Ed Hart asks for less money for Kentucky Kingdom rehab

Posted Friday, April 15, 2011 12:21 PM | Contributed by Jeff

Businessman Ed Hart, the President and CEO of the Kentucky Kingdom Redevelopment Company, has come up with a new proposal, this time asking the city to only issue $17.5 million, and guaranteeing the city more money.

Read more and see video from WDRB/Louisville.

Related parks

Friday, April 15, 2011 5:53 PM

I like the enthusiasm he's putting into getting this project going, but in the current state of things I think the state sees this as a pretty big gamble. Personally I still don't think they'll bite.

+0
Friday, April 15, 2011 8:17 PM

The funny thing is, I think he would've had a solid shot if he would've asked for this amount the first time, instead of the $50 million.

+0
Friday, April 15, 2011 10:31 PM

I like Ed Hart, and I like what he is trying to do. I support him, and hope he can get this park back into operation. The city of Louisville is somewhat responsible for the park closing in the first place, so maybe we should be observing if the city really wants the park to reopen. They would at least get kudos for bringing more jobs and more traveler's money into the area.

+0
Sunday, April 17, 2011 11:02 AM

If there's not enough support to get this park operational in 2012, I doubt it would ever open again...infrastructure without usage will deteriorate, making the project (to even get up to "barely running") that much more expensive as time goes by.

+0
Sunday, April 17, 2011 9:58 PM

What rides ..if any are still on site? What are the chances it just becoming a water park?

+0
Monday, April 18, 2011 1:17 AM

I believe most of the rides, other than Chang and the roller skater, are still on site and standing.

+0
Monday, April 18, 2011 10:13 AM

The Mouse went to SFNE and Chang went to SFGAdv. I have not heard that the roller skater had been removed.

+0
Monday, April 18, 2011 1:02 PM

Oh yeah, I had those two switched around in my head. Don't ever get old...

+0
Monday, April 18, 2011 4:00 PM

His orrigional asking had included the price of a replacement for Chang. IDK If I had the park, Id make a path to the rear of the park and open the waterpark first then go from there. That should be 2012 and no later

+0
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 3:27 PM

Jeff said:
The funny thing is, I think he would've had a solid shot if he would've asked for this amount the first time, instead of the $50 million.

I have to agree. the first 2 praposals were way too high. even with thsi one he plans to approach the state soon with a 30 million request to expand. They might see this as a never ending trend.

The fact he also is proposing to give back 30% of any sale also scares me.

+0
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:23 AM

Pardon the ignorance, but is there a reason Ed is asking the state for money instead of private investors or banks?

+0
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:52 AM

Probably because the banks aren't in a lending mood, and the bonds probably have a favorable rate.

+0
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:32 PM

Banks are lending. Not as freely as they once did but they are making loans that make economic sense. In addition, bonds issued by the city would likely be backed by a letter of credit which is essentially a loan by a bank/financial institution. There is also a lot of private equity money out there if the economics make sense though the operator would be required to give up a share of the equity in the project.

I suspect he can't really make the case for a straight loan in terms of cash flow certainty to repay a traditional loan (and/or terms would be so high because of the uncertainty/risk involved that he couldn't pay it back). He doesn't want to give up equity to other investors (assuming any are willing to invest). So he goes to the city to use the potential for increased tax revenues as incentive for the city to do the deal. Tough sell in this environment (as I think it should be in any environment as I think the actual economics aren't really evaluated in most cases and there is just a knee jerk reaction to approve anything that would result in additional jobs no matter what the economics behind the costs actually are).

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...