Tweet
Originally posted by Bulldog
I was attempting to point out, perhaps clumsily, that there are generally good reasons why timeshares haven't been built in certain locations that surficially seem attractive. And large seasonal variations in demand is often a key reason timeshares have not been built in those areas. It's not as if timeshare developers and promoters have ignored such locations. In the early days of timesharing many timeshare projects were sold in such areas. In fact, many developers in those areas set up their projects as timeshare so that they would have a means to sell off season inventory that they otherwise wouldn't be able to sell. (Thus the sales pitch for buying that blue week in Manitoba so that you can trade into Hawaii or the Caribbean in February.) The observation that few timeshare projects are still being done in such areas is, IMHO, quite significant, especially when combined with the financial pressures that many of the existing resorts in such areas are experiencing.
Certainly there are winter vacation packages to Nova Scotia. I can equally point out winter vacation packages in the Lakes region in Northern Minnesota. Some people love to go to northern Minnesota lakes in the winter for snowmobiling and ice fishing.
Bht that doesn't change the situation that resorts in the the Minnesota lake country have a difficult time keeping off-season weeks in paying status. Heck, even southern California beach locales, where there is moderate winter demand, have difficulty keeping winter weeks out of foreclosure.
*****
The simple reality is that if one wants to control annual fees in a trust operation (such as used by DRI), then the only resorts that should be added to the trust are resorts that have strong year round demand. Adding seasonal resorts to the trust causes annual fees (denominated as $/point) to increase unless the average point values for the resort exceeds the average point value all resorts in that trust.
Comment