the DVC owners, as Disney's contract is with the owners, not the website. And it absolutely require proof of meeting the"commercial renting" definitions as set forth by DVC.

Now, if the website somehow violated a copyright, with say, professional photos of resorts and such...but also proving said photos were proseeional and not just taken by an individual on a vacation is also a problem, especially since Disney allows and encourages vloggers in the parks, at D23 and so forth.

I get your point... rental "broker" websites may be getting all of their inventory from many individuals each only renting a small number of reservations. What's been proffered (admittedly, it's speculation), is that there are some owners who have acquired a vast number of points with the express intent of renting out those points/reservations. That may not actually be the case but, if it is, this certainly seems like it fits the definition of commercial renting.

It may have been stated earlier, but is it 20 reservations within 12 months per owner or per membership? I recall seeing descriptions of LLCs, etc. where they have multiple owners, each with multiple memberships, all snatching up high demand reservations to rent on their website. Even though they may not violate the 20 per 12 rule by the letter of the law, if that's happening, it's definitely a huge loophole being taken advantage of in order to engage in "high volume" rental activity without technically getting flagged as "commercial."

 

[Sandisw]

Looking at the resorts you own, I can see why the situation doesn't resonate with you as much as it does with owners such as @keishashadow and myself. Something is always available at Riviera, VGF, and Saratoga as well as OKW at 7 months for me. The only room that goes faster is the Tower studio, and I've gotten that at 7 months.

Same for @Chuck S - Old Key West will have availability. It's even possible to snag a grand villa at 7 months as they have more of them. Not that expensive and a great layout.

With all due respect to both of you as Moderators, you are not facing the same challenges at the 11 month window as a Boardwalk owner who wants to have a fair chance to book a vacation for their own use at a resort they've owned for decades.


Many of us feel the same as you. BWV has been a sold out resort for a long time. There are always resales at every resort. What stands out is that getting what was normal has changed in the last 3-5 years, when the appeal of a great location, low point charts and moderate dues became obvious to those that want to make money by renting as opposed to vacationing. With a night as low as 9 points per night and dues of approx $8.67 per point, it's pretty difficult to lose. It's not even speculation. It's a sure thing. The next step is getting the rooms, that's where the bots come in.

In 20 years or less, Riviera will be the 'bargain' with access to two parks. BWV will be in the process of being resold, and it won't be cheap the next time around. The points charts will probably be doubled. Another possibility is that the hotel side become villas as well.

I felt the same way when I owned both BWV and BLT. And, as I posted, if I don’t get SV at RIV or VGF, I book the highr points rooms. I don’t think it’s fair to say that our thoughts on renting in relation to our contracts doesn’t count because we arent booking those specific rooms.

And, if I am not mistaken, even with my own monitoring, all resorts have something available at 11 months…just not the rooms that are cheap. In a way, that proves the point, that this isn’t about renting in violation, but high demand by both owners who use and who rent for not enough cheap rooms.

Everyone gets to have their own opinion, but mine is not based on the fact that I don’t own at the resorts in question. If I did, I’d be booking the rooms that are there. And, I begrudge no owner who wants to snag up the really popular rooms and either use them or rent them.

I mean, how often do we give the advice that no one should buy any of the resorts expecting to get the cheap rooms.

 

[Sandisw]

I get your point... rental "broker" websites may be getting all of their inventory from many individuals each only renting a small number of reservations. What's been proffered (admittedly, it's speculation), is that there are some owners who have acquired a vast number of points with the express intent of renting out those points/reservations. That may not actually be the case but, if it is, this certainly seems like it fits the definition of commercial renting.

It may have been stated earlier, but is it 20 reservations within 12 months per owner or per membership? I recall seeing descriptions of LLCs, etc. where they have multiple owners, each with multiple memberships, all snatching up high demand reservations to rent on their website. Even though they may not violate the 20 per 12 rule by the letter of the law, if that's happening, it's definitely a huge loophole being taken advantage of in order to engage in "high volume" rental activity without technically getting flagged as "commercial."

It was per membership. And what DVD also added, to temper things was limit any owner to own no more than 4000 points at any one resort, and a total of no more than 8000 points across all resorts.

That is why I have said that what I do think has increased is the volume of owners who are renting points and that why we see as many as we do…but DVC still needs to look at things at the individual level since the contract is with that person, and not the membership as a whole group.

If you had 1000 owners renting occasionally a 20 years ago, and now, with the ease of the internet and sites that help you rent, we now have 10,000 owners renting, it’s going to look like everything has to be “commercial renting”

 

[Judique]

But at the same time, just a couple of months ago, everyone was blaming walking. Now they are blaming renters. When in reality, lack of availability is a combination of many things, It used to be many parents had no issues pulling their children out of school for a week to travel. Now the school threatens parents with truancy, shifting that demand to school holidays like Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter, there is a larger number of small contracts than there were several years ago thanks to the resale market thus increasing the competition for standard/value studios, Disney cash hotel prices increased sharply, increasing the demand for DVC Rentals, more and more people are walking popular room types thus squeezing out member that basically don't have enough points to do so. and all of those factors will likely continue to get worse.

Again, a complicated mix of factors, and I'm just not convinced that "Commercial Renting" or brokerage sites is the single most responsible culprit, but it is certainly a contributing factor. We've seen an increase even on our small rental board of members wanting to rent out existing reservatons. Not that long ago, it was basically all point rentals, not existing reservations. And do you really think everyone buying those prime fixed week contracts were doing so for their own usage? I'm sure there is a good percentage of those reservations out there for rent, too, judging from the push back we received for not allowing 7 night full week rentals starting on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday to be offered. That is taking up to 35% of units away from availabilty at newer resorts during high demand vacation times.

I'm not against renting. Or even walking.

It's not the 7 month window causing a significant problem.

"Larger number of small contracts" Back when I bought in 2000, small contracts were starting to be a thing. Once BCV opened, everybody, including me, bought a small contract. Disney did promos also to get people to buy up points at Hilton Head and Vero Beach and many people bought small contracts at those resorts. To me that says small contracts have been on the rise for 20 plus years and most were probably sold at the newer resorts, VGF comes to mind as well as AK Jambo, so smaller impact on the 11 month window at BWV.

Your statement on 'more people are walking popular room types squeezing out member that basically don't have enough points to do so' isn't completely accurate. If you have enough points to book a reservation of one or two nights you have enough points to walk, unless you are just trying to get the one night and have to walk over a high cost night. Hardly worth it.

I would assume the popularity of renting out existing reservations has arisen from the lack of availability down the line.

No fixed week reservations at any of my four resorts. Also little to no problems at three of my resorts, just Boardwalk.

As far as walkers go, 3-5 years ago, I could just wait for the walkers to walk by. Now, once the room is gone - it's gone.

 

[BeachClub2014]

But at the same time, just a couple of months ago, everyone was blaming walking. Now they are blaming renters.

Again, a complicated mix of factors, and I'm just not convinced that "Commercial Renting" or brokerage sites is the single most responsible culprit, but it is certainly a contributing factor.

The problem I have is when the topic of "renting" and its impact on DVC is discussed, it usually devolves into these extreme positions. The thread title asks whether current owners feel that renters are impacting resort availability. I will only speak for myself here and not make statements about "everyone" or the "single most responsible culprit." It is either naive or pedantic to argue that rentals, especially broker sites that exist solely to rent DVC reservations, have no impact on resort availability.

Again, speaking for myself, I am not anti-renting. I've rented points twice over the length of my ownership and will likely do so again if necessary. I am against the plethora of commercial sites and venues that seemingly violate the POS, and my hope is that DVC does "do something about it." I also have real concerns over these sites that leverage technology to garner a disproportionate amount of the hardest-to-get reservations. It is no longer a level playing field.

 

[tx911]

The problem I have is when the topic of "renting" and its impact on DVC is discussed, it usually devolves into these extreme positions. The thread title asks whether current owners feel that renters are impacting resort availability. I will only speak for myself here and not make statements about "everyone" or the "single most responsible culprit." It is either naive or pedantic to argue that rentals, especially broker sites that exist solely to rent DVC reservations, have no impact on resort availability.

Again, speaking for myself, I am not anti-renting. I've rented points twice over the length of my ownership and will likely do so again if necessary. I am against the plethora of commercial sites and venues that seemingly violate the POS, and my hope is that DVC does "do something about it." I also have real concerns over these sites that leverage technology to garner a disproportionate amount of the hardest-to-get reservations. It is no longer a level playing field.

Right. We all understand that these high-demand rooms are always going to be difficult.

What I object to is having to compete with rental bots (and walkers) on top of the challenges of limited inventory.

 

[Sandisw]

Right. We all understand that these high-demand rooms are always going to be difficult.

What I object to is having to compete with rental bots (and walkers) on top of the challenges of limited inventory.

Using bots, whether the owner is renting or not, is definitely be something that DVC should be monitoring and putting in safeguards to prevent that.

 

[Chuck S]

Stopping bots could be a very simple fix, just do one of those "select all pictures that contain a bicycle" type CAPTCHA things we all hate. But it would likely have to be translated in several languages, and have the qualifier that if you can't get past that you would need to call, email, or live chat with Member Services. But, since Disney likes to unify logins for ALL their various sites, and are reportedly going to "login once and access ALL the various Disney sites." that could certainly complicate things and throw a monkey wrench into accessing all the various sites, so probably would not be implemented.

 

[DonMacGregor]

If you had 1000 owners renting occasionally a 20 years ago, and now, with the ease of the internet and sites that help you rent, we now have 10,000 owners renting, it’s going to look like everything has to be “commercial renting”

This is why the "discussion" always turns into an "agree to disagree" exercise in pedantry.

The contention made by myself (and others) is not that "everything looks like commercial renting". Literally no one has painted the situation with such broad strokes, especially after the debate has been addressed in a half-dozen threads over the past year or so.

Over and over, very specific examples of behavior that very clearly does NOT "look like everything" have been given. Specifically, the LLC's that own multiple contracts (verified by several posters who spent a good bit of time on the Comptroller's website), multiple LLC's that have the same officers, as well as the renters who advertise on other social media platforms, listing dozens of confirmed reservations per year.

In an earlier post, I pointed out that an LLC can be set up in Florida for the whopping sum of $25. Before lunchtime tomorrow, and for less than $400, I could set up 13 discrete LLCs to buy points at every WDW resort. Points totals mean absolutely nothing.

Everything does NOT look like commercial renting, but certain specific behaviors certainly do (and that doesn't even include bots).

 

[CarolMN]

IMO the only way to stop almost all renting is to:

• Make every change of lead guest be a cancel & rebook.
• Upgrade the waitlist software to check the waitlist before every booking

If every change was a cancel and rebook and the waitlist software upgraded, walking would also be virtually eliminated as well.

I doubt very few of us would welcome those changes. I know I would not

 

[tx911]

I doubt very few of us would welcome those changes. I know I would not

Lol, this sentence is making my brain hurt. I still can't figure out if it means a lot of people would welcome it, or not many

 

[CWTC]

IMO the only way to stop almost all renting is to:

• Make every change of lead guest be a cancel & rebook.
• Upgrade the waitlist software to check the waitlist before every booking

If every change was a cancel and rebook and the waitlist software upgraded, walking would also be virtually eliminated as well.

I doubt very few of us would welcome those changes. I know I would not

Agreed - there are legitimate reasons why people may need to change a reservation by a day here and there. Forcing a cancel and rebook to add or remove a day would take away flexibility. We booked 8 nights for 10/2024 at BCV - decided a few weeks ago to add a night and did so via modifying our reservation. It would, in my opinion, be incredibly punitive and/or draconian if the system had forced us to cancel and rebook the entire trip, thus risking us losing the room entirely.

 

[lowlight]

Agreed - there are legitimate reasons why people may need to change a reservation by a day here and there. Forcing a cancel and rebook to add or remove a day would take away flexibility. We booked 8 nights for 10/2024 at BCV - decided a few weeks ago to add a night and did so via modifying our reservation. It would, in my opinion, be incredibly punitive and/or draconian if the system had forced us to cancel and rebook the entire trip, thus risking us losing the room entirely.

If the cancel and rebook is for lead name change only, how much would you be affected?

 

[CWTC]

If the cancel and rebook is for lead name change only, how much would you be affected?

If it was just a name change I wouldn’t be but CarolMN’s post referenced all changes which would also eliminate walking or any walking like changes.

If every change was a cancel and rebook and the waitlist software upgraded, walking would also be virtually eliminated as well.

 

[lowlight]

If it was just a name change I wouldn’t be but CarolMN’s post referenced all changes which would also eliminate walking or any walking like changes.

Yes, that suggestion is probably a little extreme, I meant the first suggestion.

Make every change of lead guest be a cancel & rebook.

Separate changes could be added to curtail walking that aren’t as punitive to members who just want to add a day here or there.

 

[Chuck S]

Except, there is nothing that I know of that REQUIRES the owner be removed as lead guest on a rental.

I think many people looking for less expensive accomodations would be willing to leave the owner as lead name. and simply check-in at the front deak, as anyone in the room can do front desk check in. Mom and I had invited two cousins many years ago for a January trip. I booked two studios, one for Mom and I and one for the two cousins. We were expecting a rare ice storm the night before, and we had a morning flight. I figured the airport could clear the runways and de-ice the planes, but the roads to and from the airport would be closed. There is no hotel built into the San Antonio airport, but I suggested going to the airport the night before and just sleeping there if need be. We had already reserved a rental car at MCO for the next morning. One cousin was fine with that, the other, a rather prim and propert school marm type, said she was not comfortable with that, and camcelled. Anyway, when the three of us got to the airport, we were on the last flight out to Orlando that night, We got the rental car early, and they didn't charge us (remember those good old days when car rental companies allowed for emergencies?) We spent the night in Kississimmee, and checked into OKW the next morning. We told them the lead on the second room wasn't coming and it was no problem, they said any adult on the reservation could check-in.

The problem may be having the same lead on mutiple reservations for the same dates. So they would just have to avoid offering existing reservations with overlapping dates.

 

[lowlight]

Except, there is nothing that I know of that REQUIRES the owner be removed as lead guest on a rental.

The lead guest counts towards room capacity, so you are negating a family of 4 for a lot rentals. It wouldn’t solve everything, but it wouldn’t harm much, either.

 

[Sandisw]

This is why the "discussion" always turns into an "agree to disagree" exercise in pedantry.

The contention made by myself (and others) is not that "everything looks like commercial renting". Literally no one has painted the situation with such broad strokes, especially after the debate has been addressed in a half-dozen threads over the past year or so.

Over and over, very specific examples of behavior that very clearly does NOT "look like everything" have been given. Specifically, the LLC's that own multiple contracts (verified by several posters who spent a good bit of time on the Comptroller's website), multiple LLC's that have the same officers, as well as the renters who advertise on other social media platforms, listing dozens of confirmed reservations per year.

In an earlier post, I pointed out that an LLC can be set up in Florida for the whopping sum of $25. Before lunchtime tomorrow, and for less than $400, I could set up 13 discrete LLCs to buy points at every WDW resort. Points totals mean absolutely nothing.

Everything does NOT look like commercial renting, but certain specific behaviors certainly do (and that doesn't even include bots).

Of course, all those LLCs would appear to be set up for the purpose of renting a lot.

I don’t think I ever said they didn’t exist….but, since no one knows for sure that each of those LLCs, individually, are in violation of the current definition by DVC of what can constitute a threshold for review of commercial renting, it’s not that simple.

Neither you nor I are privy…nor are we ever going to or should be…to the exact number of reservations being rented on each of those memberships.

If there are 100 LLCs all set up for the purpose of avoiding the rules, and those 100 LLCs represent a small percent of overall owners actually renting, I don’t agree that equates to the commercial renting business is out of control. But, there is no question that the DVC rental market has exploded in the past 5 years, meaning as a collective, we have a lot more owners who do it..

Regardless, if DVC has decided that whatever is happening, after their review of those memberships, and they have said they do, are not in violation of the contract, then as far as I am concerned, they are not…

Even with knowing that the LLCs exist, how does anyone know for sure that all those rentals being advertised on those sites are coming from the same owners or same memberships. One can speculate they are, but none of us know for sure.

And, to add to a point brought up earlier, I have indeed had difficulty booking the hard to get rooms at BWV, and BLT when I owned, as well as RIV and VGF, only to see those same dates listed for rentals, and I still am not bothered because owners are allowed to rent.

My stance will always be based on what is currently in the rules…and if DVC sees less than 20 reservations per year that appear to be rentals as a non issue, then I am okay with that.

 

[Chuck S]

Separate changes could be added to curtail walking that aren’t as punitive to members who just want to add a day here or there.

That could be an issue with an online booking system, if they have to pick and choose just which members may add a night or two and who may not. And there is nothing at all in the POS that forbids cancelling a night or two and adding a day or two..I mean, I have only walked once for a Thanksgiving week reservation for a handicap room type I had to have, and there are only 3 of those rooms, and I'd still not like any change that allows a computer to decide if an owner is worthy of changing/walking their reservation. I needed an HA GV, as I was traveling with a peron oin a scooter, and there is ONE GV at OKW with a ground floor entrance, and TWO in am elevator building. Of course, while not neededing the full unti to be modified, only the actual access to the unit, OKW could solve that problem by adding elevators to more buildings. But unless there is law change requiing it, I don't see that happening after 32 years of operation.

Member Services used to encourage walking for specific seasons and room types, l;ong before the current reservation system was emplemented.