Greenberg Rentals

[Grumpy and Grandma 740]

For those considering Greenberg you may want to rethink that rental. They have started renting units out in the resort where we now reside and I recently found out why. They are no longer on DISNEY's preferred list. I think there may be some serious issues as to why that happened.

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

Whoa... that's very interesting indeed!  When we were there not long ago they had a ton of units in and out of the Fort the entire 6 weeks we were there.  They were also keeping a bunch parked out in the field to the right of the old kennel.  I wonder what happened so quickly?

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

For what it's worth, Greenberg's website still says they're a preferred vendor, but that doesn't mean much.  In my experience in my day job, people don't tend to be good about keeping their websites current.

The Disney site no longer lists them.  They currently only list:
Luxurious RV Rentals LLC
Meacham’s RV Rental 

[DaveInTN 3,247]

18 minutes ago, BradyBzLyn...Mo said:

Whoa... that's very interesting indeed!  When we were there not long ago they had a ton of units in and out of the Fort the entire 6 weeks we were there.  They were also keeping a bunch parked out in the field to the right of the old kennel.  I wonder what happened so quickly?

Is that who owned all those campers sitting out there?  They were all the same make...figured it was something like that.  There were tons of them!

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

15 hours ago, DaveInTN said:

Is that who owned all those campers sitting out there?  They were all the same make...figured it was something like that.  There were tons of them!

Yep, all those Catalinas were Greenberg.  While we were at the Fort there were usually at least 3-4 of them parked out there, and we saw them setting up campers in sites regularly as well.

They seemed to be doing a booming business. I wonder what happened?

[shoreline99 137]

Just curious - is the PREFERRED vendor list a pay-to-play operation? Or is there some specific vetting process you need to go through and standards to maintain to be a PREFERRED vendor? First assumption is always that the vendor had complaints or some such, so I'm just curious if there's more to it than that.

[Katman1356...Jason 1,140]

When Curt got out of the business I know there were a set of requirements to be able to come and set up at the Fort and additional requirements to be a preferred vendor. Not sure if they were paying for that designation (probably) or if it was just additional insurance and other things Disney wanted. 

[mouseketab.....Carol 1,261]

It was definitely pay to play from what Curt told me, and if you didn't pay, you could still be a vendor, but you weren't allowed to set up the camper until your clients had arrived. Curt didn't want to pay, and he didn't wan't to have to set up campers at all hours.

[WannaBeImagineer 98]

I remember a couple years ago there was a group of those matching Catalina's in the loop with us and I was wondering what was going on.  There was a ton of them and the campers had the small uhaul trailers with them, I guess some of the 2000 groups had upgraded to rentals.

WBI

[Grumpy and Grandma 740]

1 hour ago, mouseketab.....Carol said:

It was definitely pay to play from what Curt told me, and if you didn't pay, you could still be a vendor, but you weren't allowed to set up the camper until your clients had arrived.

I doubt it was a money issue. They supposedly bought lots here and the units just sit vacant a good part of the time. Don't think the FORT was charging them that much.

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

2 hours ago, mouseketab.....Carol said:

...you could still be a vendor, but you weren't allowed to set up the camper until your clients had arrived. Curt didn't want to pay, and he didn't wan't to have to set up campers at all hours.

Yep.  That sounds like the biggie to me. Before they were allowing the rental companies to come setup the morning that the guest was checking in, regardless of when they were arriving. That made it easy to schedule setups and pickups and not have to have a big staff of employees running campers in and out all day.

I'm not sure if/what the fee was to Disney but the requirements for insurance Disney required were pricey. Apparently pricey enough that there are now only 2 preferred vendors even though there are still a bunch more companies doing rentals.

[mouseketab.....Carol 1,261]

FYI - have seen some reports where some of Greenberg's units are being repossessed at the Fort over the last few days right during a guest's rental or right after

[Beckers 1,136]

1 hour ago, mouseketab.....Carol said:

FYI - have seen some reports where some of Greenberg's units are being repossessed at the Fort over the last few days right during a guest's rental or right after

Whoaaaaaaaaa

[Breezy2 18]

Appears to be a sign of things to come. Wouldn't be surprised to see all outside vendor camper rentals doing setups on Disney property go away. They need to fill all those new rooms they are building. Or, maybe THEY will start renting official "Fort Wilderness" campers...hmmmm ? 

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

23 hours ago, mouseketab.....Carol said:

FYI - have seen some reports where some of Greenberg's units are being repossessed at the Fort over the last few days right during a guest's rental or right after

Yikes!!  "Repossessed" says to me that this isn't Disney doing this, or am I wrong about that?

9 hours ago, Breezy2 said:

Appears to be a sign of things to come. Wouldn't be surprised to see all outside vendor camper rentals doing setups on Disney property go away. They need to fill all those new rooms they are building. Or, maybe THEY will start renting official "Fort Wilderness" campers...hmmmm ? 

They pretty much already sealed that deal when they started with "official" vendors approved and promoted by Disney - after meeting a bunch of conditions (including carrying quite a lot of insurance) and presumably paying some sort of a fee, but I haven't seen any info about that.  However given there are currently only 2 official camper rental vendors, and one is a luxury MH company, I'd expect it costs a fair bit to be "official."

[Grumpy and Grandma 740]

21 minutes ago, BradyBzLyn...Mo said:

Yikes!!  "Repossessed" says to me that this isn't Disney doing this, or am I wrong about that?

Definitely would be a bank or financial institution.  

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

20 minutes ago, Grumpy and Grandma said:

Definitely would be a bank or financial institution.  

Yeah that's what I thought too.

But then on their FB page they're announcing that they're getting new 2020 trailers delivered today.

As Jen says, things that make you go hmmm....

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

Oh and the pic in the post looks like it may have been taken at the Fort?

[Travisma 1,317]

There was a FB post about seeing the trailers being taken away.  They said Disney put the campers up somewhere.

[Beckers 1,136]

11 hours ago, Travisma said:

There was a FB post about seeing the trailers being taken away.  They said Disney put the campers up somewhere.

Totally nosy where did you see this?

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

12 hours ago, Travisma said:

There was a FB post about seeing the trailers being taken away.  They said Disney put the campers up somewhere.

hmmm... "put up the campers somewhere" is pretty vague - backstage? overflow?  If they were really being "repossessed" I'd expect they'd be taken completely off property, not stored elsewhere by Disney.  

Now if they were removed from the sites by Disney for some reason, that's a whole other thing entirely and maybe someone misconstrued that for being "repossessed".

I know there were issues in the past of some rental companies leaving their campers on sites past checkout, in one case I heard of it was days before the company retrieved it (heard this from another vendor who'd been called by Disney asking if it was theirs - it wasn't).  I wonder if there was a similar issue here, or some other issue with Greenberg that caused Disney to remove all their units?

Hard to know how accurate FB "reporting" is, but definitely seems like *something* is up.

[djsamuel 322]

28 minutes ago, BradyBzLyn...Mo said:

hmmm... "put up the campers somewhere" is pretty vague - backstage? overflow?  If they were really being "repossessed" I'd expect they'd be taken completely off property, not stored elsewhere by Disney.  

Hard to know how accurate FB "reporting" is, but definitely seems like *something* is up.

I saw the same FB post.  They meant that Disney put the guests that had to leave the camper at another resort.  The campers were towed away with the Sheriff department watching.

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

17 minutes ago, djsamuel said:

I saw the same FB post.  They meant that Disney put the guests that had to leave the camper at another resort.  The campers were towed away with the Sheriff department watching.

Well that does sound like actual repossession.  Or, thinking back to some other incidents at the Fort in the past when the Sheriff dept got involved, possibly they issued some kind of trespassing order that included removing the campers?

Glad Disney took care of the guests, but what a major PITA for those people.

FWIW I'm not seeing anything about this on their FB or Twitter - although neither is terribly active when it comes to people commenting/tweeting about them.

There is a comment from a day ago that says the phone # listed on their website isn't working, but that's the same day they posted about new campers being delivered.

When were the campers towed?  That photo that looks like it was taken at the Fort was posted 19 hrs ago according to FB.

[Grumpy and Grandma 740]

47 minutes ago, BradyBzLyn...Mo said:

  Or, thinking back to some other incidents at the Fort in the past when the Sheriff dept got involved, possibly they issued some kind of trespassing order that included removing the campers?

But that would mean the renter/guest didn't pay for their site so DISNEY wouldn't put them in another resort.

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

7 minutes ago, Grumpy and Grandma said:

But that would mean the renter/guest didn't pay for their site so DISNEY wouldn't put them in another resort.

I was thinking if for some reason Disney trespassed Greenberg (and it included removing all Greenberg's property), and since the guest who paid for the site didn't have another camper, Disney put them up elsewhere.