Post reply

Re: Manhattan Club Lawsuit (by Chris V.):

mazarati wrote:

The 9 month rule is not the problem here. It's other things. The 9 month rule is important as those needing a full week must have that opportunity or there would be nothing but fragmented weeks available. Every timeshare on earth that allows less than one week stays has the 9 month rule because it's absolutely necessary.

The problem is that almost all timeshares who offer less than one week reservations are flawed. Timeshare only really works well for those who want whole weeks AND can plan ahead. If you ask timeshare to give you 3 nighters and on short notice, you will be very disappointed (as you are). Most timeshare experts in places such as Red Week or TUG know this. It's not what people want to hear but unfortunately it's reality.

What we really need at the MC is control of the board. If we get that, we can address the abnormally high management fees etc and get our annual maintenance fees back down below $2000 per year. Maybe even down to $1800 or so. We need to have control like other projects. Eichners built in a clause saying as long as he owns one single MC ownership, he has board control. Normally after about 60% sellout, owners gain control. This is the problem.

a timeshare has similar or the same situations as condominium by laws: THEY CAN BE AMENDED. so eichner's controlling "built in clause" can be changed and/or amemded to the benefit of all of us owners. the board of directors has 3 developer (eichner) members and 3 other members who seem to be token people playing a make-believe game of "representing" owners, which we have, obviously, NOT SEEN HAPPENING. NOW, THE QUESTION IS: WHAT CAN BE DONE TO CHANGE THIS TO SHAREHOLDER'/OWNERS' BENEFIT, E.G., SUBSTANTIALLY LOWERING OUR MAINTENANCE FEES?