Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK, KK) Discussion Thread

[uwgbdork]

Chang is not going to come back! It is gone whether the fair board likes it or not. The only thing that is going to come from it will be to get the damages, aka the worth of the coaster in cash. It is all about the money. The Fair board probaly could care less if the ride is rebuilt.

[mr_teisco_delrey]

Given the states finances, Kentucky Kingdom probably won't be back. Your right about Chang not ever coming back. Even though the remedy under KY law would be to restore the asset, if it indeed is a fixture, it's about the money in the end.

[thrillrider]

Chang was on a section of land that six flags owned.

[mudvayneimn]

^From the info it sounds like Chang was on part of the land Six Flags owned, not all. Maybe it'll get really nasty and the KSFB will end up with the lift hill, drop, and Loop from Chang and the rest Six Flags will keep.

[rizash]

The Kentucky state fair board is both biting the hand that feeds and shooting themselves in the feet. Six flags planned a water park, then entered bankruptcy protection. Sf said this is our final contract offer or we opt out, Kentucky fair says "omg what?" completely unexpected..... Then they sue to try to repo all the rides sfi bought from the previous owners.... Now they sue and put a pr spin on it in order to make sf look bad. Ok, fine.

 

Two problems... Even if Kentucky fair owns all permanent rides, all theme stuff, props, cars, and flat rides would be sf property. Six flags also claims to have paid property tax each year on all the rides they bought (many, many millions in total) not only is this legal precedence that establishes ownership, but is also leverage that if Kentucky fair owns the rides legally, then they will owe tax refunds to six flags, and may have committed fraud by making six flags pay taxes on tens of millions of dollars of equipment each year.

 

Other problems: six flags owned most of the land chang was on, tt was on, t2 was on, and other rides were on. Most land under chang and parts under tt and t2 and other rides. Six flags has no obligation to sell their land, an the same laws protect them so even if the state fair own parts of those rides, they would neither be able to operate nor remove the rides....

 

So with no rides, a broken up park with little land, and a landlord that has been proven to be greedy and will claim ownership of anything you invest in the park, nobody will run this park. Heck even if six flags loses all rides on fair land, they could hold their land and not sell it just to prevent the fair from running the park and rides partly on sf land.

 

This situation sucks, and I think the best solution for everyone would be for the fair board to accept six flags contract offer.

[mr_teisco_delrey]

Chang was on a section of land that six flags owned.

 

To the government - drop it. What's really funny is if the land that Six Flags owned was big enough for a water park, and they decided to build (don't bet on it), the state would have to grant an easement through the Kentucky Kingdom property without compensation. Down dare ask me how I feel paying taxes to the state government.

[spaceace12]

This situation sucks, and I think the best solution for everyone would be for the fair board to accept six flags contract offer.

 

I think that solution is far gone now......I think even if the KSFB accepted SF offer, I don't think SF would accept now. The only way I see another park in KK spot is for another operator to run it.

 

As for what is left on KSFB property, what SF put in that is transportable (correct me if I am wrong) is Greezed Lightning. And I don't see GL being moved again by SF unless they sold it to someone.

 

In the end, my theory on what will happen is. Six Flags will not be back in Louisville. They will either win the KSFB lawsuit and not have to pay a thing for Chang and anything else they have removed or they will have to pay for damages. As for the land they own, I could see them holding that land for a while just be a trouble to anyone who wants to take over the property.

[mr_teisco_delrey]

 

 

Other problems: six flags owned most of the land chang was on, tt was on, t2 was on, and other rides were on. Most land under chang and parts under tt and t2 and other rides. Six flags has no obligation to sell their land, an the same laws protect them so even if the state fair own parts of those rides, they would neither be able to operate nor remove the rides....

 

The state has eminent domain. They love to use it under the guise that it is for the good of the state and the people. They use it alot to get things they want.

You are right though that the government is in a pickle. Who would want to operate the park given the SF precedence? KI and Holiday World will eat their lunch this summer.

[Orient Wolf]

The best solution to the problem is an out of court settlement. Otherwise both parties stand to lose time and pay mountains of legal fees. I believe that most, if not all of the remaining rides, have more value installed where they are than if SF paid to relocate them. Thus, it would be most sensible for the fair board to pay SF slightly less than fair market value for all of the remaining rides and end all dispute over Chang.

 

This would allow the fair board to bring in another operator more easily. While almost no one would want another lease set up like SF did, I think a managment contract could be appealing to many companies (like CF has done with MOA and Gilroy Gardens). This way the responsibility for new ride investment belongs soley with the fair board.

[ginzo]

The state has eminent domain. They love to use it under the guise that it is for the good of the state and the people. They use it alot to get things they want.

 

Eminent domain is typically limited to public works projects and blight. I don't think SFKK is going to fall under either of those circumstances. That is unless KY plans to build a road right through the park.

 

And, even if KY were able to use eminent domain, wouldn't that just entitle them to the land, not necessarily everything on the land? And the state would still have to pay fair market value for everything.

 

Joe "The strange things you learn being raised by a real estate attorney" C.

[Bolliger&Mabillard]

even if KY were able to use eminent domain, wouldn't that just entitle them to the land, not necessarily everything on the land? And the state would still have to pay fair market value for everything.

It could be the last chance for the state give te shaft to SF.

[Midgetman82]

There is one thing I do know. Sevan new hotels were built directly next door to SFKK, they hope people who come from out of town will stay there instead of any far away hotels (the hotels are nice by-the-way). If SFKK was to go out of buisness, then those hotel managers will not be happy.

[Jew]

^I'm sure that has a lot more to do with the fact that the airport, Fairgrounds, and Freedom Hall are also close by....

 

I think the best part about this situation is that no matter what happens, both parties lose. Greed and stupidity at its finest.

[kidcoaster 2]

I think the best part about this situation is that no matter what happens, both parties lose. Greed and stupidity at its finest.

 

Also losses are the people now without jobs...

[mr_teisco_delrey]

That is unless KY plans to build a road right through the park.{/quote]

 

Or build a satellite lot for the airport, or some other lame idea to steal their land. Our state government is a bunch of vindictive hillbillies that need money to keep their game going. I wouldn't put it past the state to do something like that and then say due to the poor economy, we are canceling the project and then "sell" it to the fair grounds for pennies on the dollar.

[rizash]

Even if the state did acquire the land that way sf would have time to dismantle rides it owns and the parts of rides they own, plus planning and starting a public works project then cancelling it for another project would open them up to countless legal and civil problems that could end those people in prison. Trust me the legal problems and fees alone would outweigh purchasing everything from sfi.

 

Trust me, after what has already been shown by the state fair board, no business will run the park unless their lease says they own rides they buy, or at least unless they get to remove improvements to the park from their lease payments.

 

One last thing, as we know six flags paid ~70m for their land and rides. If the lease really was 1.5m a year as a few people have implied, no way does that include one cent towards ride leasing. The fact sf was allowed to buy the rides from the previous owner, and that sf paid taxes on them means the state fair board probably already gave in to implied laws (like how intellectual property owners have to challenge every dispute, or forever forfeit ownership). You can't just let six flags pay 50m or so for the rides, then ten years late claim ownership even though the situation is similar. The state fair board screwed up here, big time. By allowing six flags to purchase the rides from the previous owners, if they now win ownership in court (unlikely) they will owe millions in back taxes, six flags will be reimbursed, and the other ride disputes continue. If the fair board loses they could face defamation, fraud, and other charges related to a lawsuit that was not filed when the rides previous owner took posession and sold the rides to six flags.

 

If things are as they appear with sf paying for the rides and taxes on the rides, the fair board paying no taxes on the rides and only charging lease for the land, they are in deep trouble. If you rent a house from me, and I give you permission to add on or improve that property, I am require to have it appraised for taxable value and I must pay the higher property taxes. I'm no legal expert, and there are agreements that can be made to share tax fees etc, but this would not already be going to court if the state had it all in writing. This will be interesting in many ways.

[uwgbdork]

The state has eminent domain. They love to use it under the guise that it is for the good of the state and the people. They use it alot to get things they want.

You are right though that the government is in a pickle. Who would want to operate the park given the SF precedence? KI and Holiday World will eat their lunch this summer.

 

 

To chime in on the idea of the state using emminent domain, i don't think that would be a tool that the fair board would have access to. Yes the Fair Board is a publically controlled Org but would opperate much like a public run buisness instead of a governement planning agency. They are pretty much set up to oversee the operation of the land and would not have any bearing in the realm of land aquisition. I think only their big brothers in the state would have that ability and would have to be for some kind of public works project such as a highway or water main. Not only if they did use eminent domain on the property it would actually be to the benefit of Six Flags who would be entitled to the fair market value of the property including the fixtures that are located on the land. The state gets the land but six flags gets the money. The situation right now is the Fair Board knows they are screwed with six flags owning land adjacent to their own holdings now that they flew the coop. They are just going to try to get a last couple of bucks from six flags. Remember Government entities runs opposite of the buisness world. Government funding is based on "need" and they spend all of their allocated budgets each year. If they "need" the funding they can raise property taxes and other forms of revenue to cover the costs If they don't their funding is jeapardy to get cut. Where as Corporations are all about spending money in a way that will bring them greater profits. Just some ramblings that may not make any sense but who knows. Tey ARE a little slow in KY!!!!

[AllenA07]

I'm going to keep this very short, but I can almost promise you that this is not a situation where eminent domain is even at issue. Actually what Ginzo said a ways back did a pretty good of explaining the concept of eminent domain. While it would be possible to use the takings clause (because the court made a wonderful decision in the Kelo v. New London case) in the past several years states have really backed off the extremes of the Eminent Domain due to the backlash from the Kelo case. If I had to actually predict the 28th Amendment to the constitution I would place my money that it may have something to do with Eminent Domain, however that is a subject for another place. Just basically I wouldn't worry too much about the state using the takings clause here.

 

I feel very passionately about this issue actually.

[kidcoaster 2]

So what could this mean for KK?

 

Q: Is any change with the bankruptcy emergence going to change anything going on with Kentucky Kingdom?

A: Nothing will change. The park is currently sitting dormant. Six Flags has agreed to leave everything as is besides the removal of its inventory while the Kentucky State Fair Board looks at its potential future. Mark Shapiro hopes the park will live on for many years, even though it will be without Six Flags.

 

www.themeparkreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=871916#p871916

 

Personally I am excited that a park was saved amongst so many other parks closing for good throughout this current off-season.

 

But who would be interested in taking over? Seems like every park company is in some kind of trouble right now or already just made a large acquisition.

[Jew]

^That's just a nice way of saying "we're not touching anything else right now because its tied up w/ litigation."

 

There's no hope for this park. Who would want to work with the fair board after this mess?

[kidcoaster 2]

^That's just a nice way of saying "we're not touching anything else right now because its tied up w/ litigation."

 

There's no hope for this park. Who would want to work with the fair board after this mess?

 

I don't think that is the case. The way I read it is that Six Flags will leave what is there aside from removing its "Inventory?" not sure if that just refers to Signs and Merchandise or rides they put in? Either way it sounds like SF will leave the park to where if someone wants to they can come in and get it open again with little work needed.

 

My bet is though that the board may have said we will let you keep chang if SF agrees to leave everything else? Just my guess....

[spaceace12]

Speaking of chang....a friend of mine pointed this out.

 

 

Was a Chicago news station doing a story on SFGA, look to the left.

[DBru]

Yes...haven't we known that the ride has been stored at SFGAm for a while now?

[spaceace12]

I don't know, just have a friend on facebook who posted that. From what he said, all they have is a stair case and support with the train. The rest is unknown where abouts is what he told me. I have no idea, I don't pay attention to the coaster scene much anymore.

[DBru]

I just reread my last post and realized it may have come off a bit smartallic-like. Sorry about that---wasn't my intention.