coasterkid124 wrote:Kolmarden wouldn't have spent so much money on this coaster if they thought there was ever a chance of it getting demolished. Governments are very picky about having all documents and paperwork completed correctly no matter the person or company involved. I've seen zoning boards and local governments get picky over where a person builds a deck on the back of their house.
I feel as though the governement will not make Kolmarden tear the ride down unless there is substantial proof that the coaster is harming the environment. As long as Kolmarden can get the accreditation that they need, the ride will be fine. It's a scary situation, but I can not think of a time where a roller coaster was demolished for environmental issues. Usually this stuff is all ironed out before, or it would not be approved in the first place.
The ride is not going anywhere, at least that's not my prediction. Kolmården have now (as of yesterday) applied to the local town for a zoning plan.
The really good thing with this ride is that nothing has changed, Kolmården still enjoys the full support from the town. They bring in some big cash for the local economy. Since they are so important for the town the zoning plan will get the highest priority and the plan should be ready in time for the upcoming summer.
The problem is that the zoning plan is likely to be appealed the same way that the build permit was. First the town decides, if that gets appealed then it goes to the County Board and then it goes to the Land and Environment Court. There is also a fourth level, the Land and Environment High Court. It's hard to say if the last one will try it again, they usually don't treat that many cases. But given the high profile of the case...
It is unlikely that a zoning plan is voted into affection before 2018. The million dollar question is if they can operate it next season or not. The parks lawyer and the town are now going through the verdict and the law to try and find a way for it to happen. It will likely take a few months to study it through and they said that they are hoping to release more about it around christmas.
A.J. wrote:but if people are suddenly so concerned about the environmental impact, I feel like they would realize that the "damage" has already been done, and that going through the process of demolishing Wildfire would make an even more negative short-term impact.
The environmentalists are pissed because they feel that there was to little studying about the environmental impacts of the ride before the build permit was given, something the final ruling now shows supports for. They conclude that the studies before building permit was granted was not satisfactory.
They do however note in the ruling that the environmental damage is already done, so I don't think the environmental impact have been given to big consideration in the final ruling. I haven't had the energy to read through all of it, but the main focuses seems to be noise levels, traffic situation and the impact on the animals.
Almost all of the people who have appealed are neighbors who simply don't want the ride to be there.
The impact on the animals are probably not to big. The parks own experts have given interviews stating that the animals closest by the ride only cared about it the first few days and then didn't really care that much. It is also a thing that they easily can study and dig deeper into during the zoning process.
The traffic situation is harder to resolve. The town and the park is always working on improvements to the infrastructure to and around the park, but the road is crappy and it's quite a drive from the highway (10 miles). It's not gonna be improved overall anytime soon. The good thing for Wildfire however is that it's not as big a draw for the attendance as the family attractions is. For an example the new family area themed to Bame that was added last year, that nobody
have been complaining about, drew bigger crowds last year than Wildfire did this year.
The noise levels are unlikely to go away, the neighbors simply don't want the ride there (well not all of the neighbors care, but around 30 households do). They can cover the drop and add noise screens though so it is fixable.
A.J. wrote:One thing though - is this strictly a legal thing, or are there ulterior motives at work here? If this were in the U.S., I feel like whomever would have originally opposed the coaster's construction would have thrown a large sum of money at someone to try and have the case opened back up again.
The legal system is very different from the US here. There is not as much money in it and it's not as big a part of the society as well. Sure a good lawyer is always charing more etc, but in general people and groups cannot affect things as much as they can in the US.
The protection for individuals is very strong though, in this case the neighbors.
Myself wrote:Didn't Grona Lund have a similar issue come up when they built Eclipse? They were able to resolve that easily enough, and given it's the same parent company, I wouldn't sweat this too much.
That was a bit different. Gröna Lund have a zoning plan in place, so they don't have to apply for build permits for their rides. The problem with Eclipse was that it is so big that the town considered it to be an actual tower and not an amusement ride.