Costco interested in Kiddieland site.

Lord Gonchar said:
If running a park met the goals the owners had, it'd still be there.

But that's the point. The owners of the park didn't have a problem with the success of the park or its goals. This is a little different circumstance.

The owners of the land maintained the power for the future of the park. They determined they could make more by selling the land and they did.

The park had little to do with that decision. What would be built in its place had little to do with it, either, for that matter.

Ok then, if the land owners had met goals they hoped to achieve with a tiny amusement park using the land, it'd still be there.

The point remains - one business is being bumped for another. It happens all the time. The only reason this even remotely matters around here is that one happens to be an amusement park.

Are amusement parks better for a community than another business (in this case a Costco)? That's quite debateable, I suppose. Who is to say?

In this case the village of Melrose Park must approve it. If they decide they like the idea, then it doesn't matter. It's what they want and a handful on the fringe (who, ironically, are most likely infrequent visitors to the community at best) are left fuming.

Hey, I don't know much about how these things work. Are you saying Melrose Park gets consulted before the landowners decide they aren't renewing the lease?

I'm pretty sure based on the articles covering the last day of operation that suggesting the local community liked (or were even indifferent about) the idea of the park closing isn't likely completely true. Now that it's gone they may be in favor of the Costco decision, but I'm not sure they wouldn't still choose Kiddieland if given the choice.

I'm not saying I disagree with the fact that at the end of the day it's just one business replacing another. But if you tore down my Target and put a Wal-Mart in its place, I would likely have something to say about that, too. :)

Carrie M. said:
I'm pretty sure based on the articles covering the last day of operation that suggesting the local community liked (or were even indifferent about) the idea of the park closing isn't likely completely true. Now that it's gone they may be in favor of the Costco decision, but I'm not sure they wouldn't still choose Kiddieland if given the choice.

Agreed 100% again. But so what? The park is gone regardless of who moves in.

I'd choose to have all my needs met at will if given the choice, but it's not a choice I can make so thinking about it and complaining that it's not a choice is pretty silly I think.

This is the exact same line of thought in my eyes. Kiddieland isn't a choice so why would anyone even consider a scenario where it is? It isn't.

On a side note, I think it's kind of interesting that none of the previous stories on the park closing (dating back 3 years) got more than a dozen or so comments, but once you're able to tie Costco and 'big box' shopping to it, the interest takes off.

I think it's because if the park just goes away, it's simply kinda sad like a natural death.

But if Costco is coming in and replacing the park, now you have an antagonist - a villain to be angry with.

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?

Not trying to start an arguement with you, but based on this quote, you have no problem with capitalism, but yet you have a problem with Walmart based on what you said in the other news topic? Sure, Walmart's situation is much stronger, but where do you draw the line? Like I said, if this park was financially hurting, I would completely understand that a big box is going into Kiddieland's spot, but this isn't the case.

One side of the family has greed going on. And on top of that, this area where Kiddieland is, has a ton of big box stores already in the area. As Carrie pointed out, this is a different situation.

Even though it's likely that Costco probably had nothing to do with the demise of Kiddyland (a park of which I will admit to knowing nothing about), Your interpretation of why some people have an interest in this thread is probably dead on, Gonch. It may seem to some that Costco "destroyed" Kiddyland.

Having not read the article, and only gaining an interest in this thread after Gonch's comment above, especially the last sentence, did Costco have anything to do with talking the land-owners to close the park?

Lord Gonchar said:
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. :)

Hey, they exist. (And for the record, I DO shop at Costco -- far more pleasant than, say, Wal-Mart as far as big box concerns go).

I'd be curious to know if Costco directly pressured the park to close, and I suspect the answer is a big fat "No". They're just the convenient scapegoat here...

Lord Gonchar said:

I'd choose to have all my needs met at will if given the choice, but it's not a choice I can make so thinking about it and complaining that it's not a choice is pretty silly I think.

I definitely see your point. But under the same logic, don't you have to ask yourself, why do you care that others seem to care?

On a side note, I think it's kind of interesting that none of the previous stories on the park closing (dating back 3 years) got more than a dozen or so comments, but once you're able to tie Costco and 'big box' shopping to it, the interest takes off.

I asked myself that same question at some point yesterday. For some reason, I just didn't give the articles any thought when they hit earlier. I guess sometimes things don't become real until something happens. It's kind of like your parents' divorce doesn't seem final and 'real' until they decide to marry other people.

But if Costco is coming in and replacing the park, now you have an antagonist - a villain to be angry with.

I think it's less divisive than that. Are you really under the impression that people are angry at Costco? I don't get that impression. I think this has just reminded people that a nice little park isn't here any longer.

My focus has been and continues to be an interest in the family dynamic that made this so. It's not as simple as the owners of the park decide not to be in business any longer and sell their interest. If the entire family announced they wanted to do this, I imagine I wouldn't really have anything to say about it.

Carrie M. said:
I definitely see your point. But under the same logic, don't you have to ask yourself, why do you care that others seem to care?

Choose your favorite:

1. Why do you care that I care? ;)

2. Because deep down inside, even after 9 years of posting here telling me otherwise, I like to think it's still possible to open people's eyes to seeing a situation differently and even if you don't fully change their mind(s), you might give them a glimpse into an alternate (and in my opinion, better) way of approaching and seeing things.

3. Because it bugs me more that otherwise intelligent people act in a way that seems so irrational than it does that a little ol' amusement park is closing the doors.

Well obviously, number 1 is my favorite. Of course I care what you think. You're still a stud, you jerk! ;)

As for the other options:

2. It seems so funny to me that your approach is so closed-minded ("and in my opinion, better") and yet you want others to open their minds to what you have to say. This discussion has not been the typical making money is bad kind of conversation of the past and yet it seems to me that's the only way you see it.

3. Seems to me that all you have to do is change your perception and you won't see those otherwise intelligent people as acting irrationally. Problem solved. :)

Maybe I'm getting heartless in my old age.

Am I sad that Kiddieland closed? A little. I never made it inside the park (I got to see it sitting closed one cold February afternoon) so part of the reason I'm sad is that I no longer have the opportunity to go to the park. Of course the argument could be made that if is was truly important I would have made a more concerted effort to get there. I'm also saddened to see a classic John Allen woodie potentially see it's demise. Of course someone could still save it.

Am I bothered by the fact that the land will be used by Costco? Heck no. Not sure what this has to do with the park. I never expected to see it sit empty.

But in the grand scheme of life does any of this truly matter? Not in my opinion. People come and go. Companys come and go. Coaster come and go. And sometimes there isn't a reason. There isn't a conspiracy. It's not done in the name of greed. It just...happens. It's called life...and it's taken me 40-some-odd-years to get to a point where I worry about those things which I can control and not worry about those which I cannot.

Kiddieland is going to exist or not exist regardless of me. I can't save it. I can't turn back time and squeeze in that visit. I'm not going to be overly saddened or burdened by its demise. It's gone...while MY life moves on.

--end rant

Carrie M. said:
It seems so funny to me that your approach is so closed-minded ("and in my opinion, better") and yet you want others to open their minds to what you have to say.

Is thinking your approach is better close-minded? I don't think so. I think it's two entirely unrelated things. It's posible to do either on both sides independent of the other half:

1. be open-minded/close-minded

and also

2. feel your approach is better/feel your approach is worse)

I think that I've certainly considered the other side of this time and time again. Still seems so pathetically inefficient to worry about things you can't change.

If anything that conclusion comes from carefully considering the other side.

...

...and then that, in turn, negates your #3 because I see no logical or beneficial reason to change my point of view. All signs go back to my approach being a better one. So we go back to my #2 and the loop begins again.

Your #1, however, is simply fact and I'm embarassed that I didn't just see it in the first place. ;)

(but everyone should go back and read what Moosh said and just ignore Carrie and myself...if you already aren't)

I'm kind of with 'Moosh and his line of thinking. I can't get more upset than being a little sad and moving on. And I think Gonch has a serious point that no one cared until there was talk of a Costco going in there.

Chitown said:
Not trying to start an arguement with you, but based on this quote, you have no problem with capitalism, but yet you have a problem with Walmart based on what you said in the other news topic?

Nope, I don't have a problem with capitalism at all. There's a fine line, however, when you abuse the power that comes with your position, which is where I have an issue with Wal-Mart (and therefore choose not to ever shop in one). What happened to Kiddieland was a result of market forces being what they are, not some giant corporation getting its way by crushing their own vendors and pushing prices beyond natural market forces. It's not even remotely an apples comparison.

I'm sure Costco, like any major retail operation, has a property acquisition department. They look at markets where they want to move in or expand, and then start looking for suitable properties. Those properties are graded based on factors like traffic, infrastructure, accessibility, local ordinances, plus an estimate of how much it would cost to develop.

I'm not saying Costco pressured the owners to make any kind of deal. But it wouldn't surprise me if they approached them first if the site is in a neighborhood where they really want to move and the property meets a lot of the criteria they have for purchasing land.

Just to put this out there, which parks do folks think are generally safe from someone coming in and purchasing them?

Carrie M. said:
I asked myself that same question at some point yesterday. For some reason, I just didn't give the articles any thought when they hit earlier. I guess sometimes things don't become real until something happens. It's kind of like your parents' divorce doesn't seem final and 'real' until they decide to marry other people.

I think you're on to something there, and perhaps it's something like this: With the news of Costco being interested in developing the site, we know there's no possibility of the amusement park surviving. That's when it really hits home.

At least with, say, Geauga Lake, there's the remotest glimmer of hope in the back of some people's minds that Tom The Apex Guy Who Didn't Buy The Big Dipper But Actually Bought It For Some Unnamed Mystery Buyer won't reduce the Big Dipper to a pile of rubble. And until Cedar Fair sells the property to Costco, a scant few fanatics might even still believe that an amusement park will someday magically appear on that site a la Brigadoon. :)

I don't think it was any less upsetting when the park announced its closing. There was just a lot of other news going around during a busier time in the coaster season. I don't equate the length of a thread with any particular variable or with the topic's, ummmm, gravity...I also think the "big box stores" topic is hotter than the Kiddieland topic (making the thread artificially lengthy).

And Costco has nothing to do with the closing of the park. That was a foregone conclusion long before Costco ever entered the picture. Would it make any difference if it were a grocery store, or anything else?

I think there is something to that.

They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Also:

They put up a parking lot on a piece of land where the supermarket used to stand.
Before that they put up a bowling alley on the site that used to be the local palais.

There is some feeling of insult when a place as special and magical as an amusement park gets replaced by something as mundane and commonplace as a Costco. Now maybe if what had gone in its place was an Andy Warhol museum, or the wold's largest miniature golf course, or an international spaceport, it might be easier to accept psychologically. But a Costco? That's like a self-contained joke.

Ensign Smith said:
But a Costco? That's like a self-contained joke.

Self-contained and purchased in bulk. :)

::rimshot::

:)

Big box retail always seems to generate a lot of negative responses whenever the issue is brought up (in or outside this forum). But I cannot recall ever driving by a Walmart, Target, Wholesale Club, Costco, etc. parking lot that isn't filled with cars or going into one of those stores (never been in a Costco as there isn't one within decent driving distance -- though I have driven by a couple) that didn't have a lot of folks pushing carts up and down the aisles. So those stores appear to still be pretty popular even with large numbers of detractors.

And I definitely agree with the idea that too many people worry about things out of their control. And if you couple that with a notion of holding on to every little bad thing that happens to you (opposite of the notion that you can't change the hand you are dealt only how you play it), you have a recipe for misery.