Costco interested in Kiddieland site.

Friday, October 30, 2009 12:54 AM
LostKause's avatar

Must. Resist. Dirty. Joke.


+0
Friday, October 30, 2009 4:47 AM

Jeff said:
It obviously was to the family that owned the park.

I didn't say it was super and OK, but I just don't see why anyone would be surprised at this point.

It's not a surprise. If the park was losing money, and the land is worth alot, I totally understand, but that wasn't the case with this park. It's been in the same family for 81 years and business was good. That's like saying Cedar Point's land value is worth alot which I am sure it is since it sits on a peninsula even though the amusement park that runs on its land is profitable. If CF sold off that park for housing development, people would be scratching their heads on that.

Oh wait, didn't that almost happen back in the 50's?


My favorite MJ tune: "Billie Jean" which I have been listening to alot now. RIP MJ.

+0
Friday, October 30, 2009 10:24 AM
Jeff's avatar

Actually, the way I read it, the park wasn't losing money, but the owners can make a lot more this way. I don't see a parallel to Cedar Point, or understand what it has to do with anything.


Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

+0
Friday, October 30, 2009 11:13 AM

All this time I figured Moosh for a guy who'd "bring out the Hellman's." :)

+0
Friday, October 30, 2009 11:36 AM
Carrie M.'s avatar

Actually, I have to agree with those who are pausing over this issue. I totally get the land had a value the family realized they could make a lot of money from and that's their prerogative...blah, blah, blah.

But IIRC, and I think this article touches on it briefly, the entire family wasn't in agreement with this. The part who owned the land decided they didn't want to renew the lease.

It seems as though this is an 81-year old heirloom of sorts that the family was forced to get rid of because other family members made it so. I think that's sad.

But hey, the country needed another Costco, right? I mean I think they said the closest one to this site was 7 to 10 miles away!


"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin

+0
Friday, October 30, 2009 5:02 PM

It's just another example of the "take the money and run" mentality that has become rampant in this country in the last twenty years. While the branch of the family that owned and operated the park would have gladly have continued the tradition for the next generation (as long as it was viable) the property owners,wanted to get theirs now, in one lump sum. I don't recall, but were the park owners even given the opportunity to purchase the land?

+0
Friday, October 30, 2009 5:40 PM

If the part of the family running the part was offered the opportunity to buy the land presumably it would have been at the same price that Costco is paying. And unless they had cash to buy it, financing may have been a problem.

+0
Friday, October 30, 2009 6:53 PM
rollergator's avatar

Carrie M. said:
It seems as though this is an 81-year old heirloom of sorts that the family was forced to get rid of because other family members made it so. I think that's sad.

Seems strange to me, and I'm not saying the situations are identical, but a little too similar to the KWood sale. Seems like families are often ALL into the theme park when it's a small number of family members involved. But after a few generations, MANY more people begin to have lots of small-ish stakes in the business...

At least Kennywood was well-developed and sustainable as an amusement park...

+0
Friday, October 30, 2009 10:40 PM
kpjb's avatar

For all intents and purposes, Kiddieland was developed and sustainable, too. Kennywood's advantage is that the land it's on is worthless and useless to anyone else. Can't build a Costco in a ravine.


Hi

+0
Saturday, October 31, 2009 12:12 AM
Jeff's avatar

Are we going to start demonizing capitalism and reading into the intentions of people we don't know and will never meet? Do we always have to go there?


Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

+0
Saturday, October 31, 2009 12:49 AM

^ Yes, yes, and most definitely! ;)

+0
Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:18 AM
Carrie M.'s avatar

Jeff said:
Are we going to start demonizing capitalism and reading into the intentions of people we don't know and will never meet? Do we always have to go there?

I don't think that's what we're doing at all. Why do you always go there?

Acknowledging the unfortunate aspects of a change in tradition is not demonizing anyone. Families are funny things and I don't think it's hard to imagine how something like this plays out.


"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin

+0
Saturday, October 31, 2009 12:24 PM

It is great that they are putting the land to use instead of it being left vacant. Like it or not Costco will be bringing jobs to that area. Maybe if more patrons would have visited Kiddieland, the family that operated the park would have been able to afford the purchase of the land. As a side note, operating a theme park on leased land seems like a dangerous idea. Because as soon as the land becomes more valuable to sell it, the owner’s of the land don’t renew your lease and now you have to relocate.


Brad

+0
Saturday, October 31, 2009 12:29 PM

I'm not against capitalism, but I also believe that the entire value of something can't or shouldn't be expressed only in monetary terms. If you want to take it to an extreme, couldn't you argue that our national parks would be "worth" more if we threw a few thousand condos and office complexes up inside them?

Every time Forbes or Money mags do their "best places to live" lists, one of their criteria is quality of life or something similar. While not referring specifically to theme parks, it refers to available recreational and entertainment opportunities. Certainly not the number of big box stores nearby-- even though for some people shopping is recreation and entertainment.

+0
Saturday, October 31, 2009 4:34 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

RatherGoodBear said:
If you want to take it to an extreme, couldn't you argue that our national parks would be "worth" more if we threw a few thousand condos and office complexes up inside them?

At the very least more people would visit them. ;)

Every time Forbes or Money mags do their "best places to live" lists, one of their criteria is quality of life or something similar. While not referring specifically to theme parks, it refers to available recreational and entertainment opportunities. Certainly not the number of big box stores nearby-- even though for some people shopping is recreation and entertainment.

Interestingly, in 2007 our little town was named one of their top 100 - and to be honest, we're overrun with malls, plazas and multi-use developments featuring just about any big box store or chain restaurant you can name within the city limits.


+0
Saturday, October 31, 2009 5:42 PM

It's about like that in my area Gonch. You have to further and futher away to avoid any sort of "big box."

Within 30 miles of my house, there are no less than a DOZEN Wal-Marts.


Coaster Junkie from NH
I drive in & out of Boston, so I ride coasters to relax!

+0
Saturday, October 31, 2009 6:29 PM

Ya never know where one of those Kiddieland rides might end up!


+0
Saturday, October 31, 2009 7:39 PM
ridemcoaster's avatar

Glad I stopped and read the article.. My initial stop was at the thread subject and my first thought was, "why the heck does Costco want to own Kiddleland" .. as in acquisition.

My second thought was.. Sweet. Now I can go to a park where I can get a 50 oz drink and and 40 hotdogs for less than $10. :)


+0
Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:39 PM
Carrie M.'s avatar

Lord Gonchar said:


Interestingly, in 2007 our little town was named one of their top 100 - and to be honest, we're overrun with malls, plazas and multi-use developments featuring just about any big box store or chain restaurant you can name within the city limits.

Right, but what pushes an area up the ranks of that list are the area quality parks, schools, and services. Those things can exist in conjunction with a lot of retail (and that would be ideal for economic growth.) But if you eliminate those things in order to expand your retail, you will diminish the overall appeal and value of an area.


"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin

+0
Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:00 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

Agreed 100%, Carrie.

But I liked the way it was worded in the link (although they were talking Base growth), but the idea that the money is a catalyst for improving things like parks, schools and services.

But it's irrelevant anyway, just thought it was funny that RGB brought it up and well, this area is pretty much everything thing that is wrong with suburban sprawl...and I love it. :)

---

In the case of Kiddieland, meh. It's business. If running a park met the goals the owners had, it'd still be there. There's a reason you can put a Costco (or any big box store) every ten miles. They draw customers and their dollars.

And as a more serious reply to RGB's national park thing - if those were run for profit, they'd have been sold for condos a long time ago.

Which goes full circle - parks (not amusement parks - which are businesses), schools, services, etc - the things that make a community better are not for profit types of endeavors. Not one is tearing down a public park or a school or fire station to build another Costco. It's one business closing selling their land to another. It's a wash.

It just so happens this is a forum for amusement park enthusiasts, so the response is appropriately skewed. The folks over at the Costco enthusiast site are overjoyed. :)


+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...