Bluegrass Boardwalk feared lease would make it difficult to run park

Posted Monday, June 18, 2012 9:21 AM | Contributed by Jeff

The chief executive of Bluegrass Boardwalk, as the park was to be renamed, said it wasn’t a particular regulation, lease clause or concern the park couldn’t turn a profit that led to its surprising decision. Instead, Natalie Koch said the company feared that in leasing rather than owning the park — as it does at Holiday World in Santa Claus, Ind. — it wouldn’t have the freedom it needed to run it successfully.

Read more from The Courier-Journal.

Related parks

Monday, June 18, 2012 7:07 PM
stoogemanmoe's avatar

I had thought when they started this project that they may not have the freedom to do what they wanted with the park.

My Beautiful wife, Julia, is the best thing that has ever happened to me!

Monday, June 18, 2012 8:11 PM
bjames's avatar

Anyone else as glad as me we don't have to look at that awful logo for years and years? I mean, if there is a bright side.

Monday, June 18, 2012 8:31 PM

I liked the logo.

The amusement park rises bold and are huddled on the beach in a mist

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:08 AM
CoasterDemon's avatar

I found this... not *too* surprising coming from Hart:

“from the beginning we thought that Holiday World was doing this as a defensive move to protect Holiday World.”

Bi*ch, please.

Holiday World has had immense success on their own, won plenty of industry awards and has made huge leaps and bounds in terms of service ... all while Six Flags was running Kentucky Kingdom. I doubt there is any danger of Holiday World "not making it"....

Last edited by CoasterDemon, Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:03 AM
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:09 AM
CoasterDemon's avatar

Mike Gallagher said:

I liked the logo.

Me too. Refreshing and original.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:13 PM

I've seen a few stories on this thing now. The last few times Ed Hart has been quoted, he's taken veiled shots at the Koch's and Holiday World. Does he think that the Koch's wrecked his deal or something?

There's nothing wrong with Holiday World wanting complete control of their properties. It's their money, their risk, and their time. The fair board gets to just sit back, collect a piece of the pie, and meddle. They and the state were already dragging their feet during the inspections and negotiations. Given their history with this place, why would the Koch's think that things would get better with them?

As for doing this to "protect" Holiday World, I don't believe that for a second. Holiday World has probably been absolutely pillaging the Louisville market for years now, even when Six Flags was at it's best. They don't need Bluegrass Boardwalk for "protection".

The question now is this. Will any reputable company now touch this project with a ten foot pole?

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:31 PM

If they want to have a second park there's a market near me that is very much like Santa Claus and would be a great place for a Holiday World like park...Hannibal, Missouri. I'd give body parts for them to build a park there. ;-)

Negative-G Amusement Parks and Rollercoasters:

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:50 PM
LostKause's avatar

Hannibal? Body parts? You meant to do that, right Paul? :D

Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:00 AM
CoasterDemon's avatar

LostKause said:

Body parts?

Quid pro quo, Krause.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012 8:18 AM

Other parks have been run successfully while being leased, by Six Flags nonetheless. Discovery Kingdom is a great example. Six Flags leased it for how many years, 1997-2010? That was a case where the government worked with the leasor to help make the park a success and stimulate the local economy. No one except for the board and state have any blame in the failures of Bluegrass Boardwalk. The Koch's were practically doing them a favor. Good luck finding anyone else to take it.


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2022, POP World Media, LLC