Big Dipper to CP?

You can't make an case for eminent domain to save an amusement park. That's hardly an issue of national security or maintaining infrastructure.

Edited because Jeff beat me to it.

Sure one could make a case for eminent domain to save an amusement park. It's been employed to advance just about every municipal or state decision conceivable. Not saying it's morally correct or fair, only that it can be done entirely legally.

Here in Akron, the university has worked with the city to legally take dozens of commercial and residential lots to put in a new football stadium. Hardly a vital issue of national security. I guess you could call a stadium "infrastructure", but probably in about the same sense you could call an amusement park "infrastructure".

I'm not making a case for anything, only saying that if you think the state couldn't intervene in a situation like this, you're mistaken.

Ensign Smith said:
only that it can be done entirely legally.

In so much as legal implies that you can get 5 of 9 justices to agree with you.

Yep.

...And the fact remains that even after the original housing plan for Cedar Point was scrapped, the rest of the peninsula...from the CP parking lot (is that adjacent to Biemiller's Cove?) all the way back to the mainland *was* plated out for residential development. So I suppose what we ended up with was sort of the best of all possible outcomes at Cedar Point.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Parts of the 'Bar' (the narrow portion of the peninsula where the Chaussee now runs) were plated for residential use as many as three times: in 1909, in 1914 when the Chaussee was built, and again in the fifties.

I think that is Biemiller's Cove directly behind the parking lot.

Mike, what you're missing is that GL was a losing battle and what CF has planned is to better the area and increase infrastructure. Leaving a park that's losing money and has no attendance around a lake where many other things could be added in order to increase spending and population for the area would be a very stupid move on everyone's part.

I'm not saying I wanted to see GL go anywhere but to think that the state government is going to step in to save a roller coaster is pretty nieve. Especially when there are plans to improve the area where it sits.

Also, the two situations are completely different so I'm not sure how you're comparing apples and oranges. In CP's case they were attempting to save the entire area not just one ride and especially not for nostagia's sake.

I dispute that it has been proven that GL was a losing battle. Until that day at the pearly corporate gates when Cedar Fair opens up its books to all, I won't be convinced otherwise.

Even yielding that point for convenience's sake, keeping a money-losing amusement park is not necessarily a worse option than putting in something else, whether it be condos, a strip mall or a golf course. Amusement parks, like a few other attractions, can be revenue multipliers in a way that those other places are not. People don't stay at hotels to go golfing.

I agree that it is rather naive to put much stock in the idea that the state is going to swoop down like a knight on a shining horse. Of course, when all that's left is you and the dragon, wishing for a knight ain't such a bad thing.

As far as your last point, I don't believe there's much difference. A lot of folks over at ACE were pushing for preservation not only of BD, but also a relatively small nucleus of park surrounding it to maintain it as a viable entity. So it's not so much a comparison between apples and oranges as it is between a Macintosh and a Red Delicious.

Especially not for nostalgia sake? "But thousands of Ohioans had sentimental feelings for the resort, and their influence extended as far as the State Capital in Columbus."

Again, from "Cedar Point: the Queen of American Watering Holes". A description of the situation in 1956.

Ensign Smith said:People don't stay at hotels to go golfing.
A lot of folks over at ACE were pushing for preservation not only of BD, but also a relatively small nucleus of park surrounding it to maintain it as a viable entity.

You obviously don't play golf or if you do, only as a once in a while type thing. Not only do people travel to play golf, they're the ones that are left with the money. People spend thousands and thousands of dollars a year to travel and play golf all over the U.S. Don't you think it would really help the area if a world class golf course went in and drew large groups of people who actually have the money to spend rather than a few enthusiasts who have season passes and come to spend as little as possible in the park? Heck, the PGA Championship has been played on multiple public courses now, who's to say they couldn't aim for that? THe skies are the limit but as long as the stagnant park sat there it would never get off the ground. You have to look past your emotions and see the big picture and that's most of the problem when it comes to groups like this.

As for them preserving not only BD but an area of land, that's obviously a pipe dream. There's just as many, if not more, people surrounding Conneaut Lake Park and that's never going to happen either. Money talks and BS walks. CLP was actually supporting an entire community where GL was on life support by the community.

LOL. You have me dead to rights. No, I am absolutely not a golfer. I think I may be the only person in history to to tear divots out of the astroturf at a driving range . . . Thanks for educating me.

I never thought of the state, or some other angel, swooping in and saving the park or part of it as anything more than a pipe dream. Do I wish it happened somehow? Hell, yes. But this is the real world we live in. All I wanted to do was point out that there was something like precedent for it even within the confines of Cedar Point's own history.

I feel like I'm getting drawn back into the whole debate over the park closure, which is not my intent. There are dozens of other threads on here and Coasterbuzz on the topic, which I don't have a need to resurrect or repeat. So before Jeff steps in and shuts it down, let's just agree to disagree.

Incidentally, I always thought -- or at least since GL's closure was announced -- that CLP had a much better chance of surviving as an amusement park. All CLP needs is two million in debt paid off and a little start up money. GL? If some park chain came in and offered Cedar Fair twice what they paid for it, there's no way in hell they were going to let it remain as a park if they weren't going to be the ones running it.

BS walks, and so does Mike. I'm off to sunny West Virginia for my first visit to Camden Park. See you guys tomorrow night. :)

I think that a lot of people are forgetting that ACE is an organization that is devoted to preserving roller coaster history. ACE does not have the money to preserve the Big Dipper all on their own. Considering the fact that ACE does not have enough money to build a museum yet, they do not have enough money to buy, and move a roller coaster. Currently ACE (members of ACE?) is doing what they can do to preserve the Big Dipper whether the options are viable or not. You cannot fault them for trying. At least they are trying to get something done.

The Boy Scouts stand for nature preservation, but you cannot expect them to buy up every piece of land with an endangered plant or animal on it. They look for resources that are available in the community to help them with their project. ACE does the same thing, look at Leap-the-Dips and other successful projects. I believe that ACE is trying to do everything that they can do, and if the Big Dipper is lost to progress I feel that ACE did what it could do to save an important part of Ohio roller coaster history.

Hopefully the people on this site will be a little more sympathetic when it comes time to try and preserve parts of CP history when the time comes that they will be eyed up for future expansion.

Ensign Smith said:
I dispute that it has been proven that GL was a losing battle. Until that day at the pearly corporate gates when Cedar Fair opens up its books to all, I won't be convinced otherwise.

Wow. You're never going to let that go. You honestly believe a business wants to fail on purpose, and a business run by a huge ego at that.

I'm more or less with Jeff on this one.

I think Geauga Lake was not doing well, but was improving, and I think Cedar Fair had every intention of completing the transformation and rebirth of Geauga Lake, but I think that plans changed when it became obvious that a significant chunk of the company resources were going to have to be dumped into the CBS parks, parks that were all already more successful than Geauga Lake.

Suddenly Geauga Lake became more attractive as a source of hardware than as a viable amusement park.

And that's as deep as I think the "conspiracy" goes.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

I don't know how anyone could say with a straight face that GL was doing well. I went there last summer and it was like a ghost town. I didn't wait more than 2 trains on any coaster, and the longest wait I had was because a guest threw up on Dominator. Several of the rides were poorly maintained and painful, not to mention boring. The water park on the other hand was full of people and seemed to be quite popular. I even said to my girlfriend the day I was there that they just needed to keep the water park open and cut their losses on the ride side. How that does not make sense to some people I will never know.

If the State will ever aquire Casinos. I say with all that area there would be hotels and casinos and the Big Dipper there. Then people would be able to jump in the waterpark too. That would give Cedar Fair more attendence in the Waterpark.

Jeff said: Wow. You're never going to let that go. You honestly believe a business wants to fail on purpose, and a business run by a huge ego at that.

Hasn't happened so far, but keep trying! :)

Who says he failed? Remember, Geauga Lake didn't close, it's merely more of a waterpark these days. From some perspectives, it could be viewed as a solid success. As far as I can figure out, Dick Kinzel achieved all of the following:

1. Got rid of his beloved flagship park's only substantial remaining competition within the industry.

2. Acquired a treasure trove of rides that could be chop-shopped out to most of the other parks over a three year period, saving millions.

3. (Pending) Sold the land under the aforementioned attractions for many millions more.

4. Was (nevertheless) able to claim -- with a substantial appearance of legitimacy -- that he did everything he could to save Geauga Lake.

5. Was able to claim GL, in fact, was still open.

6. Erected a waterpark that would legitimize points #4 and 5, while simultaneously . . .

7. Providing an inventory of relatively easily transportable water attractions that could be distributed to Soak City and other CF waterparks, in the eventuality it proved unable to stand alone.

Now, for the very last time: I am not (completely) convinced that Cedar Fair bought Geauga Lake with the intent of shutting it down. I suspect that at the very least, its fate was largely determined when the Paramount parks were purchased. I voiced my concerns here at that time, and was poo-pooed on this site for doing such then.

^RaceRinger, noting that several of the rides were poorly maintained does not exactly support the notion that Cedar Fair was working hard to bring in guests.

Unless someone else has some new piece of evidence to inject into the discussion, I'm going to bow out of this debate now.

They've lost money this entire Geauga Lake affair. That hurts the bottom line, and they had their first year in the red since, I dunno, probably since they went public. This is a public company, not just Dick's play thing. There are real consequences for failure, not the least of which is a unit price that's getting kicked in the nuts, and if cash flow goes south, a cut or elimination in the distribution.

Do you really, honestly believe that causing GL to fail and put all of that at risk makes any sense at all? Remember, Kinzel owns 1.3 million units. On paper, he's lost more than $14 million of his own wealth in the last year.

And why would you "eliminate" the competition when you can own it? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Jeff said:
This is a public company, not just Dick's play thing. There are real consequences for failure, not the least of which is a unit price that's getting kicked in the nuts, and if cash flow goes south, a cut or elimination in the distribution.

The most cogent argument against the buy-to-close theory, and the primary one that keeps me doubting it.

However, the history of Wall Street is replete with companies -- including some very big ones -- that have made some very idiotic decisions on no more than the gut instincts of the CEO. Anybody remember New Coke? Do you think Kinzel didn't wish he could take a mulligan on TTD, for example?

In fact, if you think about it, CF's actions with GL boil down to idiocy however you slice it. Either idiocy in buying a park to shut it down, or idiocy in buying a park they thought they could fix and then thinking they could improve attendance by shipping out major rides without replacing them. Pick your preferred brand of stupidity.

I thought the "nobody ever buys out the competition to shut them down" school of thought had been suitably shot down. Yes, it happens. It is a not so uncommon business practice. Did it happen here? I don't know, and I'm sure I never will.

Am I beginning to sound like Donald Rumsfeld? Do I like making and answering rhetorical questions? No! Then why am I making them? I don't know! ;)

I'm not debating whether or not the company has made mistakes. I'm calling you out on your assertion that they would tank a business on purpose instead of allowing it to add to the bottom line.