Genx24 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) It's all Six Flags' land anyway, why aren't they allowed to cut down the trees that they own? I can't wait until the guy in the forefront of the second picture finishes shaving his head. He's keeping just enough so he can maintain that sweet pony tail he has going on. Edited February 23, 2016 by Genx24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jcoaster Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I can't wait until the guy in the forefront of the second picture finishes shaving his head. Really not sure what he is going for with that. Was he shaving it, then had to do something and forget to finish it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boldikus Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 It's all Six Flags' land anyway, why aren't they allowed to cut down the trees that they own? They still have to present anything they plan do to the township. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genx24 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 ^ Yea, I totally blanked out and forgot they still need approval. Well, I never thought this solar farm would go through anyway. And now with both the town and the park digging their heels in, it seems like there's no resolution in sight. I will say this though. That the park refuses to use the parking lot or some of their already cleared land says only one thing to me: expansion is on the horizon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaellynn4 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I can't wait until the guy in the forefront of the second picture finishes shaving his head. OMG how did I miss that?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixFlagsAstroworld Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 A meeting about the solar farm and all everyone talks about is the guy who needs to shave the back of his head That guy is cracking me up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genx24 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 ^ That haircut is infinitely more important than any solar lot could ever dream of being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boldikus Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 A meeting about the solar farm and all everyone talks about is the guy who needs to shave the back of his head Welcome to TPR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixFlagsAstroworld Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 That guy is cracking me up ^i was referring to the bald guy. He probably wants a ponytail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boldikus Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 ^ Probably wants a ponytail? That guy is hanging onto that ponytail with every fiber of his being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coasterbill Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I don't want to be that guy, I'm never that guy, I hate that guy but something about this doesn't feel right to me. I can't believe I'm saying this but no... I don't think you should be able to cut down a forest and wetlands that are essential to the ecosystem to put in solar panels. These wetlands are important. So much so that you promised the state to keep a portion of the safari in it's natural state and on every truck that goes through that portion of the safari you pat yourselves on the back for it and talk about the importance of the wetlands. I agree with the opinions of many of the people who are against this, if they want solar panels so bad they should put them over the parking lot. I'd love for the township to help them out with tax breaks so then they can both pat themselves on the back over how "green" they are but I'm not a fan of the current plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boldikus Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 ^ I agree with you 100%. I've never posted it here just cause I don't use this forum for political discussions but from day one I am not for them putting this in the spot they want to. They have plenty of open spaces not to mention the parking lot argument. Re-do the parking lot (MUCH NEEDED) and put the panels there. There, I said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genx24 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I agree also. 67 acres worth of trees is way too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boldikus Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I don't want to be that guy, I'm never that guy, I hate that guy but something about this doesn't feel right to me. Also, for a second I thought you were talking about ponytail guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coasterbill Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I don't want to be that guy, I'm never that guy, I hate that guy but something about this doesn't feel right to me. Also, for a second I thought you were talking about ponytail guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jcoaster Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 ^ I agree, Im no tree hugger but certain things need to remain intact that are crucial to the local ecosystem. They have so many other places to stick some ugly solar panels. Part of what makes me like Great Adventre is that it has that element of "being in the woods." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFOG1991 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I haven't followed the solar farm thing very closely since it was first announced, but why don't they consider doing it over the parking lot? Has this been addressed in any way? It would save 66 acres of forest, provide shade for people parking, and they look good honestly: I'm sure it cost more, but honestly how much more? It still seems worth it as the 66 acres of land probably hold more value than the cost difference of construction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil009 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 ^Six Flags doesn't trust their costumers not to vandalize it. I'm not even kidding, they actually said that. I guess they're afraid of kids throwing rocks at it or something. The real reason, of course? $$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFOG1991 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 In addition to the money reason, I could see that being an additional reason. Although I think all parks should have a security tower in the parking lot to prevent any type of criminal behavior. Long term, building this over the parking lot seems like a much better idea, but I am sure it is cheaper to destroy 66 acres and waste space. Hopefully the park gets turned down but is given some kind of additional tax break incentive to build this over their parking. Is New Jersey one of the states that offers payment to owners of solar power that produce excess power and are connected to the power grid, allowing for that excess power to be used elsewhere? I assume they are considering how common these panels are over shopping mall parking lots in New Jersey compared to states that I know don't provide payment incentive for private production of solar electricity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Password121 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 There's a few reasons, and yes it has been addressed. First of all, there are not 66 acres of viable parking lot space for solar panels. I do believe SF has agreed to use the employee lot for panels, but even including the main lot, employee lot and Hurricane Harbor lot, you still come nowhere near enough space (which, yes, I agree, you can't really justify chopping 66 acres of trees for this project). I believe I remember reading that SF has addressed the risk of putting panels over the lot. Aside from expenses (they may also have to repave first which is supposedly $10 million they don't want to spend), it's the northeast, people are stupid and sue for anything. There are some minor inherent dangers with covering a lot with panels (visual obstructions, more things in the way for NJ drivers to run into, etc), but it sounds like a bit of an excuse on SF's part to get out of paying a much higher amount up front, IMO. There are also some buildings than panels could be placed on top of, but this is supposedly (I'm not an expert) more costly than just placing panels in a field, and altogether, even with all the lots included with the buildings, they're still short of 66 acres. Personally I think it's ridiculous how long discussion has been happening and both sides aren't compromising (they were having a heated argument about the definition of native grass a few weeks back). I'd love to see incentives from the county to help cover the parking lot expenses so they can do the three lots there and less than 30 acres of forest, but I don't know how likely it is that would happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genx24 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 In addition to the money reason, I could see that being an additional reason. Although I think all parks should have a security tower in the parking lot to prevent any type of criminal behavior. GAdv does have one of these towers. In all my years visiting the park, I've never once seen it manned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFOG1991 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 In addition to the money reason, I could see that being an additional reason. Although I think all parks should have a security tower in the parking lot to prevent any type of criminal behavior. GAdv does have one of these towers. In all my years visiting the park, I've never once seen it manned. I guess even if it was manned, the view would be blocked completely with the panels over the parking. I can see the risk there. If it isn't a huge issue for malls with parking garages, I'm not sure why it would be such an issue at a theme park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFOG1991 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 There's a few reasons, and yes it has been addressed. First of all, there are not 66 acres of viable parking lot space for solar panels. I do believe SF has agreed to use the employee lot for panels, but even including the main lot, employee lot and Hurricane Harbor lot, you still come nowhere near enough space (which, yes, I agree, you can't really justify chopping 66 acres of trees for this project). I believe I remember reading that SF has addressed the risk of putting panels over the lot. Aside from expenses (they may also have to repave first which is supposedly $10 million they don't want to spend), it's the northeast, people are stupid and sue for anything. There are some minor inherent dangers with covering a lot with panels (visual obstructions, more things in the way for NJ drivers to run into, etc), but it sounds like a bit of an excuse on SF's part to get out of paying a much higher amount up front, IMO. There are also some buildings than panels could be placed on top of, but this is supposedly (I'm not an expert) more costly than just placing panels in a field, and altogether, even with all the lots included with the buildings, they're still short of 66 acres. Personally I think it's ridiculous how long discussion has been happening and both sides aren't compromising (they were having a heated argument about the definition of native grass a few weeks back). I'd love to see incentives from the county to help cover the parking lot expenses so they can do the three lots there and less than 30 acres of forest, but I don't know how likely it is that would happen. I do understand a lot of the risks, they just don't seem to completely justify it. It would be nice to see them at least do the roof top option and employee parking to reduce the number of acres sacrificed. Those options seem like no brainers, but I am definitely seeing the many reasons against using the guest parking lots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coasterbill Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I propose that they tear down Green Lantern and put some of the panels there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Password121 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I propose that they tear down Green Lantern and put some of the panels there. If they agree to put them in the parking lot couldn't they put them there without even removing the ride? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now