Waldameer owner will request variance for Ravine Flyer II

Posted Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:09 AM | Contributed by rsscbell

To avoid further delays, the owner of Waldameer Park will ask local authorities to rezone the land to bypass concerns of erosion and allow construction. The project has been entangled in legal issues for years.

Read more from The Erie Times-News.

Related parks

Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:20 AM
If he can't get approval, he needs to sue the state and/or the local government. They've stalled for years now without any action, and that inteferes with the park's ability to do business.
+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:13 AM
If they get this done it would be reason to go to Waldameer...at least for me.
+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:50 AM
I've been looking forward to this coaster for at least 5 years, and each & evertime I think that he's in the clear, there's a few outspoken people that seem to delay this another year or two.

Isn't it funny that you can have the vast majority all for this ride, all for this expansion... but if just a select few speak up against it, there blows the whole ordeal and things get pushed back further & further, as in this example... to years behind schedual.

This coaster would really put Waldameer on the map along with Erie, PA.

+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:13 AM
Please excuse me if I sound stupid, but I am not familiar with the topic! What is the holdup, and why are people tring to shoot this coaster down?
+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:37 AM
There's a little family down there near where Waldameer is situated named The Candelas... they have been the big voice that has prevented Paul [Nelson, the owner] from building his dream coaster. They claim that the environmental impact of this coaster is too close to their business, with the noise & other factors.

They have complained to the town board among many other individuals which, in return, have then conducted environmental studies... and yes,there have been a number of studies, not just one. They're just coming up with bogus excuses to delay the construction, such as the impact it will have on the bluffs of Lake Erie when this coaster is built, among other factors.

So, Paul has been waiting patiently for six years & counting to build this coaster, but the Candelas have been the big voice (among a few select others) preventing him from doing this...

...at least, that's the jists from what I've been following.

+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:54 AM
Is that image on the Erie times website where the coaster would run? I could see how the people who owned those summer homes would want to prevent it. I know I will hear, "YOU LIVE NEXT TO AN AMUSEMENT PARK..." etc. But those homes and the park have been there, and the park has always been on top of the hill, no problem.

If your getting this much trouble now, imagine when the coaster is up and running. I am all for the coaster, I have been waiting for it since it was announced and I still lived in Erie, but maybe it is time to redesign it? Without the bluff, it wouldnt be quite as nice, but im sure they could build something great in the current parking lot and move the main parking lot accross the street with no problem.

+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:54 AM
thanks DawgByte!! That sucks...people are stupid!!
+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:56 AM
you know, had I thought to look at the news clip...I probably wouldn't have asked such a stupid question!!!
+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:46 PM
People aren't stupid, they just don't want something like that in their backyard. It does of course beg the question of why you'd live next to an amusement park that opened before you were born, but that's something else.
+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:59 PM
If you move in right next to an amusement park, the NIMBY approach doesn't get any support AT ALL from me....if, on the other hand, and amusement park moves in next to you, that's a different story. Waldameer has been around longer than ANY of the people fighting this coaster, but it seems they don't have the clout necessary to get the ride approved...

I'd be kinda surprised if the coaster EVER gets built, but IF it does...I'll be there...

Does strike me as odd that some parks have a good working relationship with the neighbors, while others (IB, AT, KBF, etc.) seem to have CONSTANT battles over noise, hours, and everything else under the sun...

+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:51 PM
While I personally would love to see this ride built, there might be some strong legal arguments against it. In order to save bandwidth, I am not going to repost what I wrote at the bottom of this topic, http://www.coasterbuzz.com/forum.aspx?mode=thread&TopicID=36797 , but please take a look at it.

Anyway, in regards to what Jeff said about suing the state/city, it would be a difficult case. In River Park v. City of Highland Park, River Park owned a golf course in the town of Highland Park, Illinois, and wanted to change the golf course to houses. In order to do this, the land needed to be rezoned. River park claimed that the town of Highland Park had to rezone the land as a matter of law (this was not decided, but for the sake of argument let's assume that this is true). Highland park wanted to keep the golf course and stalled. The had committee after committee and eventually River Park went bankrupt and the property was foreclosed by the bank. River Park sued the city saying that by stalling it had hurt them. The courts said, among other things, that the city can take as long as it wants to make the right decision. Also, there is no property right in hoping that the city upzones the land (allowing a greater use of the property).

If you compare this to the present situation, the land has to be rezoned to build the ride, hence the variance request. The park has no legal right to assume that this will be granted and therefore has no claim against the city/state.

Sorry if this is too long, but I find this stuff interesting. (remember, please don't kill me. I didn't make the law and I said that I wanted the coaster built).*** This post was edited by jpb 2/19/2004 2:52:28 PM ***

+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 3:44 PM
Best Amusement park in ERIE, PA will continue to be SPLASH LAGOON!

Already planning a return trip :)

+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 5:15 PM
Thats a water park, not an amusement park...

I still don't understand this matter at all. What I don't get is, wouldn't this addition bring more people to Erie, and potentially give the Candelas more business by having people that want to camp at their residence?

I am still hoping that maybe, one day, the coaster might open. Lord knows Nelson is doing everything he can to get this constructed...

+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:20 PM
I agree Rctycoon2k, it would sure attract more to their business.

Also how could the land be eroding? I mean seriously water isn't washing up against the land. If it was eroding why could such large trees grow without falling.

Finally, don't they hear enough noise from the park and Peninsula Drive already.

+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:18 PM
I belive they are speaking about the north side of the park, where the lake is, when they mention the erosion studies.

And road noise and roaring wooden roller coaster noise is very different.

+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:57 PM
I hope this falls through. Midwave, Waldameer is definitely going to be better than Splash Lagoon, especially now that they're getting the spinning mouse,
+0
Friday, February 20, 2004 8:53 AM
Does anyone know any specifics as to what this ride would have (or is going to) looked like?
+0
Friday, February 20, 2004 11:07 AM
Someone has an image of the layout that appeared in the Erie times years ago, if they want to post it...

I know the layout is nice, and unique to the shape of the land it will sit on.

+0
Friday, February 20, 2004 7:59 PM
I used to have the image, but no longer do, if I think correctly... The layout was a unique layout and not similar to one I have seen yet.
+0

You must be logged in to post

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