The difference here is that the new recreational facilities (pool) will be pretty far away for PVB. With other associations, the pools are spread out, but you can book a room near them. And you can take the thought further, would PVB have to pay for shared spaces within the Tower? As you take it further, I think it gets more likely to upset PVB owners. At that point, why not just charge us for the VGF recreational facilities? I'm kidding, but...
I tend to also think that if they go the CCV route, the pool will be a common element of Poly2. Because if it were for the hotel, wouldn't WDPR need to pay for it instead of DVD? But, I'm not convinced that they could or would charge PVB dues for it. Remember that PVB's POS only discusses common facilities with the hotel. If Poly2 is a separate association, then PVB's POS doesn't speak to that.
The POS does state that PVB will be responsible for its share of common facilities with the hotel,, definitely true.
So, if it’s a new association then PVB, the hotel, and Poly tower will become three entitles on the complex.
You are correct that the PVB will be updated to include a relationship access to the recreational facilities at the tower and PVB condo association ..just like they did with CCV..because the pool, is being added to an amenity at the Poly resort, even if it is DVD paying for it as part of a new DVC tower. It
That is the key..regardless of how it is determined, it is going to part of the Poly Village Resort. For example, it could be named Poly Tower at the Poly Village Resort like it’s Bay Lake Tower at the CR resort.
The current POS does say that PVB owners have the right to access anything that hotel guests have access to as part of common facilities since they have no recreational facilities of their own.
Matter of fact, if the Poly hotel guests are included in access to what Poly tower has, and PVB owners were shut out, I think that could be seen as a reason to say the POS is not being followed..which is why I think everyone will have access.
Of course, If the tower is part of PVB, then PVB owners are paying for it and it’s expenses, no matter how far away it is, and the the POS will get updated so it includes that it now has recreational facilities.
It is part of the Poly tower project so it will be paid by DVD..not the hotel like I speculated yesterday..but it’s still being added to Poly hotel since it’s on the space that was the Luau Cover dinner show.
It will be the same type of situation if they add a new water taxi close to the tower. Regardless of association that new cost will be shared amongst everyone.
What won’t be a shared expense with PVB if it’s a new association is expenses directly related to the running of the tower.
For example, if it has its own lobby, with check in and bell services. Those would not apply. Things like housekeeping will be determined differently based on # of rooms vs one association that lumps them into one.
Now, where it could be a benefit to PVB owners in terms of shared expenses is grounds keeping and other common expenses. A new association splits with three instead of two..
I will say that the distance between the two is one of the reasons why I am more confident it will be a new DVC resort, with those at PVB and the hotel given access to whatever recreational activities come with it.
It is for sure a great discussion on how it will go and at least we are six months closer to answer than we were in March!!!
