Jump to content

Kings Island Drive


WHODEY2007
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh man, the city of Mason....just really, really doing it here. Fixing those signs! I think my trips to Kings Island would be ruined with those old signs. Heck, even most of this summer when I'd drive up there and see those signs with the paramount logo still on them I'd consider turning around. Yes! Clap for Mason! :P

How do you know KI isn't paying for the signs rather than the taxpayers of the city of mason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man, the city of Mason....just really, really doing it here. Fixing those signs! I think my trips to Kings Island would be ruined with those old signs. Heck, even most of this summer when I'd drive up there and see those signs with the paramount logo still on them I'd consider turning around. Yes! Clap for Mason! :P

How do you know KI isn't paying for the signs rather than the taxpayers of the city of mason?

There were more than a few times this past season when I got off that Western Row exit and say these signs saying, "Paramount's Kings Island" and thought to myself, "What is this Paramount's Kings Island; did I make a wrong turn?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Mason's case, I can see the taxpayer dollars paying for the signage as being fair. First, much of Mason's tax money comes from the park and its patrons. Second, they are considering an admissions tax. Third, the park (and those signs) bring people to Mason who will spend money elsewhere. The signs were old and needed redoing anyway. Why not use taxpayer money when it largely came from the park and its patrons?

Not saying that was done....or even that Mason was the one who replaced the signs...is that a state highway? ODOT could have been involved....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Mason's case, I can see the taxpayer dollars paying for the signage as being fair. First, much of Mason's tax money comes from the park and its patrons. Second, they are considering an admissions tax. Third, the park (and those signs) bring people to Mason who will spend money elsewhere. The signs were old and needed redoing anyway. Why not use taxpayer money when it largely came from the park and its patrons?

Not saying that was done....or even that Mason was the one who replaced the signs...is that a state highway? ODOT could have been involved....

Because it's basically advertising for the park.

I think the municipality should just stand firm and say, "ya don't want Paramount on the sign, this is how much new signs cost."

I just don't see it as a government role to advertise any business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also possible that funds from a motel tax (convention and visitor's bureau) paid for the sign. Hotel/motel users get socked with all kinds of local and state taxes, some of which are used to benefit the area advertising campaigns...

Tax is Tax.

The less that is taken from the people for non essential items the better.

Public Safety, Security and Health - OK - non essentials, leave it to the people.

Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why this is a big deal.

The same signs were replaced when it became Paramount's Kings Island prior to the start of the 1993 season. The same type of signs were also changed numerous times with the Geauga Lake/ Six Flags Ohio/ Six Flags Worlds of Adventure/ Geauga Lake in Auora.

And I'm pretty sure that it is not Mason that is responsible for the signs and maintenance of the highway, but the responsibility lies with ODOT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why this is a big deal.

The same signs were replaced when it became Paramount's Kings Island prior to the start of the 1993 season. The same type of signs were also changed numerous times with the Geauga Lake/ Six Flags Ohio/ Six Flags Worlds of Adventure/ Geauga Lake in Auora.

And I'm pretty sure that it is not Mason that is responsible for the signs and maintenance of the highway, but the responsibility lies with ODOT.

And there we have it.

I don't see why someone in Northern Ohio (and their tax money) needs to pay for advertising.

They charge folk money for those signs that advertise restaurants and gas stations at the next exit.

The same if not more should apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has not been confirmed that the state or any tax dollars are paying for the sign. A similar incident happened a few years ago when Sharon Woods wanted to advertise their holiday lights celebration along to I-275. At the time I was working for my neighbor who is now a former county engineer. I would help him and his crew deliver and mount signs like the ones you see on the side of the road telling you about lodging and food, and would help paint lines in some cases. Sharon Woods already had up the typical brown colored signs (brown signifies a park or attraction) telling what exit you needed to take to get there. Well, when christmas season rolled around they requested new signs that would feature their holiday logo, the state told them that since it featured the picture of the logo and not just the name and exit number, they would have to foot the bill, sharon woods instead had their own made and hired contractors to go out and do it for them. This resulted in the state having to come out and take the signs down. Eventually one sign did appear and it was installed by the state and paid for by Sharon Woods. I'm sure the signs that had the big Paramount logo painted on them were paid for by the park and if new ones appear that have the new logo the park will probably pay for that too. However if it just says "Kings Island - take exit #" it's probably tax dollars, thats not advertisement, thats just part of the highway system.

There are also cases where local municipalities will pay for signs similar to the old Paramount ones in order to boost tourism. Recently the city of fairfield caught some heat after the tax payers footed the bill to put up Jungle Jim's International Food Market signs along I-275, the city defended the expenditure saying it was good for boosting tourism and business while critics claimed it favored a certain business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has not been confirmed that the state or any tax dollars are paying for the sign. A similar incident happened a few years ago when Sharon Woods wanted to advertise their holiday lights celebration along to I-275. At the time I was working for my neighbor who is now a former county engineer. I would help him and his crew deliver and mount signs like the ones you see on the side of the road telling you about lodging and food, and would help paint lines in some cases. Sharon Woods already had up the typical brown colored signs (brown signifies a park or attraction) telling what exit you needed to take to get there. Well, when christmas season rolled around they requested new signs that would feature their holiday logo, the state told them that since it featured the picture of the logo and not just the name and exit number, they would have to foot the bill, sharon woods instead had their own made and hired contractors to go out and do it for them. This resulted in the state having to come out and take the signs down. Eventually one sign did appear and it was installed by the state and paid for by Sharon Woods. I'm sure the signs that had the big Paramount logo painted on them were paid for by the park and if new ones appear that have the new logo the park will probably pay for that too. However if it just says "Kings Island - take exit #" it's probably tax dollars, thats not advertisement, thats just part of the highway system.

There are also cases where local municipalities will pay for signs similar to the old Paramount ones in order to boost tourism. Recently the city of fairfield caught some heat after the tax payers footed the bill to put up Jungle Jim's International Food Market signs along I-275, the city defended the expenditure saying it was good for boosting tourism and business while critics claimed it favored a certain business.

And I think that's the way it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it is tax dollars that pay for the sign, as well as the removal/ installation of the signs the amount spent on the signs is not that much considering how much tourism dollars fuels the local economy.

I would be intrested to see how the Ohio tourism bureau is funded for such things as 1-800-BUCKEYE as well as numerous TV advertisments shown out of state. If the entities that are being advertised for fund it, then the signs are not tax dollars. And if it is tax dollars funding it, so be it. Where would Mason be w/o KI?

Chances are, it is tax dollars that pay for such things. I can't see the Zoo, airport, or sports arenas paying for it. And they all have the same type of signs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it is tax dollars that pay for the sign, as well as the removal/ installation of the signs the amount spent on the signs is not that much considering how much tourism dollars fuels the local economy.

I would be intrested to see how the Ohio tourism bureau is funded for such things as 1-800-BUCKEYE as well as numerous TV advertisments shown out of state. If the entities that are being advertised for fund it, then the signs are not tax dollars. And if it is tax dollars funding it, so be it. Where would Mason be w/o KI?

Chances are, it is tax dollars that pay for such things. I can't see the Zoo, airport, or sports arenas paying for it. And they all have the same type of signs.

Exactly, not sure why tax payers should be funding tourism groups when it is something that a coalition of businesses could do better and more efficient.

I'd say eliminate the agency if it is tax funded.

And Mason was actually around long before Kings Island came to town.

Kings Island came to the area as there was so much ample space.

But ya know what, take a look at West Chester. Are you going to attribute the boom in West Chester, Harrison, Milford and all the areas that surround Cincinnati with what Kings Island brought?

Urban sprawl is urban sprawl. It would be there with or without the park.

All be it, with not as much revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...