Gordon Bombay

If I had $200 for every development near Cincinnati in the past twenty years that talked about building a movie theatre, I'd have enough money to actually build one. Bowling Alley? That's a past time steadily declining in American society and one not typically associated with luxury entertainment and vacationing - unless it's ala "Star Lanes" in Newport. Keep in mind, that what they're proposing isn't a rival amusement park or experience similar to Coney Island. It's not like they'd cause Coney to go out of business due to competition. Could we hear who these sources are and do you have a link to the marina plans? I'd love to see those/hear more about that. I'd take their press releases with a grain of salt. This is a "racino," not a full scale casino or anything like seen in Las Vegas. Las Vegas has tons of entertainment options for multiple demographics. I doubt there's going to be consumer demand for a luxury hotel at a site where you can gamble on horses and play slots. Coney seems safe. I'd say the bigger issue is where do they plan to park all these people when they build on the existing lots?

If you read the PDF, then you didn't read all of it. Pages 25 & 26 address both the items you mentioned. First T2 - Two new trains at a cost of 2.2 million, and Thunder Run, rehab of current trains, costing 30k. http://www.kentuckykingdom.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/KKRC_ResponseOct2012w.pdf Thank you for the link, I apparently missed that. However, is this the same PDF we were talking about originally? I seem to remember one that was much longer and had a list laid out of all the estimation costs and where these estimates were sourced from - i.e. what vendor estimated the price? I'm seeing a vendor for the wave pool and water ride, but is there one for the rest of the rides? Also, does it state anywhere that these vendors specifically visited the site to make their estimations? I imagine refurbishing this for 30k (if that's accurate) is cheaper than buying a new train: One other thing, if anyone can answer it, Hart previously claimed in his last attempt that he had financing in place which would allow him to pay the lease rent and fund the park's operation, but wanted money from the Commonwealth to fund improvements and repairs. His original estimation was $50 Million then he dropped it to $20 Million. Now he claims he needs no taxpayer incentives, so who are these new investors? Personally I think Hart's numbers should have an asterisk by them. They're not necessarily lies, but you have to look at the full story: "KKRC will accept essentially the same lease terms that the state previously approved for the Holiday World investors. Including the jobs it will stimulate in the hospitality industry and construction trades, Kentucky Kingdom will produce, on average, 2,150 full-time jobs annually." Please be aware, that doesn't mean 2,150 full time positions at that small park. I seem to remember for a proposal for an American oil pipeline that considered the increased hours of a local burger king near where construction would be taking place as "full time jobs." I'm actually surprised a newspaper printed press release bullet points word for word without any kind of comment. I'm curious as to why Bashear is now "excited," when previously he seemed mum on Hart's proposal. Even so, let's say Hart does get a lease with the state, there's still the question of where his financing will come from, although he did have investors last time. I bet he'd pull a Holiday World - "well, yeah, we're gonna just do the water park at first." Keep in mind, his bullet points are referenced for being the ENTIRE park opening. The last operators to have a look, who have much more experience in the industry than Hart, jumped ship without even trying. Also, I don't remember the Koch's ever touting economic benefit numbers like this. I honestly wish the state would just sell off this land. This whole process is awful and it speaks volumes that there's only ONE guy interested in it.

*picardfacepalm.jpg

^And I would say even Holiday World agreed with the waterpark sentiment when they realized opening the ride's side wouldn't be worth their time initially if at all. I don't think Holiday World ever had intentions of owning the park and knew that wasn't going to happen. Why would the state sell off that land to them? They wouldn't to Hart initially, wouldn't to Six Flags and I doubt they'd do it to a new operator. They sit on the Fair Board firmly knowing they have a cushy deal: "We own the land and get a large cut, what's left is yours." Six Flags said "screw it" and left. Holiday World made it very clear and public that they were in lease negotiations, not ownership negotiations. They had a deal in place, only after they toured the park did their announcements about "ride experts" deeming it not a viable pursuit for them and they backed off the Lease deal. After going through Hart's estimates for some of the repairs, I'd think some of these are not at all accurate, inflated or grossly underestimated. Having been in the park, legally, myself and seen it with my own eyes. For T2 it makes no mention of needing new trains. Are they planning to repair the one in pieces in the station and scattered under the ride in the grass? Same with Thunder Run. You can't tell me that the train currently sitting on the track (and it has been for several years now), unprotected, not winterized, with most of its valuable parts stripped off is in any condition to run. I'd like to see the park succeed, I think it's beautiful little place. However, if it does - I bet it'll be a waterpark. These days though it looks like the state has had enough of Hart, the Fairboard and the mess the park situation has become. Gambling is the new tourist attraction, but is KY too late? Edit: On another note, to those thinking this is all very personal to Mr. Hart. I'm sure it is, but I don't think it's for the same reasons you do. I think it's personal on a political level to him, I think he feels burned at being rejected before and watching the state negotiate with Holiday World. Ed Hart is not Walt Disney. He didn't return to his beloved Bluegrass home in order to restore his "Kingdom." He's here because he sees a business opportunity, one he's familiar with and in a location where his name is known. If he plays his cards right - he looks like the hero and the politicians look like they want to keep the park closed. Maybe he ultimately believes he can turn the park around. But if he loved it so much in the first place, why did he sell it to Six Flags? Money. He's a businessman through and through. That's not an insult, more of a compliment. Like Mike Brown - people think the guy is downright evil, but the guy makes money, and a good lot of it.

Haha, that's kind of what I was hoping to accomplish by posting this. I'm hoping that with the vast communications that is the internets... someone from Paramount Parks back in the day may chime in and say "Oh yeah, we got those from..." or explain the backstory. And yes, it is nerdy. I will say though that it's nerdy not because of Star Trek, but because I saw the scene and was like: "Wait, I've seen those before. Oh yeah, Flight of Fear. Must. Make. Post."

So last night I couldn't sleep. As usual when I can't sleep, I watch something on Netflix. Recently, I just started watching Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. I was a huge fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation growing up and I've seen Star Trek: Voyager all the way through, so finally watching Deep Space Nine seemed like a good thing to do. So far the series has been good. Last night, I started season two around 5 AM. The episode, entitled "The Homecoming" deals with Major Kira going to the planet Cardassia to rescue prisoners of war from her planet. Herself and Chief Miles O` Brien infiltrate a Cardassian Labor Camp. The episode aired on September 26, 1993. Here's a still from the episode: Recognize anything familiar? Probably not. In a way I'm a bit embarrassed to mention that I noticed this, but it's still kind of interesting. In the above image, the random sphere objects at the "labor camp" can be seen in person at Kings Island: Flight of Fear was constructed during the peak of Paramount's ownership, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was a Paramount Television show. I just thought it was interesting that whoever designed the Flight of Fear queue may have had access to Star Trek props - or maybe the spheres are just some kind of stock item that get used constantly. Anyway, yeah the nerdiest thing I've ever written, but here's your useless information for the day! Also, the altered photographs were taken by Don Flint of KIEXtreme.com, used with his permission, give his site a visit!

Ok, guy, are you taking the time to read people's responses? I don't mean to drag this thing out, but you keep repeating your posts nearly verbatim with little consideration for what others are adding to the discussion. Frankly, it's frustrating. Again, at the age of eighteen you are allowed to rent hotel rooms, however it is up to the hotel as to what age they'd like to set as the minimum. This is perfectly legal. As others have pointed out several times now: state law allows for the hotel operator to decide such things and it does not count as discrimination. You may think there needs to be a state law saying that every hotel must rent a room to anyone regardless of age, but that would be against the property owner's rights and it's not going to happen. Regardless, it doesn't help solve the OP's question which others have tried to do when not engaging in this side topic. Again, this is simply not true. At the age of 18, you acquire many "adult rights." However, there are certain adult things you get to do at 16 and even more you are privileged to do at 21. There is not one set age as to where you receive every privilege under law. While 18 is the general age for many privileges, it's not the sole one. You can believe that all you want. It's certainly your opinion. However, 50 states and the entire armed forces all agree that 21 is an appropriate age. Actually you can be tried as an adult when you are younger than 18. You've said this about five times now. I'd go through it again, but let's make this short: The above statement is not a good argument as to why you believe hotels should HAVE to offer services to anyone at the age of 18. To be frank, if they gave their life - they wouldn't be able to have a drink anywhere, they'd be dead. But, I won't get caught up in semantics. Just because this is how things were done in the past doesn't mean that things don't change. States had the option to raise the drinking age and they ALL chose to do so. The military chose to raise drinking age on their facilities to 21. It may be your opinion that soldiers should be able to drink at 18, but that's not the legal case at the present time. Also, it has NOTHING to do with hotels. No, it's not. Renting a hotel room and consuming alcoholic beverages as an adult are two very different things that fall under different kinds of rules. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RENT HOTEL ROOMS. All anyone has stated is two facts:1) Even in the military, you still can't drink till you're 21 whether in the states or an American base (except Marine bases in Japan). 2) Hotels have the LEGAL RIGHT to set an age restriction. That's just how it is. No, please try to understand the law. You're an "adult" who now has more privileges in life at the age of 18 depending on residence. It does not, will not and never has been "all or nothing" at one age. Next time, I'm going straight to the Picard photo... SSL488, Were you able to get ahold of the hotel? Often times, even if the website won't sell to someone under 21, the hotel may and could match the deal for you. Doesn't hurt to ask.

Call the hotel directly. Many times the website (price line, hot-wire, etc) requires a patron to be 21.

No, it's not in conflict with the law. Age discrimination protection legally starts after the age of 40, not below or before. As the poster above you pointed out, it is legal to rent a hotel room at the age of 18. As many other posters pointed out, including myself, some of us have done it before the age of 21. It is up to the property owner. Mr. Wykoff mentions state statutes that allow the hotel operator to set their age limit. Please note that bars and restaurants can do the same. Requiring a guest to be 21 at a certain location is not in conflict with the ORC, state law or illegal as you imply it to be. You keep pointing out ad-nausem that 18 is the age to enter into "contracts." That has nothing to do with this. Even if I'm 18 and can sign contracts, I can't drink alcohol or sign a contract to rent a car, there's also certain bars and establishments I can't enter. Be of legal age to enter into contractual agreements affords you just that - the right to enter into a contract, nothing more. You're comparing apples to oranges. Not to mention, the 21 and up rule for hotels may be a policy of the particular travel site the OP was using. How one particular location of one particular hotel chain did things thirty years ago is not a good reflection of the industry troday. The poster right above you, and others, pointed out that it is NOT law, but individual policy of the hotel operator which is legal in the state of Ohio and common throughout the entire hospitality industry. Not sure why you keep coming back to this as it has been stated to you multiple times, they can. However, just because they are a soldier doesn't mean the hotel operator has to change policy for them. Just like an 18 year old can join The Marines, fight in combat and not legally be allowed to drink in a bar back home. Just because you volunteer for the armed services and could potentially be put into combat doesn't mean you get to circumvent the laws of the United States.

Ok, first off, no one was "black mailed." Let's get a few things straight here. The law that was passed required all states and territories to raise their drinking age to 21 or lose 10% of Federal Highway Funding. The idea to raise the minimum age was in response to an increasing number of highway fatalities regarding drunk driving and young adults. The law passed with large support from both parties and both houses of Congress. However, it left the drinking age and other details up to the state. No state was forced into this and they weren't going to lose "all transportation funds," just a portion of funds that the federal government allows them for building highways. Leverage? Yes. Black Mail? No, it was perfectly legal. All fifty states complied. However, consumption of alcoholic beverages is still permitted to those under 21 in some states, just not the sale of alcohol. State laws vary. Negative. 18 is not an "all or nothing" age. When I turned 16, I had completed all of my drivers education and in-car certification, I took the driving test and passed. I was legally allowed to operate a car and be placed on insurance. My parent's gave me adult responsibilities and I got my first job. Does this entitle me to alcohol? No. You are required to register for Selective Service, there is currently no draft going on in the United States. When you volunteer for the armed forces you are making a choice, a very honored and respectable one. You volunteer with full knowledge of the laws of the United States and that you may be placed in harms way. This does not entitle you to consume alcohol at any age, but 21 as established by laws in all 50 states. Also, as Interpreter pointed out some exceptions can be made on military bases. However, it should be noted that all branches of the US military have adopted policies, confirming the 21 age limit on all installations regardless of their proximity and host country. The only exception is for Marines in Japan who are allowed to abide by the local legal age of 20. There are laws against speeding, yet who's consistently driving the speed limit? You're talking about two different things that don't correlate with each other. In Ohio, the 21 age limit for hotels is set only by some hotels pending their parent company. It is not a law.

Regarding: "daring a hotel" to refuse service to an active duty soldier on leave. Inn Keeper laws are established at the State level, not the federal level, so the local hotel policy around here isn't influenced by the national drinking age. In fact, I'm fairly certain that the "21 and up" rule for hotels is most likely just corporate policy rather than a state law. I certainly understand where they're coming from. Ever stay in some of the "cheaper" hotels around Cedar Point? Good luck getting sleep, most people are just there to party. If it came down to it and an active duty service member needed a room in an emergency, I'm sure the hotel operator would be willing to make an exception. As for the bar comment: I've had friends and family who have served in the armed forces, some of them in combat roles. I respect them for their decision to join and serve the country. However, the law is the law. I would argue most people at the age of 18 aren't mature enough to be drinking regularly, not all, but most. I know I wasn't at that age. A few years ago, I had a friend return from the Navy. I picked him up from the airport and we went to a local bar & grill to grab some food. He was in his fatigues and a gentleman at a nearby table sent us a few beers. When the waitress came over she explained how they were from one of the other patrons, but still asked to see our ID's. Neither of us were 21 yet, so we had to pass on the gesture. Thankfully, no one I've known has "lost a limb," but even still that doesn't make them exempt from the law. In regards to the OP: You might have better luck looking for hotels a little further away from the park. I recommend checking around West Chester or along the I-75 corridor near 275. Lots of options there and they may not have that policy. If most do, you can have a parent call on your behalf and book it for you. Or just call the hotel and ask if they can make an exception.

Two future signs that I have taken the last stop at Willoughby...I have stopped posting on here...and there's a selller with a ton of Kings Island memorabilia listings on eBay. Given all the cool things you have, I think we need to have a fundraiser to buy you some property and a small building... get a KI museum started.

No need to. Send those trains around enough times with their steel wheels against the track and the cosmetic problem resolves itself.

Uh, where were you hanging out online?

Why build a hotel when they can buy GWL? This would allow them to generate income all year long, plus they can create a new entrance in that area. Just my thought. That's assuming Appolo Global Management would be interested in selling them that property. My bet is, they wouldn't.

Rumor has it that the kids who run the Flight Deck purposely fudged the numbers in order to "get even" with the kids who run the Back Lot Stunt Coaster. Glad someone else noticed the conspiracy.

By all means, please enlighten me.

So you don't like it when people post something you perceive as rude or crass, but then you state your dissatisfaction by being *cough* rude or *cough* crass?

You guys know he's just throwing around ideas and sharing his art, right? He's not actually going to change the entrance.

I would disagree. After reading through Hart's proposal, the cost of refurbishing those rides really adds up and that's just with the estimated price which could very well come in at a much higher cost. A wise member on this site once said you can learn more from what isn't being said than what is. The fact that Holiday World walked away even with the local government's support speaks volumes. From what I've seen, the Fair Board isn't involved with this proposal and no one in the Commonwealth Government seemed to like Hart's proposal last time. If you're going to accuse them of "pulling the wool over everyone's eyes" in order to "get in the pocket" of someone, how about some details? Who exactly are they trying to help out by not saving Kentucky Kingdom? It doesn't add up. - Hart's initial proposal failed to secure investors and he walked away. - Holiday World came in and had the necessary government and financial support - began inspecting the place and abruptly walked away, now remaining quiet on the issue. - Now Hart is back with all kind of numbers that no official seems to be taking seriously. - The number of "other proposals" from other "potential operators" won't be released. My guess is there weren't any. When no other operator is interested and the only one who was walked away - I think that spells out the fate of KK right there.

I went to Geauga Lake once in 2006. Didn't care much for the park. It was like a ghost town and not just from lack of patrons, but from closed sections of the park and shuttered buildings. Even towards the end it seemed to have lost a lot of the charm it had in the above video. OP, thanks for posting!

The news station isn't saying their interpretation of the proposal makes it "in doubt," they're saying that the sources and people they've interviewed are in "doubt" about it, as noted in the article. Did you read the article? While the state suggested in its RFP that collateral can be used, the other government officials who were sourced (presumably and most likely not the same ones who did the RFP study) expressed "doubt" and concern over that method. Hence the article. The news station didn't spin this to make it "exciting," they reported it pretty accurately. There's an RFP that suggested ways of financing. Ed Hart made a new proposal. Government officials expressed concern and doubt.

I wouldn't get too excited. This is the SAME group that was turned away before, who had questionable funding and couldn't attract private investors. They said the SAME thing last time about how they had plans for all these great new rides and plans to get the old ones working. As someone who's seen those rides first hand and has experience working on ride maintenance, I'd doubt much of anything there could still work without a major overhaul - severely affecting whether or not half those rides are worth salvaging. Even Holiday World said they brought in their "ride experts" and gave up on the idea of reopening the rides anytime soon. I sincerely doubt that this proposal will be taken anymore seriously than this groups last proposal - as nice as they are and no matter how good their intentions may seem. They're claiming they want to get a $15 Million coaster - I'd say that's just PR speak. How realistic is that? How many consultants, planners and manufacturers have they actually brought in to study such an idea? I'd wager - none. Remember, even "The Beach" claims they're going to spend 1 million on a new wave pool, four new slides and a new kids area. As stated by others before, I highly doubt Cedar Fair has any interest in Kentucky Kingdom. They're overcoming their financial difficulties with the PP purchase, seem to be on solid ground and are instituting a new culture around their new CEO. I doubt they want a once moderately successful park that's been abandoned for three years that has a few rides that have been un maintained. The city of Louisville doesn't really seem to care either way. And remember - after the Fair Board kicked Hart to the curb, they went with HW. HW fell through and the Fair Board touted all those "operators" who were lined up to make proposals. No one else did and now their back to Hart. That park has no future, no matter what PR and political games people want to play.

The only machine that's going to be operated in that park will be a wrecking ball.

Matt Hunter Ross is awesome. He runs an excellent website here: http://acincinnatihistory.blogspot.com/