Hershey News

Sunday, October 9, 2005 2:52 PM
http://www.pennlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1128504156193901.xml?pennnews&coll=1&thispage=1

I was still hoping for a hypercoaster, but it just doesn't seem to be in the cards. One can only dream.

+0
Sunday, October 9, 2005 3:49 PM
"Company and township officials have said they want Hershey to be a family destination, not a thrill-seeker's magnet or a day stop on the way to somewhere else." Shame on all you coasterbuzzers and your gosh-darned-multi-day- multi-park trips.

I don't see how a few proposed water features somehow throws off that dynamic. And the stormwater issue, in my opinion, is something that can be worked out. To reject a plan because of that is totally bogus.

PA township officials are annoying. I find they're mostly big fish in a little pond who like telling people what to do for a power kick. I'm sure that saying "no" to a big company like Hershey is a virtual aphrodisiac for some people.


RGB, who plays in stormwater for a living.

+0
Sunday, October 9, 2005 6:14 PM
If it is a 100% no go it would be a perfect time for someone to buy Williams Grove and add a few waterslides. Hersheypark is probably about the same distance from Harrsiburg as Williams Grove. Just my 2 cents. :)
+0
Sunday, October 9, 2005 9:11 PM
Hello! You've got this roller coaster called Roller Soaker which just wastes enourmous amounts of water, whether people are riding or not. Why would a water play area be any different? The article confirms something I'm sure we've all been looking at everytime we go down by Lightning Racer and Roller Soaker--you knew that space would get filled sooner or later. Well, I guess it's back to the drawing board unless they can get their way. To me, it just seems anti-business towards a huge source of revenue for the area.
+0
Sunday, October 9, 2005 9:36 PM
According to the article, the issue is stormwater management, which to me means you're taking this grass area and paving it over so now when it rains, all that water runs off instead of soaking into the ground. Big deal, there are numerous widely accepted methods of dealing with it.

But if that's the issue, why did the township official make the comment that these would be waterpark attractions and not "regular" rides? My opinion is that the township is playing games-- you keep submitting revised plans, and we'll keep charging you additional fees to review the plans. If you're going to make money, we're going to make money.

I think I'll look for the township's website online and see if they have minutes from the meetings posted.

+0
Sunday, October 9, 2005 10:07 PM
Isn't that what sewers and storm drains are for? Honestly, this is total b.s. Derry should take a long, hard look at where their tax dollars come from and compromise.
+0
Sunday, October 9, 2005 10:29 PM
Well, technically Rob, the way it usually works is that you're not allowed to let any more stormwater leave your property after you build than what leaves before you build.

I checked out Derry Township's website. They don't have the minutes posted from the October meeting. I guess that makes sense since they won't be officially approved until the next meeting, in case they need to be corrected.

What is interesting is that the slogan on the township crest, or whatever you call it, says "Derry Township, Where it's just sweeter." Talk about riding someone's coattails. And they brag about not raising taxes for 18 years. Hmmm, wonder where all their income is coming from.

+0
Sunday, October 9, 2005 11:36 PM
The article says that the proposed attractions will eliminate the frog hopper and "one other ride"... Isn't Chaos back there? :)
+0
Monday, October 10, 2005 9:21 AM
I'm sure the town has some rules but they should be willing to bend them for the company that keeps them on the map. I'm that that something could be worked out, even if it requires Derry spending a little money to help Hershey along. Surely they can see that the park is missing something that a lot of other parks have (water attractions).
+0
Monday, October 10, 2005 12:40 PM
Not necessarily in the township's defense, but it appears that October's meeting was the first time HP presented plans to the twp for approval, and they're expecting the attractions to be operating by May 2007. I have a number of projects in my files that are much smaller and either have taken or will take more than a year and a half to complete. And how many times have the park and township gone through this process already?

Hershey's engineers and planners should have met with the township's engineers privately before any submission was made to iron out issues like stormwater. Maybe they did, I don't know. I'm not fond of local officials in the least, but I wouldn't blame them for getting a little defensive for anyone who'd come in and say, OK approve this right now or we can't build it.

But the township should also understand how important it is for the park to remain on the cutting edge with the competition, if not ahead. If the twp can make mucho profit off of the park and the candy company, they should be willing to extend some cooperation their way as well. They should figure out that without the park, there probably wouldn't be any outlets, hotels, banks, restaurants, and other businesses open there either.

+0
Monday, October 10, 2005 3:19 PM
Good point. I had no idea this was a last-minute thing. I guess I just assumed that the park was talking with the town about water-based attractions for some time now.

Whatever the case is, the town should realize that Hershey is behind the competition when it comes to water-based attractions. They are one of the only major parks left in the country without any kind of waterpark. I don't think they need a waterpark but I do think they're missing out right now.

+0
Monday, October 10, 2005 4:04 PM
I was just saying that because the news story seemed to be recent and I couldn't find any other mention of the park in previous minutes the township has posted on their website.

I'm not sure the township thinks of Hersheypark in that context, Rob-- compared to other parks. They're probably mostly concerned with what happens within their own little borders. So they worry about the park extending another pipe toward the creek. And they fret about how many cars will be going up and down their roads.

I don't know how it is in other states, but PA seems to have it all backwards as far as treating its businesses is concerned. Hassle the people who provide jobs and pay taxes, or provide a service that people actually use. But then they'll fall all over someone coming in who demands tax breaks, creates few jobs, and has a heavy demand for municipal services.

The township should realize that the park is hoping for something big for its 100th anniversary. And all those additional people will be spending lots of cash within the township borders.

+0
Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:37 PM
It is my understanding that the plans were not denied. They were just recommended to be denied by the body that actually has the say-so.
+0
Wednesday, October 12, 2005 12:34 AM
Technically, you're right, dannerman. Planning Commissions in PA are appointed, not elected, bodies that don't have the right to approve or reject plans. They only review plans for compliance with the municipality's SALDO (subdivision and land development ordinance) and recommend approval or denial to the council or supervisors or whoever the elected officials are.

The only thing is, supervisors rarely overrule their PC's. I guess they don't want to show them up, since they're the ones who appointed them in the first place.

From the article, it sounds like HERC is looking for a yes or no answer. They don't intend to take the plans back, make any changes, and come back to the PC and Supervisors again for approval. I can't see them just walking away and not having any new attractions for their 100th anniversary year because of a pissing match between themselves and the township. If so, you'd think they'd have a Plan B for backup.

+0
Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:35 PM

Intamin Fan said:
Hello! You've got this roller coaster called Roller Soaker which just wastes enourmous amounts of water, whether people are riding or not. Why would a water play area be any different? The article confirms something I'm sure we've all been looking at everytime we go down by Lightning Racer and Roller Soaker--you knew that space would get filled sooner or later. Well, I guess it's back to the drawing board unless they can get their way. To me, it just seems anti-business towards a huge source of revenue for the area.

Roller Soaker doesn't really waste water. It's actually on a closed plumbing circuit. I believe the water has some chlorine in it. It just circulates through and through again.

Think of the water bill Kings Island would have if that ride ran off a city water system... It just isn't something that can be done, plus, it would be a complete waste. *** Edited 10/12/2005 7:35:54 PM UTC by rathofdoom***

+0
Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:45 PM
I'm not making any judgements here as I haven't read any of the stories and I probably never will because, well, I don't care that much.

But I wanted to clarify sewers and drains vs stormwater run-off. Yeah, that's what sewers and drains are for but it still creates a problem because all the water that falls during a heavy rain gets shunted directly into streams and rivers resulting in a greater chance of flooding. Porous surfaces, such as grassy fields and wetlands, absorb the water and reduce the risk of damaging floods.

But again, that's not a judgement for or against the Hershey project. In fact, the local Sprawl-Mart probably causes more damage to the water cycle than a couple of waterslides ever would.

+0

You must be logged in to post

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