Great Escape neighbors offer alternative parking

It came from an interview on the Great Escape Central site (don't worry--it's not my site; the interview just happens to be there). Here's the link:

http://www.gecentral.com/MarkShapiroInterview.htm

He was basically talking about food prices and such, but to me, that's not the only places we're being gouged.

Yea, there's not a whole lot we can do about certain things. But what gets me more with Shapiro is that he's not in line enough with the other parks of this type, such as the Paramount, CF, etc. He's close on some things, but others I just think he's ripping us off more than usual, if you know what I mean.

Also, the cart before the horse mentality is kinda annoying--raising some prices (that were already high) before spending a season or 2 to fix some of the parks' problems.

I think a few of you may have missed the point in the article:

---

From the article: Town Supervisor Daniel Stec said he's received phone calls from a few residents in the area about Cohen's operation.

"They said, 'Hey, the Great Escape was just forced to go through all these hoops to keep the pedestrians off the road, and now you've got people charging for parking, and they're walking across the road -- doesn't that defeat the purpose?'" Stec said."

---

So the point is that Great Escape was FORCED by the local gov't to build this pedestrian bridge for safety reasons. I'm sure they had to spend quite a bit of money for this as well. Now, the bridge is open and the gov't is allowing this other guy to do what they would not allow Six Flags to do. Do you not see that as wrong?

EDIT - And I assume when Six Flags had people walking across the road, the parking was free, right? So it would make sense that they start charging for parking if they had to build a multi-million dollar pedestrian bridge. ;)
*** This post was edited by MrX 6/22/2006 6:19:57 PM ***

---

Also, the cart before the horse mentality is kinda annoying--raising some prices (that were already high) before spending a season or 2 to fix some of the parks' problems.

---

I don't think that's necessarily what they're doing though. I see two main points here:

1. The parks were undervalued and the company is in serious debt. Consider this a 'correction' of long standing poor pricing structure. (Actually, SF prices are not too far above most chain parks if you really take a look)

2. Even if they waited, the reaction would be the same. SF has always been the 'discount' chain. Suddenly people don't get to visit for pocket change and it stings. It makes no difference if it happened now or in 5 years when the turnaround is complete - the reaction to higher prices would have been the same. I'm with Red Zone on this. Get the pain out of the way and then build up from there. In a season or two when SF is actually delivering inside the parks like the other chains do, the pricing will already be in place and all is well.

I agree with MrX there. Why should this guy not have to follow the same set of rules. I see no problem in his letting people park in his lot, but he better have a way for them to get to the other side of the road besides just walking across.

Gonch said:

---

Am I the only one who parks in places that have parking meters or in garages that charge per hour - places like that?

---

Jeff said:

---

But it doesn't cost $10 each trip to the mall when I barely spend a hundred bucks there per year!

---

Right, and I can even go to the mall and spend nothing at the mall and park for free. Certainly people go to the mall and don't buy anything, just browse, hang out or even just visit the arcade and are not contributing to the growth of the mall by paying it's inflated prices to help pay for the cost of maintaining the parking lot. The mall doesn't stop those people from parking there. I can even park there for free for certain events and take shuttle buses (also for free) to certain area events because it is more convenient and easier to get out of. Who accounts for that?

^^^ IMO, I think the season passes were too cheap. The ticket prices and parking prices were pricey enough last year, and too much this year, IMO. Here's an example:

SFA (2005)
- gate: approx. $40
- parking: $10

PKD (2005)
- gate: approx. $45-48
- parking: $9

SFA (2006)
- gate: approx. $50
- parking: $15

PKD (2006)
- gate: approx. $50
- parking: $10

Now, for what you get, PKD is the better value here. You get a larger, more mature and better run park, which also has a water park, for the same gate price as SFA, and $5 less parking fee.

SFA shouldn't be more than what they were last year, which is already pricey enough. Hersheypark, which is a much better park, IMO, is $10 LESS than SFA this year, and parking is definitely less as well.

Another question would be, is Shapiro gonna leave the inflated prices as is for a couple years, or will they continue to go up each year? If they don't level out for a bit, he's still ahead of the game in pricing, and I don't think he should be. Gouging families left and right with over-overpriced things doesn't sound like a lot of family fun for the parents to me.

LG said: "Maybe when (if?) the revolution happens, I'll be out there fighting alongside everyone...until then it's not worth my energy or stress. Give me a call when we coordinate an effort to overthrow the establishment."

Working on it....but not in a militia sorta way, so those in charge of "saving democracy", don't come a-knockin' on my door just YET....I get pestered enough without the NSA coming by, LOL...there are no weapons in my house, registered or otherwise, and never will be.

Back to SF, etc., I think they ARE delivering, already, in all areas but the one that bugs enthusiasts the most (and the GP more than enthusiasts seem to think)....OPERATIONS! Get that in order, and then *equivalent pricing* becomes very reasonable. Of course, how many people really have parks from multiple chains within reasonable driving distances...

Friggin' Hippie. ;)

---

cyberdman said:
Who accounts for that?

---

I have to assume it's rolled into the fees the stores pay the mall owners to set up shop in the mall and it's up to them from there. It only makes sense.

From there it would trickle down to consumers through store pricing - probably also why the stores in malls seem to be higher priced, 'name' establishments.

Boy am I late on this one but it hits home. Plus I have been going to TGE since I was a kid 20 years ago.

Re:

So the point is that Great Escape was FORCED by the local gov't to build this pedestrian bridge for safety reasons. I'm sure they had to spend quite a bit of money for this as well. Now, the bridge is open and the gov't is allowing this other guy to do what they would not allow Six Flags to do. Do you not see that as wrong?

EDIT - And I assume when Six Flags had people walking across the road, the parking was free, right? So it would make sense that they start charging for parking if they had to build a multi-million dollar pedestrian bridge.
*** This post was edited by MrX 6/22/2006 6:19:57 PM ***

Who said for sure they were 'forced' to do this? Sound like good PR to me. My bet is that if they were 'forced' it came with a bunch of tax payer dollars attached or tax breaks. The real reason is not because SF was so concerned for safety. My guess is that the did not want to ship all that dirt away and they wanted a more upscale feel in the area surrounding their swank new $200+ a night hotel. Funny how they put the bridge by the hotel.

Personally, unless you are in a city with public trasportation available and limited parking, I think the whole 'pay to park' thing should be illegal. If they dare to get into a 'pay to walk' deal then they are really opening the door from the gov to step in and say, whooooa...this is really just a way to make your ticket prices look cheaper.

Personally I'd park in the guy's lot. In fact, it were closer I'd pay a buck more. If the locality takes the traffic light and cross walk (collusion to me) then they better be ready to get sued if someone get hit. It said he goes thru 40 cars a day. Some would say he should have to build a bridge too. I doubt if SF only had 40 cars a day in their lot they would have been 'forced' into building the bridge...so why force him too. Also, the local outlets up the road add to the traffic conjestion. Surely SF would have made an issue of this if they were footing the whole bill. Finally if SF had safety as a concern, the bridge would be open and accessoble to all. By the way, is there a law saying you MUST use the bridge to cross?

No folks, SF did the math and my guess is by 2007 they will be bringing big bucks on this lot deal.

FYI: We hit the Lake George area each year and GE as well. A few years back we complained how the park was falling apart and a few incidents during a recent trip. We did receive written word back from the GE/SFand some compl tickets. When we returned the next year impovements were indeed made. But a few years later, a boatload of inflated pricing for for food, drink and games (and now parking) is the norm for a relatively small family park open limited hours. The $10 fee was the final straw for us. We did not return in 06.....if that dude is still parking cars in 07, maybe we'll try the park again...or look into the Trolley. SF is not getting my $10 though!