Locals complain about state of former Geauga Lake

I love the quote from the moron who says they bought the park to close it. Because, you know, losing tens of millions of dollars is just what they wanted to do.

What can you say, except clueless........

There is certainly a disconnect with a small group of the passionate GL enthusiasts. They are determined that CF bought the park to close it. Well, if the park was doing so well, why the hell did Six Flags sell it? It doesn't add up but passion rarely leaves room for reason.

One person commenting on the article asks "Why don't they just build a mall there?" The land is for sale, no one wants it!

I could be wrong. But, I don't think the land isn't really being marked for sale at the moment. They had their initial listing through Colliers and received a handful of bids which I believe accounted for all of the land. But, none of the offers were what they were hoping for. This was all happening as property values were dropping. Dick, said they would just sit on it until the market turned around before trying to sell it again.

I wonder what property taxes are like for unimproved property like that. Must not be too bad.

I am just going by what the article states.

On Tuesday, a spokesperson said the water park is not part of the 500 acres it has had up for sale since it was purchased in the fall of 2007.

Even if it's not listed for sale somewhere, if someone wanted the land an offer could be made.

Is anyone aside from me a bit surprised that Ouimet would let this place look this way? Regardless of who you think did what to that place, it looks awful. C'mon Matt, step it up! Leaving it as such an eyesore is sooooo unDisney, so unSW, so unCedarFair!

I agree. Regardless of anybody's opinion about the metaphorical mess surrounding the park's closure, the literal mess on the ground can and should be cleaned up. That's just being a responsible corporate citizen.

I'm guessing there are some politics at play with regards to what is or is not happening to that property.

I can't figure this out either. I can...kind...of understand the no need to demolish yet (it's pretty overgrown now over there)..

But why leave the stuff on the water park side up? The 4d building is still there...which I think they should make it to a 4d water movie attraction..first of it's kind ;)

They have the shark building there still...An interactive, water, fun house anyone? ;)

Granted they did tear down the stadium...and they advertised it as a "New Sand Play area!!" ..Oh, did I mention that the sand has all but washed away already this year?....sigh...

...I just feel that there has been A LOT of neglect for even the water park these past few years. They built it, yes, but then it feels and looks like Cedar Fair has given them only $100 a year and says. "Hey, do the best you can with it. Sorry mom and dad didn't get a raise this year."

There is a TON of potential for Geauga Lake as a water park...even a World Class water park. It needs the right direction, creativity, and marketing to achieve it.

-RollerCoasterGod

Well, Cedar Fair has already sold one of the stand alone water parks out in California. It wouldn't surprise me if they follow suit with the remaining ones. Leaving the 4D theatre and other buildings up might be of interest to a potential buyer who would see ways to easily and cheaply grow.

I feel the same way about Ouimet just letting the property stagnate, but then I wonder if, outside of any hidden politics, he just has had far bigger fish to fry recently.

I don't see the property selling, I really don't. If I were a developer, I'd buy it, maybe keep the dipper and a few of the 'amenities' available, turn it into a mixed use community with shops, apartments, and condos/houses, right on the lake, but I don't know enough about the area to know if they could support it.

They don't want the property. Why would you put money into maintaining something that would be immediately bulldozed once it's sold?

Exactly what I was thinking, Jeff. If the property is not making them any money right now, why put money into it to clean it up? The cleanup can come to the place once it has been sold and a use for it has been determined.

And the same goes for the stuff on the waterpark side of the lake. The unused attractions there can be demolished once it is determined that a new attraction is ready for that spot. Save the cost of the demolition to be included in the budget of adding a new attraction.

Save the cost of the demolition of the amusement park side to be paid for by the people who buy that property as well.

It's the most cost effective way to do it, and unit holders should be pleased with that.

I fantasize about Merlin buying the property. While keeping the waterpark in operation they could put a Sea Life aquarium in the old shark building and a LegoLand Discovery Center in the old dino hangar.

Jeff said:

They don't want the property. Why would you put money into maintaining something that would be immediately bulldozed once it's sold?

I get that, but there's also being a good corporate neighbor and friend to the community.

I don't think they should invest money in making the place nice, but letting it rot is different, and that's what it sounds like is going on here.

Many communities have ordinances that forbid an empty property from not being at least maintained. I've worked for several companies that had 'dark properties' that, though they were up for sale and just sitting there, still had to be maintained because of their location. Maintaining them meant that they couldn't just let the place rot, even if it was private property, fenced in, with no tresspassing signs up.

The complainers are correct, Cedar Fair does not care what the property looks like. But, I ask, why should they? If there are no laws requiring the former park's upkeep, there is no financial reason to keep it up.

Considering how reliant the waterpark is on a centralized season pass holder base, I absolutely think there is a financial reason to keep the neighbors happy.