There's never been a hotel there BEFORE....

Oh. It's important for hotels not to be located near seasonal attractions.

Well. That explains why there are no hotels located near Cedar Point.

If there is a hotel operator that plans to close the hotel completely during the shoulder season, then it would not be an issue. A seasonal hotel for a seasonal attraction. It happens all the time in this business.

And Mackinac Island. That explains why there are no hotels near Mackinac Island, either.

I'd sure like to know what those apples have to do with my oranges. They're trying to sell it as a year round deal, per the article.

I don't know what you would put there to drum up occupancy when GA is closed, something like a Great Wolf Lodge could potentially work, but GA wouldn't want that siphoning off guests from their water park in the warmer season and vice versa. I dont think NJ is able to put casinos anywhere but AC. Unless maybe you got the Lenape Indian tribe involved, but I'm not sure how that works either.

My guess is aside from the other offseason concerns, there are enviromental issues and property taxes are quite high here. And the data they do have on guests visiting the park, puts the majority of the people within a short drive of GA.

You probably have people visiting the shore for the week, and making an "amusent park day" but most stuff at the shore rents by the week in prime season, they wont rent you 6 days while you visit the park on the 7th. You could potentially overnight on Sat, and rent at the shore Sun to sun.

billb7581 said:

I don't know what you would put there to drum up occupancy when GA is closed, something like a Great Wolf Lodge could potentially work, but GA wouldn't want that siphoning off guests from their water park in the warmer season and vice versa.

It seems to work just fine at Kings Island. Both places are very busy.

And Cedar Point, and The Dells...

And Busch Gardens (Water Country USA)...

And Maverick.

Oh? That doesn't really apply here?

Right. And I'm under the impression that the reason to do this, business-wise, is so these attractions can feed off each other, not siphon. Families make more than one day out of it and everyone wins.

Being from the Midwest, I always had the impression of NJ as being entirely industrial, mostly urban, and very crowded. When I actually visited I was embarrassed by that impression, NJ seems to have as much beautiful countryside and 'nowhere' as anyone else. This SF happens to be located in the middle of some of that nowhere, so it makes sense to me that if a hotel or resort were to materialize, there would have to be something else to keep the area alive year round. Or it's a failure.

Since SF draws mainly from NYC and Philly, those folks have no reason to travel to Jackson for another outlet mall or IKEA, they already have no end of that kind of stuff going where they live. I think a place like Great Wolf or Kalahari would be the perfect draw for off season, (it works here in Ohio) and would be well supported by theme park visitors in the summer.

Are those run by the same entity though?

What I am saying is that the Six Flags people probably aren't going to be too keen on a competitor setting up shop right in their back yard.

They already own a waterpark. If this was tacked onto the Hurricane Harbour, or whatever it is called, then, yes I agree that could potentially work, but that would involve SF getting into the Hotel business, which they have seemed to be reluctant to do for the past 40 years.

If Six Flags was on board, it would be a done deal, they wouldn't be drawing up renderings trying to attract outside investors.

RCMAC said:

Since SF draws mainly from NYC and Philly, those folks have no reason to travel to Jackson for another outlet mall or IKEA, they already have no end of that kind of stuff going where they live.

Exactly......

Busch isn't the best example, because they are the same company. But Cedar Point, Kings Island, and lord knows, the Dells have nothing to do with any of these mega resort/waterparks that have sprung up around them.

Trust me, the competition here is nothing but good for the area. Six Flags doesn't have to be on board, or contribute investment, but they will surely benefit from additional things for families to do there.

By that same argument, there shouldn't be any other restaurants around parks, either. I mean, why would you want guests leaving and getting something to eat when they could be spending money in your park?

I don't agree with that line of thinking, BTW - I'm just saying.

But those places dont have the population to draw off of. GA is an easy drive for tens of millions of people, the marginal benefit of offering lodging may not make sense from a cost/benefit perspective explaining why noone has developed the area.

Raven-Phile said:

By that same argument, there shouldn't be any other restaurants around parks, either. I mean, why would you want guests leaving and getting something to eat when they could be spending money in your park?

I don't agree with that line of thinking, BTW - I'm just saying.

People still live there, no? Restaurants in the area are supported mainly by the local population I would imagine. There are restaurants where I live, but no amusement parks.

Listen, Bill - We all know the moon is not made of green cheese.

But, what if it were made of BBQ spare ribs, would you eat it then? I know I would. Heck, I'd have seconds. Then I'd polish it off with a tall, cool Budweiser.

I can imagine dads out there saying "Hell, no. I'm not driving all the way to New Jersey for a day at Six Flags" but if there's other family attractions in the area, restaurants, a nice place to stay, and an entertainment district for the adults at night then they might decide to go for a nearby vacation.

But SF is doing just fine now, without all that stuff. That's what I am saying... that dad may potentially be the exception and not the rule. Building all that you propose is a nice chunk of cheese based on the assumption that there are enough angry dads out there to support the enterprise.

That assupmtion may be valid, but I am guessing not, since this sure fire money making idea never seems to get off the drawing board.

Also, angry dad may live closer to another SF park to which he is willing to drag the kids. SF doesnt care which park you go to, and most parents arent going to make the distinction between GA and other SF parks, the enthusiast commuinty, who would make the distinction and care about variances between different rides and credits etc.. are a small subset of that.

Six Flags absolutely cares which park you go to, try telling that to a general manager of any Six Flags park. Besides, the greatest competition for theme and water park in this area is probably Dorney. They have restaurants and hotels there, too, so where do you think angry dad is going to go for a 3 day getaway?

Why can't you see the fact that this concept works perfectly well in other areas of the country. The competition is a building thing, not detrimental. If anything, it causes everyone to step it up rather than rest on their heels.

Now, I haven't studied the details of this proposal, and the developers here may be blowing smoke up everyone's asses with some lame brain ideas that won't work. But to dismiss the notion that family attractions in the same area can co-exist is nonsense. If done correctly, everyone there stands to profit, the park(s), the resort, the restaurants, the shopping, the gas stations, and the nightclubs. Not to mention the county and the state who will be happy to collect the additional tax revenues.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that I needed to explain to you that Cedar Point and Mackinac Island are two examples of seasonal attractions with a number of hotels in close proximity, some of which are open year round, many more of which are not.

billb7581 said:

I don't know... I don't think...Unless maybe... I'm not sure...My guess is...You probably...You could potentially...

Here's what makes you so fascinating. By your own admission, you don't know what you're talking about, and yet you're so certain of your "facts."