Big Dipper Sold

Monday, October 4, 2010 3:27 PM
rollergator's avatar

Wishing you all the luck in the world, Kat. :)

They're just not building any more John Miller rides (with the possible exception of Bay Beach, LOL). With the relatively recent demise of LeSourdsville's Eagle, the "original" ZP, Clementon's JackRabbit and even CI's T-Bolt, saving a John Miller is a worthwhile endeavor IMO. "Heritage" is very underrated in today's society, and there's a lot to be gleaned from the past...hopefully you'll be able to bring some of that forward into the future... :)


You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

+0
Monday, October 4, 2010 4:59 PM

Tekwardo -

It's rare that people actually have the foresight to understand the issues rather than attacking those trying to work through them. You have pointed out a lot of the problems we've been running into.

You are completely correct in stating that no parks have stepped up to save the Dipper. At this exact moment, we have not received any correspondence directly from any parks. There have been many suggestion on what parks would benefit from the donation of the ride, but those making the suggestions don't really have any information as to whether the park would actually be interested or able to support such an investment.

This is where we, the owners, will bridge the gap. We are planning to contact parks and other venues directly to see if they'd be interested and willing to work out some sort of arrangement with the coaster. The installation of a wooden coaster is not the sort of task to just drop on to a park. Chance are high that if we just blindly donated it to a park, it would not be successfully reopened even if the coaster itself was free. We want to ensure that the coaster does run again, so we will be working very hard to find a place to relocate her where she would be taken care of correctly. Also keep in mind that currently operating parks are not our only option. We are considering all possibilities.

As for whether we know what we are doing or not - while neither of us have direct experience with this sort of thing, I think it's safe to say that those with that type of experience are a bit of a rare breed. After all, it's not every day a classic wooden coaster is relocated. However, we do know when to ask for help and that is what we have done. We have already been in contact with a company that would be able to help guide us through this whole process that knows more about state inspections, permits, and the whole process itself, than anyone who hasn't been through it could ever know. I can't really disclose anything further about these negotiations until they are finalized, but trust me when I say we are working full steam ahead with the organization of this project. We are not going in to it blindly - we are well aware of all the risks and the chances of failure. But we have our hearts in this project, and we have the determination to make it succeed.

The only way a project like this can succeed is with strong people behind it that are willing to push their limits, try new things, and trust that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I think that Harold and I are both those type of people and I hope we are able to gain the trust and support of the rest of the enthusiast community as well.

+0
Monday, October 4, 2010 5:14 PM
a_hoffman50's avatar

Kat, your honest, upfront attitude and determination is exactly what this project needs.

+0
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 1:55 PM
ApolloAndy's avatar

My biggest beef with the previous owner was the price he was asking for the coaster, compared to the price he bought it for. I can't comment on the new owners without such information.


Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."

+0
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 2:00 PM
DaveStroem's avatar

The price paid is completely irrelevant. If someone is trying to save a bit of history, that is their right. If you want to help go for it, if not that is fine too.


Before you can be older and wiser you first have to be young and stupid.

+0
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 2:08 PM
a_hoffman50's avatar

I believe Andy's point is that the previous owner appeared to be trying to make a quick buck and cannot make any assumption based off Kat and Harold's venture because they aren't trying to sell it, yet.

+0
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 2:23 PM
ApolloAndy's avatar

Ok, let me rephrase. My biggest beef with the previous owner was that he claimed he was making a selfless, sacrificial act for the good of the enthusiast community and we were therefore obligated to think highly of him and support his efforts while at the same time he also dramatically marked up the price.

Last edited by ApolloAndy, Tuesday, October 5, 2010 2:34 PM

Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."

+0
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 2:27 PM

DaveStroem said:
The price paid is completely irrelevant.

Not at all. The price paid is relevant in inferring the owner's motives.


Brandon | Facebook

+0
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 2:42 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

And...

If someone is trying to save a bit of history, that is their right.

It seems like the previous owner wasn't just trying to save a bit of history (of course I'm still not so sure anyone at this point is willing/able to do outside of the current owners who still need to find a place to put the ride back in operation) but trying to make a buck by purchasing it, using nostalgia as a selling point, then complaining anonymously behind other people when no one cared if the ride was destroyed or not.


Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

+0
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 3:13 PM

But wasn't that comparing the bid price and the asking price? There was a mention that the bid price wasn't the final price, and nobody knows what other costs were incurred over the past three years. Without knowing the whole story, it's easy to point fingers and cry profiteering.

+0
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 4:06 PM
rollergator's avatar

^Yes, I tried to bring up the subject of "carrying costs" when some were complaining about the previous owner trying to turn a profit on Dipper. I'd imagine liability insurance on a non-operational ride can incur some fairly steep bills...


You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

+0
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 4:13 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

But that doesn't explain why he felt the need to take a bunch of geeks so seriously and cry woe is me. I personally never cared about the financials of it, I was just commenting on why people seem to feel differently. I don't have a problem with anyone making a profit.

I just think it's funny that the other person acted the way they did, and seemed to expect people to give them a kudos, good job, pat on the back for saving a roller coaster. Meh.

Besides, if the first buyer had incurred costs over the 3 years the thing just sat there, they should have thought about that in the original planning. That the new owners have already got a place to store it and seem to know that stuff, you know, costs money, gives me hope that we won't hear whining again in a few years.

And even if we do, meh. I would like to see Dipper relocated, but if it doesn't, I won't shed a tear personally because I have no real connection. If someone does and plans to spend money to keep it going, good for them.


Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

+0
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 6:10 PM

I think both sides fed off each other. People gave the owner grief because he remained hidden and played his game of intrigue. And the owner remained hidden because people were giving him grief. Since we don't know who the original buyer was, we may never know why he decided to act the way he did.

+0
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 6:37 PM
rollergator's avatar

Tekwardo said:
But that doesn't explain why he felt the need to take a bunch of geeks so seriously and cry woe is me.

Not at all....and I'm not "apologizing" for the previous unnamed owner. Just thinking of reasons that the actual "cost" per se isn't whatever that prior owner paid to CF for the ride itself....


You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

+0
Wednesday, October 6, 2010 6:48 AM

RatherGoodBear said:
...nobody knows what other costs were incurred over the past three years. Without knowing the whole story, it's easy to point fingers and cry profiteering.

rollergator said:
^Yes, I tried to bring up the subject of "carrying costs" when some were complaining about the previous owner trying to turn a profit on Dipper. I'd imagine liability insurance on a non-operational ride can incur some fairly steep bills...

The owner had every opportunity to explain and detail those magical, hidden costs, and did not do so (though he/she did take the time to put a proverbial gun to the coaster's head). That lack of accountability, combined with the perception of trying to make an absurd profit (and, of course, the buy this or else threat), are absolutely relevant in determining the seller's motives.


Brandon | Facebook

+0
Wednesday, October 6, 2010 12:14 PM
rollergator's avatar

Yes, there certainly is/was the *perception* that the previous owner was trying to make an "unreasonable" profit. Were they? We'll never really know either way, because when you hide behind a veil of secrecy, you open yourself up to those sorts of questions.

Transparency is a word that gets used a lot these days, but the reality is that by being "open, honest, up-front, and public-facing", you tend to instill a sense of trust by virtue of the fact that you're NOT hiding something. The former owner, by hiding virtually EVERYTHING, ends up with his/her/their motives being called into question - not entirely unreasonable IMO.

I'm just trying to elaborate that there really are two sides to the story, even though one of them seems to be written in invisible ink.


You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

+0
Wednesday, October 6, 2010 12:31 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

www.savethebigdipper.com

...and the good folks at Coasterbuzz are supposedly haters for offering realistic criticism of 'save the coaster' plans like this.

The preservationist poopypants around here are downright helpful in comparison. :)


+0
Wednesday, October 6, 2010 1:00 PM
birdhombre's avatar

Lord Gonchar said:
The preservationist poopypants around here are downright helpful in comparison. :)

Heck, they're a mere preservationist sweaty diaper compared to Robb. :)

+0
Wednesday, October 6, 2010 1:04 PM
Jerry's avatar

Good god.... I wish there was a way to send a voltage spike through the inter tubes and blow the host server up for scammers like this...

+0
Wednesday, October 6, 2010 1:06 PM
obxKevin's avatar

Love how a WhosIs search comes back to the Alveys through GoDaddy. Real helpful to Kat.

You know people are gonna go to .com by default rather than .org.

edit: Nevermind the above, birdhombre beat me to it. :)

Last edited by obxKevin, Wednesday, October 6, 2010 1:09 PM
The poster formerly known as 'Zcorpius.' Joined 2004
+0

Closed topic.

POP Forums - ©2020, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...