Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Kentucky Kingdom | Kentucky Flyer | Gravity Group Family Wooden

Lol, it's really funny when one member who obviously doesn't read chides another member for not reading. You two are so cute.

This is a shame to hear the news. Everything I've heard about Ed has been overwhelmingly positive and it's clear that he wants the park to flourish. Hopefully the board pulls their heads out of their asses.
 
Cranedude said:
@ATI Brothers 4 life. <3
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Hixee said:
This sounds right up @Hyde's street. :p
Click to expand...
*perks up ears* Did someone mention bureaucratic power plays through land leasing and public-private partnership!?

I'm not prevy to Kentucky Kingdom's exact scenario, but had the chance with other CFers to learn about the options granted to the park through the lease for additional land from park officials a few years back. If I were the venture a guess on the hold up? The Fair Board is waiting until their next meeting to pass a vote, but is also in no hurry given the previous squabbles over fair-use parking.

This situation is very reminiscent of Cedar Fair's bought with the City of Santa Clara when the new San Francisco 49ers football stadium was built right next door to California's Great America. While the park itself is owned by Cedar Fair, the land is owned by Santa Clara, which was exerting a form of eminent domain during football game days to reserve the entire parking lot for stadium-goers. Cedar Fair, in turn, sued the city for loss of revenue and unfair disruption of business. At the end of a 4 year period, the City and Cedar Fair came to an agreement, where the San Francisco 49ers would reimburse Cedar Fair for lost parking and operational revenue on game days. The fight ultimately caused a delay of the construction of Gold Striker (which was only built after the dispute was resolved, originally meant to be built in 2008), and Cedar Fair even went as far as to try to sell the park as an exit strategy to the battle.

In Kentucky Kingdom's situation, they are already signed into a lease, so I am not sure the exact wording and spirit of having "available" parking during major state fair activities. Having visited the park during the Kentucky State Fair, I can confirm it is a confusing mess to try to go to the park, which ultimately costs you more in parking. The easiest solution, I would propose, is to shut down the park during these major moments, so long as the Fair Board can find a respectable rate of reimbursement for the park's closure. I would be interested to read more on the land lease and arrangement, but it's apparent those politics are not helping things move along quickly for the new coaster addition.
 
To add to the discussion, here's a press conference the park held this afternoon

https://www.facebook.com/

I think I can safely say we all hope this gets resolved quickly and this coaster is built on time. It really would be ****ty for the park to have planned much of it's marketing next year around a ride they aren't able to end up building on time if at all.
 
Those who know how these things work: what's the likelihood they could just redesign the section of layout that overlaps the off-limits section
I'm guessing there'd be additional design costs involved but surely that could be an option for the park?...
 
vaugc002 said:
Those who know how these things work: what's the likelihood they could just redesign the section of layout that overlaps the off-limits section
I'm guessing there'd be additional design costs involved but surely that could be an option for the park?...
Click to expand...
Short answer, is very likely.

Long(er) answer is why didn't they avoid that patch of land in the first place? I'd have tried to work a coaster in to the available area. I wonder if there's a reason get can't push closer to the go kart track?
 
Hixee said:
Long(er) answer is why didn't they avoid that patch of land in the first place?
Click to expand...
If I read the parks statement correctly the land is part of the development plan and obtaining it should basically be a formality. So why not plan with it? The board should not even be able to deny it. But they seem to play on time and try to get the park to give in on the parking problems. But it's hard to judge since we only know what the park says.
 
UP87 said:
If I read the parks statement correctly the land is part of the development plan and obtaining it should basically be a formality. So why not plan with it? The board should not even be able to deny it. But they seem to play on time and try to get the park to give in on the parking problems. But it's hard to judge since we only know what the park says.
Click to expand...
Of course, but if I was in charge of planning and knew the problems the park had faced with the fair previously, I might have tried to swing that tiny bit of coaster back onto the park's current land to avoid the trouble.

I do see the mindset of "we're entitled to it, so let's push for it - little bit to start", but it's not a path I'd have taken. I'd have waited for a larger expansion to try and exercise my rights. Make it more "worthwhile", and all that. :p
 
Hixee said:
I do see the mindset of "we're entitled to it, so let's push for it - little bit to start", but it's not a path I'd have taken. I'd have waited for a larger expansion to try and exercise my rights. Make it more "worthwhile", and all that. :p
Click to expand...
True especially since the current situation endangers the project (if it's true what they say) - and I assume the project already did cost a lot of money at this stage.
 
UP87 said:
If I read the parks statement correctly the land is part of the development plan and obtaining it should basically be a formality. So why not plan with it? The board should not even be able to deny it. But they seem to play on time and try to get the park to give in on the parking problems. But it's hard to judge since we only know what the park says.
Click to expand...
That being the case though, and seeing what has unfolded, it does feel like the park's reporting is close to the truth. The Fair Board has seen tons of turnover, and has yet to really show support for Kentucky Kingdom over the last few years. Given the hundreds of thousands, millions most likely, Kentucky Kingdom generates in tourism revenue for the park, hotels, restaurants, etc.; it's baffling to think how the Fair Board calculates their rationale here.
 
I'd be willing to bet that the previous statement may have added some additional pressure to the Fair Board, causing them to finally agree. Gut feel, but feels like a clever play by the park.
 
Hixee said:
I'd be willing to bet that the previous statement may have added some additional pressure to the Fair Board, causing them to finally agree. Gut feel, but feels like a clever play by the park.
Click to expand...


This was my thought as well. Smart political ploy but if what the park had been saying was true really shouldn’t have been needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top