They can't get to parity by treating one subset of "club members" differently on both sides of the equation.
The rules in both the Florida Statute and the original POS clearly state that they have a responsibility to members as a whole to balance opportunities to book from availability in the reservation component as a whole. I think that's black and white. She tries to get around this by suggesting that resale buyers were never promised that ANY new resorts would be built, and they could just opt Riviera out completely. Both of those concepts are true enough, but feints. Resale purchases (just like every club member) weren't promised more resorts would be added, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE, the rules requiring that club members be treated fairly as a whole group and that new resorts must be admitted on terms substantially similar as current resorts still applies.
My response would be, excellent: opt Riviera out. That IS one of their options. Redefining "club member" is not.
The idea that since there are resale members locked out on either side, equality could be achieved -- that is patently silly. In the next several years, far more direct contracts will be sold at Riviera, and it will take years for a resale market for Riviera to build. In the meantime, the L14 has 14x as many resorts generating resale buyers, and those resale buyers are going to dwarf the number of Riviera resale buyers going forward. And before a balance could be achieved with Riviera, a new imbalance will be created with the Reflections, in a never-ending cycle. To the extent that the 7 month window is fair game for everybody now, parity exists because nobody is deprived of whatever "first come, first served" opportunities are available at 7 months. There is no way to maintain that balance under this new scheme. The fact of the matter is that some resorts have more "trade" value than others at 7 months and Riviera owners are going to flock to those resorts at rates that will be unfair to say, BCV resale owners. Those owners might have access to 13 other resorts, but when 14, and then 15, and then 16 other resorts have access to them, and are seeking the use of BCV at higher demand on a per resort basis, the idea that they're creating an "one off", equal exchanging system is false.
THIS is why many thought this would be the start of a DVC2; because there's no way to create a balance in the system as they've explained it. And make no mistake, DVCM and BVTC have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to work to achieve that balance for club members "as a whole".