SFNO

Little article I thought was interesting

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7BA0EABF82%2DBA9F%2D45D7%2D925A%2D5E46FDDA77C5%7D

I just read that an tried to post in news but got an error. Shouldn't insurance pay for everything?

SFNO = Still Flooded Not Operating

Only if they were carrying flood insurance. I haven't heard if the Industrial Development Agency required it or not. Considering it's below sea level, you'd think it would be a prudent move.

If they're allowed to get it.. I heard a rumor somewhere that some places in the south won't even let a place get flood insurance because it's so likely to happen you'd either have insane premiums, or out-of-business insurance companies.

The whole insurance issue is kind of sad.

I've heard stories of families who've had their houses blown down and then, when the water started to rise, completely flooded. In the end the insurance company is blaming something like that on flood damage. It seems so unjust.

Then again that's just what I hear on the news. Who knows what the truth is. ;)

That's not a rumor. It's a Fact. I'm not sure if SFNO fell into one of those areas or not, but there are a ton of people who didn't have flood insurance simply because insurance companies wouldn't provide it.

I'm glad I got to visit it in 2003. The park may never be the same. And though they arn't the greatest because I was there at night, I have some pics on my site of SFNO. *** Edited 9/28/2005 3:35:35 AM UTC by Jason Hammond***

Based on the agreement I read between SF and the city of N.O., SF is really screwed in this deal.

They say they will rebuild but on the same note, say that the park doesn't perform that well because it isn't near the major tourist attractions of the city.

I don't know, If I were SF, I would consider keeping SFAW open and closing down SFNO.

Well, it was pretty stupid of Six Flags to commit themselves to that park for 75 years. If they discovered that the park would never turn a profit after five years of operation, that means they are still stuck with the dog for seven more decades. That's like buying a car and working out a deal with the salesman that says you can never buy another car ever again.

It's not unusual for flood-prone places to have no insurance or virtually-impossible-to-get insurance. Any coastal land below sea level would be a no-no for most insurance companies. Other flood-prone areas such as along the banks of the Red River and Mississippi River are in the same boat.

The Netherlands is a country with over 4,000 square miles of land below sea level, protected by dikes not unlike New Orleans. In that country, individuals can buy insurance for flooding caused by rainfall. However, insurance for flooding caused by dike failure is illegal.

That's why Bushkill Park was never able to get flood insurance- people and businesses in flood-prone areas are unable to get the insurance they need.

But if you live in an area that never floods, you can get all the flood insurance you could ever want!

like i said on the front page:

why don't they just come out and say it'd be cheaper to buy out the lease than rebuild a park that won't have jack for a consumer base...it just doesn't make any sense to fill people's brains with this kind of hope, lets focus on what needs to get rebuilt, infrastrcture, schools, apartments, everything...amusement park comes way after all those

Yeah, there is a lot of work to be done in New Orleans but I wouldn't discount the importance of entertainment as the city tries to rebuild. Not only are things like the French Quarter, the Saints and Six Flags important because they provide jobs but they also boost morale. Fun things might not be as important as housing and solid infrastructure but they are still a priority.

Is it anywhere in Six Flags's contract that they have to open the park in 2006? Seems like it might be a good idea just to spend the year cleaning it up a little and waiting to see how the rest of the city fares before reopening in 2007.

I'm not clear on all the details of the contract but I would assume that there would be something in there about a disaster of the scope of the one that hit the region. The contract states the park must operate but it also has to be reasonable.

Another thing to consider is that as the park gets built/rebuilt so much of the work will have to be permitted and inspected. Electrical, structural, plumbing (for rest rooms and food service areas), in addition to basic ride inspections.

I don't know for example how the sewage facilities in the area fared. Even if the park gets rebuilt, is there anywhere available for them to pump their sewage? I'd also assume that every building in the park will have to be gutted, if not destroyed, and reconstructed because of concerns about mold.

Who's going to be doing the approvals and inspections? If they're talking about trying to rebuild the entire city, how many plans and buildings have to be permitted and inspected? Will there be a lot of people available to do the work, or will there be a backlog? In the scheme of things, will SFNO be fast-tracked at the expense of housing or other businesses?

Rebuilding a 200+ year old city is not going to be done in two or three years.

Flood insurance in most of the counrty is usually not in the 'normal' policy for either homes or businesses.

In the states we cover mobile homes, we refer people that inquire about it to another insurance company that specializes in it.

Vehicles are covered if they carry Comprehensive coverage and are destroyed in a flood, hurricane and other acts of god.

-Mark (auto, boat, motorhome, mobile home, motorcycle and travel trailer insurance guru.) :) *** Edited 9/30/2005 12:49:41 PM UTC by FLYINGSCOOTER***