Posted Friday, December 10, 2004 9:49 AM | Contributed by Jeff
Vallejo City Council is considering whether or not to give Six Flags three more years, to 2010, to exercise a purchase option on its Marine World park. The company was expected to buy the park earlier this year but pulled out of the transaction, citing the financial health of the company.
Read more from The Times-Herald.
Friday, December 10, 2004 10:47 AM
So...does SF "own" the coasters (and other cap ex improvements) installed after it took over management in 1997? Or, did the city (as the owners of the park) finance capital improvements?
I'm assuming that no other "players" had any interest in purchasing this park at this point, either...
And one final question that I've always wondered about...was there ever any connection between this park and the Marine World near Niagra Falls? (Or, just the same--somewhat generic--name?)
Friday, December 10, 2004 11:18 AM
Marine World was "Marine World Africa USA" and loooong time ago (late 60s anyone?) when they were located in Redwood City (Where Oracle now stands).
I doubt there is a connection. Then again, I've been wrong before.
Friday, December 10, 2004 12:26 PM
There was also a Marine World in Palos Verdes
, just outside of Los Angeles. The park was where the red star is in the maplink above [click on zoom level 6].
*** This post was edited by Mamoosh 12/10/2004 12:29:13 PM ***
Friday, December 10, 2004 1:17 PM
All additions and improvements were financed by SF Inc. (the city was never able to turn a profit on the park, let alone be able to pump close to 75 million in new rides and attractions). Never heard of anyone else interested in the park pre-SF, and even though it's a bright spot for SF now as far as attendance, don't think anyone else would really be interested with it's height and space restrictions.
And both parks in Niagra Falls and Palos Verdes are/were Marineland, no connection as far as I know.
Friday, December 10, 2004 3:13 PM
Moosh, I thought that was Marine "Land". (oops..just noticed Jomo'sm comment on that)
I remember seeing that as a kid (along with the Pike).
I wonder how many guests they get from Sacramento and Stockton. I'd imagine it helps that there are no parks out that way.
Friday, December 10, 2004 3:35 PM
Plus the city wouldn't be stupid enough to build something taller than their own zoning permits. :)
Friday, December 10, 2004 3:38 PM
I don't know Jeff...some local municipalities can be quite moronic... ;)
EDIT - Spelling*** This post was edited by redman822 12/10/2004 3:38:35 PM ***
Friday, December 10, 2004 8:12 PM
Not so much the city, it's another case of the NIMBY's that *****ed about V2 and won't allow anything over 150ft that might destroy their beautiful view of fairgrounds and Interstate 80.
Friday, December 10, 2004 8:30 PM
Wouldn't they be NITTPNM's? ;)
Sunday, December 12, 2004 9:06 PM
Here's an interesting thought to ponder about the "something taller than their own zoning permits": how about Marine World and Intamin had a major miscommunication about the specifications of the ride (sound familiar with Hershey Park?), and received the 180 foot standard version instead of a 150-footer. Then, city officials read SFMW Online's message boards, just like park administration does, saw people's comments about the height, and then surveyed to discover the violation.
Also, don't forget about the bungee jumping towers that used to be at the Marine World site, which caused accidents on highway 37 there because drivers would turn and be distracted...and the taller they got, the more accidents there were. If the ride's height wasn't due to a miscommunication, maybe Six Flags realized how dumb it would be to not be able to build over 150 feet farther from the highway, where V2 is. Medusa is right along the highway, but V2 is much farther away.
And , another idea is that Six Flags built V2 too high because they're stupid. As much as we all like to think that, stupiditiy isn't a part of the planning process.