Clementon Park's new owners hope to improve experience

Yeah. Don't worry about getting booted for disagreeing with Jeff. Lots and lots of people (including many of the mods) have and do disagree with Jeff all the time. What will get someone booted is violating the terms of service (inappropriate language, personal attacks, etc.)

And that makes it the perfect time for me to apologize for calling you an idiot, Billb. lol

And I have to ask, since the area near SFGadv has so many tourests near it, wouldn't they benefit from having a hotel? So many things you say the last few days could be used as an argument FOR a SF hotel.

Oh, and let me also say that I personally know that disagreeing with the webmaster will not get you booted from CoasterBuzz. Jeff loves a good debate, and he is totally smart enough to understand that debate is what fuels participation. A great example... Look how many pages this has gone!

And I have to ask, since the area near SFGadv has so many tourests near it, wouldn't they benefit from having a hotel? So many things you say the last few days could be used as an argument FOR a SF hotel.

Not really. The only thing a SF hotel is convienient to is SF. The water park doesnt automatically = multiday visit. It's nearly Memorial Day, and it is just barely hot enough to be a half decent water park day, and even then you'd likely freeze your rear off. I havent had my AC on until last evening.

Those other tourists are mostly visiting the shore, since those are all shore counties, You're a 30 minute car drive to Seaside Heights from Jackson.

Atlantic County's huge tourisim numbers you can attribute to the Casino's. I think what is more telling is the fact that Cape May county dwarfs Ocean County. Both are shore areas, but the one with the Six Flags park and the Seaside Heights boardwalk in it pull in less cash than Cape May County, which only contains Morey's Piers and the WW boardwalk and a small kiddie Park and a small boardwalk(Promenade) in Sea Isle City. The area I live has a lot of former Phily residents and without fail these people vacation in Wildwood, or a campground convienient to Wildwood on Rt 9 or Rt 47. These people love their Wildwood, I'm telling you.

And with that, I'm done. And I still wont be visiting GA for 21 years now. We'll hit Morey's Knoebels, and probably Dorney with the swim team. And we're hitting Disney in Nov.

Carrie M. said:

He's not the type to boot someone for disagreeing with him. We have healthy debates all of the time.

But I will take this opportunity to let you know that multiple back-to-back posting is frowned upon in the terms of service. It's generally better to try to consolidate your quotes and responses into a single post. I understand that's harder to do when you are debating with just about everyone else in the forum, but making the effort would be appreciated. :)

Does this site work better on another browser?.. the little quote button up the top of the reply window is putting the

tags everywhere but where I wanted them. I am using IE

billb7581 said:
Lets just simplify and say you only have 2 choices for recreation.. go to the amusement park or go to a baseball game. Here you could potentially go to 3 major league games and 5 or 6 minor league games just from where I am sitting.

What!?

You make less sense with every post.

How about we just simplify it another way?

An attraction that draws almost 3 million people yearly (even in a seasonal fashion) can support a hotel and having competing things to do around that attraction is completely meaningless because said attraction is, in fact, drawing 3 million people a year.

(Plus, I think it's funny that you keep saying there's other things to do and mention just about everything but the other amusement park choices in the area)

Great Adventure's relative lack of attendance to KI (despite drawing from this huge population) demonstrates that there is just more stuff to do here

You do realize the difference is a couple of hundred thousand people at best. And that all of the biggest regional theme parks do attendance in roughly the same sattendance range, right? Even the Orlando parks outside of Disney top off in the 5 million range - and they're drawing from the whole world.

Don't you think it's a little odd that no matter where the park is (SFGAdv, KI, CP, Hershey, SFGAm, Busch Gardens, Knotts, SFMM, Canada's Wonderland) that they all have attendance in the 2.5 - 3.5 million range?

Interestingly, even the numbers I see thrown around for Morey's are in that range. (and they're in Jersey...on the shore...not in the middle of nowhere)

Could it be that that's just the level of interest in amusement parks? All of those parks are in very different markets with very different population bases.

So explain away.

Better yet, don't. I don't know how I managed to get pulled back into this. Like I said, you have very 'interesting' views on the subject, but I think I'm done playing.

Is it to late to agree to disagree? I don't want to get booted from the site. I was oblivious to the fact I was arguing with the site owner.

You'll never get booted in a million years for healthy debate. :)

However, not only are you debating the owner, but also a couple of moderators and a handful of the most participatory, knowledgable and well-traveled people on the site.

All of whom disagree with your assessment of the situation.

With all of that said...

The thing that still seems oddest to me (and potentially most telling) is that there is nothing around the park. It's hard to find a park of that size and popularity that is so away from anything. There has to be a reason no one has built anything there - and don't say "because it's the middle of nowhere" because everywhere is the middle of nowhere until something gets built there. The fact that the park is such an anomoly makes me think there's a reason that no one (not just a hotel) builds near it. I mean what other park that pulls in 3 million people has so little nearby? I can't think of a single one.

I still think there a reason that none of us know or understand for nothing being built near an attraction that pulls in 3 million people each year. And I suspect it has nothing to do with sustainability, interst, travel patterns or any of that kind of stuff.

Doesn't SF's water park offer heated pools? I disagree that the water park doesn't equal multi-day visits. People spend more than one day at theme parks with water parks all of the time, because of the water park.

Kings Island, Kings Dominion, Dorney Park, and Magic Mountain with their included water parks, Cedar Point and Soak City, Busch Gardens and Water Country USA... The list goes on and on. One of the reason a theme park adds a water park is to add overnight stays and multi-day visits. Even if they don't have anything to do with the area hotels, multi-day visits are very good for a park's bottom line, and money is what it is all about.

That is the biggest reason that I believe SFGAdv could sustain an on-property, or nearby hotel. That, and I have had a need for a hotel while visiting that particular park.

Lord Gonchar said:
everywhere is the middle of nowhere until something gets built there.

If it could support other stuff, the stuff would already be there. Duh!

(Also Holiday World is totally in the middle of nowhere. Then again it's only been 10 years since they've really been an attraction and what, 3 years(?) since they broke 1M visits.)

If you ever see pictures of Orlando prior to Disney World, I think grasping the concept of "middle of nowhere until something gets built there" becomes much easier...

Lord Gonchar said:

billb7581 said:
Lets just simplify and say you only have 2 choices for recreation.. go to the amusement park or go to a baseball game. Here you could potentially go to 3 major league games and 5 or 6 minor league games just from where I am sitting.

What!?

You make less sense with every post.

How about we just simplify it another way?

An attraction that draws almost 3 million people yearly (even in a seasonal fashion) can support a hotel and having competing things to do around that attraction is completely meaningless because said attraction is, in fact, drawing 3 million people a year.

(Plus, I think it's funny that you keep saying there's other things to do and mention just about everything but the other amusement park choices in the area)

Great Adventure's relative lack of attendance to KI (despite drawing from this huge population) demonstrates that there is just more stuff to do here

You do realize the difference is a couple of hundred thousand people at best. And that all of the biggest regional theme parks do attendance in roughly the same sattendance range, right? Even the Orlando parks outside of Disney top off in the 5 million range - and they're drawing from the whole world.

Don't you think it's a little odd that no matter where the park is (SFGAdv, KI, CP, Hershey, SFGAm, Busch Gardens, Knotts, SFMM, Canada's Wonderland) that they all have attendance in the 2.5 - 3.5 million range?

Interestingly, even the numbers I see thrown around for Morey's are in that range. (and they're in Jersey...on the shore...not in the middle of nowhere)

Could it be that that's just the level of interest in amusement parks? All of those parks are in very different markets with very different population bases.

So explain away.

Better yet, don't. I don't know how I managed to get pulled back into this. Like I said, you have very 'interesting' views on the subject, but I think I'm done playing.

Is it to late to agree to disagree? I don't want to get booted from the site. I was oblivious to the fact I was arguing with the site owner.

You'll never get booted in a million years for healthy debate. :)

However, not only are you debating the owner, but also a couple of moderators and a handful of the most participatory, knowledgable and well-traveled people on the site.

All of whom disagree with your assessment of the situation.

With all of that said...

The thing that still seems oddest to me (and potentially most telling) is that there is nothing around the park. It's hard to find a park of that size and popularity that is so away from anything. There has to be a reason no one has built anything there - and don't say "because it's the middle of nowhere" because everywhere is the middle of nowhere until something gets built there. The fact that the park is such an anomoly makes me think there's a reason that no one (not just a hotel) builds near it. I mean what other park that pulls in 3 million people has so little nearby? I can't think of a single one.

I still think there a reason that none of us know or understand for nothing being built near an attraction that pulls in 3 million people each year. And I suspect it has nothing to do with sustainability, interst, travel patterns or any of that kind of stuff.

Well there is ample lodging around Moreys, because Wildwood is a destination. Jackson NJ isn't.

You keep saying I am reversing cause and effect, but what has happened is precisely what I am saying, lodging is following the tourist dollars.

If you pull up a map of Jackson NJ on Google Maps, the green areas are unbuildable wetlands or state owned land.

You're not going to see that much Surburban sprawl into Jackson because it's more convienient to live closer to one of the big metro areas.

Please trim your quotes.

billb7581 said:
Well there is ample lodging around Moreys, because Wildwood is a destination. Jackson NJ isn't.

That has almost nothing to do with anything that matters in the context of this conversation. I know you're trying to follow-up my questions, but this is exactly the vague, left-of-the-actual-point, missing the bigger picture sort of thing you've been saying all along.

If you pull up a map of Jackson NJ on Google Maps, the green areas are unbuildable wetlands or state owned land.

Well, now that makes sense as to why we're not seeing more pop up in the area.

I willing to give you the idea that without all the ancillary stuff (shopping, restaraunts, mini-golf, etc) that normally surrounds an attraction like SFGAdv that a hotel there seems like less of a sure thing.

But that just all just confirms my wondering. There is possibly a good reason nothing is being built in that area and it has nothing to do the way people travel or tourism or the like - it's mostly protected, government owned or unuseable land.

You're not going to see that much Surburban sprawl into Jackson because it's more convienient to live closer to one of the big metro areas.

Aww, you just lost me again. This is the circular logic you keep using that makes no sense - that no one builds there because there is nothing there.

Another theory I will throw out is these travel patterns pre date air conditioning. The coast is typically 10 degrees cooler than inland with a sea breeze. . If it's 90 degrees out and 90 percent humidity, people are more likely to head to the beach for the day to beat the heat, and not go to an asphalt park where the temperature isn't any different.

You keep saying I am reversing cause and effect, but what is happening is precisely what I am saying. The lodging being built is following the tourism dollar.

billb7581 said:

Well there is ample lodging around Moreys, because Wildwood is a destination. Jackson NJ isn't.

Yes it is. Three million tourists a year count it as a destination, in my opinion.

And you are trying too hard with your ridiculous air conditioning argument.

billb7581 said:
You keep saying I am reversing cause and effect, but what is happening is precisely what I am saying. The lodging being built is following the tourism dollar.

But the tourism dollar is there - to the tune of 3 million people each year.

Are there bigger, more visited places nearby? Sure. But that doesn't mean the smaller places don't have the tourism dollar.

The reason things aren't being built isn't because no one is visiting the area. (I thought we just found common ground here with the wetlands/government land thing :) )

billb7581 said:
Does this site work better on another browser?.. the little quote button up the top of the reply window is putting the "quote" tags everywhere but where I wanted them. I am using IE

I'm not really sure quoting is going to do you any good at this point. It doesn't seem much like you're debating specific points as much as simply chasing the string that's being pulled around in front of you. You would be better served at this point, I would imagine, to simply summarize your case and leave it at that.

Which leads to my next question (which may sound more confrontational than I intend for it to, but inquiring minds want to know anyway.)

Are you really believing any of what you are saying at this point or are you just enjoying the attention everyone is giving to you? I ask because you do seem to be employing a lot of circular logic as though you just want to keep the discussion going.

I'll believe whatever response you offer...honest I will. :)

You can turn off the rich text features somehow, so that copying and pasting works better, then you simply need to type the word "quote" enclosed between the little bars next to the "p" on your keyboard. When you want the quote to end do the same thing, except put a "/" in front of the word quote.

You can select and move the quote code around the page as well. It takes a little practice to get it right, but it's pretty easy once you get the hang of it.

I could have just said, "you can type the quote tags yourself." Either way, I hope that helps.

If you leave the rich text on, when you copy and paste, you might have to paste it in a word-like program first, then copy it from there to past here, because sometimes the text will not paste.

Lord Gonchar said:

billb7581 said:
You keep saying I am reversing cause and effect, but what is happening is precisely what I am saying. The lodging being built is following the tourism dollar.

But the tourism dollar is there - to the tune of 3 million people each year.

Are there bigger, more visited places nearby? Sure. But that doesn't mean the smaller places don't have the tourism dollar.

The reason things aren't being built isn't because no one is visiting the area. (I thought we just found common ground here with the wetlands/government land thing :) )

If 3 million people is the upper limit of amusement park attendance, why the need for a hotel..3 million people are already going there.

The "build it and they will come" example is backwards. Warner Leroy built it in 1976 but nothing else came, other than a Tanger outlet.

Another possibility for there being nothing around there, is a lot of that open area may be farmland, I'm not sure. I do know that where GA sits used to be a farm.

And my microclimate theory isn't ridiculous. Would you rather stand in ride lines in the nice ocean breezes at Moreys or Seaside Heights, or in 90 degree 90 percent humidity.

If you want to escape the ridiculously muggy weather around here you go to the shore.

And I do believe what I am saying. I am not employing circular reasoning or reversing cause and effect. People go places, when the place lacks sufficient lodging, lodging gets built to meet the demand. Supply doesnt create it's own demand.

Gonch.. surburban sprawl hasn't reached Jackson. It's not circular reasoning. Jackson is too far away from Philadelphia to be a convenient suburb. Cherry Hill, Voorhees etc now there is some sprawl.

billb7581 said:

If 3 million people is the upper limit of amusement park attendance, why the need for a hotel..3 million people are already going there.

Because they could double or triple the amount of time a small percentage of those people stay at the park.

The "build it and they will come" example is backwards. Warner Leroy built it in 1976 but nothing else came, other than a Tanger outlet.

in which a good reason was given... Wetlands and protected acreage.

And my microclimate theory isn't ridiculous. Would you rather stand in ride lines in the nice ocean breezes at Moreys or Seaside Heights, or in 90 degree 90 percent humidity.

I would rather go where my kids want to go for a summer getaway. A difference of 10° in the temperature isn't going to make much of a difference, and yes, that is ridiculous. It's like you are running out of ideas to combat the argument.

If you want to escape the ridiculously muggy weather around here you go to the shore.

And if you want to ride multi-million dollar roller coasters at a giant theme park, you go to Six Flags.

And I do believe what I am saying. I am not employing circular reasoning or reversing cause and effect. People go places, when the place lacks sufficient lodging, lodging gets built to meet the demand. Supply doesnt create it's own demand.

What? I don't understand that at all. What is the supply here, and wha is the demand?

Jackson is too far away from Philadelphia to be a convenient suburb.

Add that idea to the fact that the park receives three million visitors a year, and it's all the more reason that a hotel would work there.

billb7581 said:

If 3 million people is the upper limit of amusement park attendance, why the need for a hotel..3 million people are already going there.

Because it will make money. You don't build a hotel to drive park attendance (though it may be a nice side effect). You build a hotel because people will exchange large amounts of currency for the use of a room.

billb7581 said:
If 3 million people is the upper limit of amusement park attendance, why the need for a hotel..3 million people are already going there.

We've done this already, man.

Hotels don't draw people to an area. Hotels are more like leeches that propser where people already go. Hotels are not destinations. Hotels create an additional service at destinations.

3 million people go there. Now give 3 million people a place to stay. Profit from those 3 million people.

The "build it and they will come" example is backwards.

Yes, it is. Which is why I'm saying people are already coming - there has to be a reason it's not being built.

Another possibility for there being nothing around there, is a lot of that open area may be farmland, I'm not sure. I do know that where GA sits used to be a farm.

Land use and/or availability seems to be the most logical reason to me at this point. (for the area development in general, not just a SF hotel)

People go places, when the place lacks sufficient lodging, lodging gets built to meet the demand.

Which is exactly why everyone on this site but you is wondering why we haven't seen a hotel pop up there yet. The demand is there. 3 million people are there each year. The fact that we haven't seen anything move in to capitalize leads me to believe the issue is a reason other than need, demand or potential to profit because all of those exist. (hence, my interest in the useability/availability of the land in the area)

People go places, when the place lacks sufficient lodging, lodging gets built to meet the demand.

Which is exactly why everyone on this site but you is wondering why we haven't seen a hotel pop up there yet. The demand is there. 3 million people are there each year. The fact that we haven't seen anything move in to capitalize leads me to believe the issue is a reason other than need, demand or potential to profit because all of those exist. (hence, my interest in the useability/availability of the land in the area)

you just sailed back to square 1. The majority of those 3 million are only in town for the day.

@ Lost Kause... it's not ridiculous. It's common for people to escape heatwaves inland by going to the shore.

I only brought it up now, because I hadn't considered that possibility originally. 10 degrees not make a difference? Set your AC to 80 on a 90 degree day and check out how much better 80 with low humidity feels than 90 with high humidity. Half the reason it feels so good to walk into an air conditioned room is because just by
its operation AC condenses all the moisture out of the air.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=6280088