http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=322&articleid=20100524_11_0_WAGONE360286 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=322&articleid=20100524_11_0_WAGONE360286)
Yea - have fun with that Coweta!
Quote from: tulsabug on May 25, 2010, 12:41:42 AM
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=322&articleid=20100524_11_0_WAGONE360286 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=322&articleid=20100524_11_0_WAGONE360286)
Yea - have fun with that Coweta!
And the legacy of Randi Miller lives on....
First off, IIRC Bell's planned a amusement/water park N/E of 61st and Lynn Lane back in the 80's. If this is true then a move to the new proposed area is not too far from the plans in the 80's.
Second, and I'm partially gathering this from info on the web, with Coweta's boundries it stradles old HWY 51, and is bounded by the Creek TPK, and the Muskogee TPK. This could put the land near a major thoroughfare or highway/limited access highway, and would make it accessable to BA, Jenks, Bixby, Coweta, and to an extent Muskogee, and the immediate area as well with easy highway access to many other places.
Third, the encentives offered by Wagoner County could be offset in the short term by the revenue Bell's could generate. Though not a guarantee, there is the potential. And if what I have read here about the development of SE Tulsa County, there is a potential.
Fourth, unlike the old location at the fairgrounds, where before I could drive I could take the MTTA from near my house to Bell's and back again, I think it will be a draw for people to come to.
Will it have survivabilty? Who knows, but it will have a market in the SE Tulsa County and NW Wagoner County. If it goes through, I wish the Bell family well.
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 25, 2010, 02:18:18 AM
First off, IIRC Bell's planned a amusement/water park N/E of 61st and Lynn Lane back in the 80's. If this is true then a move to the new proposed area is not too far from the plans in the 80's.
Second, and I'm partially gathering this from info on the web, with Coweta's boundries it stradles old HWY 51, and is bounded by the Creek TPK, and the Muskogee TPK. This could put the land near a major thoroughfare or highway/limited access highway, and would make it accessable to BA, Jenks, Bixby, Coweta, and to an extent Muskogee, and the immediate area as well with easy highway access to many other places.
Third, the encentives offered by Wagoner County could be offset in the short term by the revenue Bell's could generate. Though not a guarantee, there is the potential. And if what I have read here about the development of SE Tulsa County, there is a potential.
Fourth, unlike the old location at the fairgrounds, where before I could drive I could take the MTTA from near my house to Bell's and back again, I think it will be a draw for people to come to.
Will it have survivabilty? Who knows, but it will have a market in the SE Tulsa County and NW Wagoner County. If it goes through, I wish the Bell family well.
You are correct about the water park, actually it was going to be roughly where Bass Pro is now or just on the west side of 161st east ave adjacent to the BA.
I'll be interested to see if all of Wagoner County wants a .25 cent increase to get Bell's. Personally, I think it could be a cornerstone of development. Coweta is an emerging school district and Broken Arrow really has no direction to move north of the Arkansas River but east. If this happens, it will be a brilliant move for the Bell family. It can be a really great regional draw, especially if they can add a few new coasters and attractions. They will have far less restrictions on them than what was imposed by the fair board and their favoritism toward the Murphy family and Big Splash.
Keep in mind when Six Flags opened in the DFW area, Arlington was a much smaller town between Dallas and Ft. Worth. It was out in the "boonies". As well, Six Flags St. Louis is in a less populated part of St. Louis of to the west. No I'm not saying Bell's attractions are on par with Six Flags, I'm simply saying that people will go out of their way to go to an amusement park. If Bell's will simply have a higher, all-inclusive gate admission, I believe they can keep the riff-raff out and make a good living off a new park.
I did not like what the Fairgrounds and or Tulsa County did to the iconic Bells amusement park.
But I live in East B.A. and the Wagoner Taxes are one of the highest in surrounding Counties. That may be what the new Wal-Mart is finding out on 71st by my home.
Even a little tax savings by driving 3 to 4 miles to the West can add up.
It most likely will go thru when the vote happens in July and a 1/4 cent tax on top of what we already pay wont break me by any stretch of the means.
But I already know the mentality of how if they get it this time, What the heck lets just add another 1/4 cent tax for said A B or C project that comes along.
A 50 year lease ? hmm that sounds familiar.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2010, 08:45:18 AM
If Bell's will simply have a higher, all-inclusive gate admission, I believe they can keep the riff-raff out and make a good living off a new park.
They better make sure to keep up maintenance if they are going to charge a higher gate admission. Last time I went to Bell's, paint was peeling, rides had visible rust stains, about 90% of Phantasmagoria's frights weren't working (I rode in complete darkness the entire way until you go outside the first time; the breaking beam, the bus, and the blacklight-mirror hallway were the only things that actually worked). No way am I paying more to attend the same neglected hole that they let the original Bell's become. Hopefully, they'll keep this new park better maintained.
Quote from: TURobY on May 25, 2010, 08:54:35 AM
They better make sure to keep up maintenance if they are going to charge a higher gate admission. Last time I went to Bell's, paint was peeling, rides had visible rust stains, about 90% of Phantasmagoria's frights weren't working (I rode in complete darkness the entire way until you go outside the first time; the breaking beam, the bus, and the blacklight-mirror hallway were the only things that actually worked). No way am I paying more to attend the same neglected hole that they let the original Bell's become. Hopefully, they'll keep this new park better maintained.
Those are all valid observations and if I get a chance to talk to Robbie anytime in the near future, I will point them out.
I have my doubts that they can get the funding to build the thing, even if Wagoner does approve the sales tax.'
Bells was basically a Midway that didn't move and not a real theme park, and even if it was, low-end theme parks is not a great market.
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 25, 2010, 10:30:16 AM
I have my doubts that they can get the funding to build the thing, even if Wagoner does approve the sales tax.'
Bells was basically a Midway that didn't move and not a real theme park, and even if it was, low-end theme parks is not a great market.
They didn't have much room to grow on and the fair board was stifling attempts at growth. Why put a whole lot more into the park when they were pretty much down to a year-to-year lease?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2010, 08:45:18 AM
You are correct about the water park, actually it was going to be roughly where Bass Pro is now or just on the west side of 161st east ave adjacent to the BA.
I'll be interested to see if all of Wagoner County wants a .25 cent increase to get Bell's. Personally, I think it could be a cornerstone of development. Coweta is an emerging school district and Broken Arrow really has no direction to move north of the Arkansas River but east. If this happens, it will be a brilliant move for the Bell family. It can be a really great regional draw, especially if they can add a few new coasters and attractions. They will have far less restrictions on them than what was imposed by the fair board and their favoritism toward the Murphy family and Big Splash.
Keep in mind when Six Flags opened in the DFW area, Arlington was a much smaller town between Dallas and Ft. Worth. It was out in the "boonies". As well, Six Flags St. Louis is in a less populated part of St. Louis of to the west. No I'm not saying Bell's attractions are on par with Six Flags, I'm simply saying that people will go out of their way to go to an amusement park. If Bell's will simply have a higher, all-inclusive gate admission, I believe they can keep the riff-raff out and make a good living off a new park.
Yes when Six Flags opened the only things in Arlington were the Bell Helicopter plant on the north side and the GM plant and the Dallas Naval Air Station to the south. The Texas Rangers hadn't been thought of, and the DFW I-30 turnpike I think was still a dream.
Anyway, I think that Bell's better have good financial backing for start up, and I agree with others that they will need to be on top of repairs and maintenance, and have an all inclusive price that fits the rides that they might have. One of the problems that I always thought they had at the fairgrounds was that they were limited in the area they leased. Were they never allowed to expand? And if this was the case, why in later years did the park start to show it's age? I understand the age of the rides in the late 90's, and the wear on them from Oklahomas seasonal weather, but it just seemed to me as others have pointed out that things really aged and showed it in the 90's.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2010, 11:28:55 AM
They didn't have much room to grow on and the fair board was stifling attempts at growth. Why put a whole lot more into the park when they were pretty much down to a year-to-year lease?
My point is that he's had 3 years to build it out and instead it's just rusted. There is tons of farmland around where he could've built. What wagoner/coweta is offering is a very small part of what it takes to build and run a successful park. It's like saying he hasn't done anything in 3 years because it would cost $20M to build but now coweta is offering him $500k and suddenly he has the other $19.5M.
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 25, 2010, 12:22:59 PM
My point is that he's had 3 years to build it out and instead it's just rusted. There is tons of farmland around where he could've built. What wagoner/coweta is offering is a very small part of what it takes to build and run a successful park. It's like saying he hasn't done anything in 3 years because it would cost $20M to build but now coweta is offering him $500k and suddenly he has the other $19.5M.
Totally agree, and is it just me or does it seem odd that they signed a lease based on a proposed tax that hasn't been voted on? Also I don't think they would have signed the lease if they did not have financial backing.
And keep in mind that without a real draw, it won't be an anchor for other things to come in. Yes, this worked with Six Flags, but they had something to offer people to get them to drive several hours to go there (I remember going there as a kid, and we would drive from Hobbs, NM). Think about the park in OKC, what is it? Frontier City? Yeah, I think that is the name of it. I hasn't exactly caused a boom in that area for all of the years of being there. Then there is Magic Mountain (?) in Arkansas that is pretty much a park in the middle of no where (though I saw a line of cars waiting to get in when I drove by). SO the question is, if Bell's set's up in Coweta or wherever out that direction, what will they have to offer to bring in more then the locals who are bored? I always thought of Bell's when it was in town as an occasional distraction, not a destination.
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 25, 2010, 12:40:21 PM
Totally agree, and is it just me or does it seem odd that they signed a lease based on a proposed tax that hasn't been voted on? Also I don't think they would have signed the lease if they did not have financial backing.
Leases of this nature are a "first right of refusal" type thing. I doubt any money will be paid in rent until the park is up and running and I'm sure there are all sorts of conditions about the tax passing.
Robbie Bell was clear all along they needed someone to provide land for them. That's why they went community to community trying to find a place. You can't build something like that in an urban area without pissing off the neighbors, so I think that's as much an issue as the cost of land is getting a municipal authority involved to help grease the skids of progress. Supposedly, Bell's had the money in place to build the new roller coaster (cost estimate was in the millions, IIRC) then they were told the lease would not be renewed.
If you ask me, the chances of this actually opening and getting on the ground are less than 50% at this point as I don't have a real feel as to how WC residents are going to react to the sales tax increase. We will know in relatively short order if they can get the cash to do it and I don't think the Wagoner County Commissioners would stake a sales tax proposal on this if the Bell's couldn't prove the means to make this happen.
In the meantime, here's an oldie but a goodie, the missing Bell's business plan Randi Miller wanted:
(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/TN/bidnessplan.jpg)
Funny how the Bell family is will to accept tax money that benefits them directly but are anti all other taxes.
Here's a quote from Sally when she was running for County Commissioner:
Quote
"I think the politicians who have allowed our streets to deteriorate are now asking us to trust them," Bell said. "I don't trust them. I did not support the River Tax. I'm like everyone else - I would like to see the river developed. But the way it needs to be developed is for the county to do what it is supposed to do - provide the infrastructure and turn it over to entrepreneurs. You let people establish businesses. If they make it, great. If they don't, the taxpayers don't pay the consequences."
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=440
Quote from: swake on May 25, 2010, 02:19:47 PM
Funny how the Bell family is will to accept tax money that benefits them directly but are anti all other taxes.
Here's a quote from Sally when she was running for County Commissioner:
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=440
Damn, good job Swake!
Many Tulsans have a very nostalgic view of Bell's. Not being a native, I only saw Bell's as a small, dirty and run down collection of a few mismatched rides that looked below fair standards and quality. Who's fault that was will probably be forever debated. Nonetheless, I don't see how Bell's could succeed at the old location at the fair grounds - an active amusement park with attractive and updated rides located in the center of a residential area was not compatable.
However, given the current economic climate in general and the struggles of amusement park companies in particular, securing adequate funding to build a viable park from scratch seems like a very iffy propositon.
I agree that the chance of Wagoner County passing a sales tax is bleak. It's just a terrible environment (weak economy, grumpy voters) for anyone to propose a tax hike.
It seems like Robby Bell is counting his chickens way before they hatch. Passing that tax hike is a gigantic "if," to say the least.
Quote from: swake on May 25, 2010, 02:19:47 PM
Funny how the Bell family is will to accept tax money that benefits them directly but are anti all other taxes.
Here's a quote from Sally when she was running for County Commissioner:
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=440
Republicans are always anti-tax
unless it benefits themNot surprising at all, and what's funny is that so many working class people in the South fall for their BS.
Quote from: SXSW on May 25, 2010, 05:07:47 PM
Republicans are always anti-tax unless it benefits them
Not surprising at all, and what's funny is that so many working class people in the South fall for their BS.
Republicans don't raise taxes, they just, uh "raise fees".
Everyone is on the take these days it's embarrasing.
Since the richest of the rich already skate by paying 16% total taxes compared to (most of us) 40%, they just want to go ahead a make it unanimous - and pay nothing.
Or like Bells, Whirlpool, Kimberly-Clark, et. al; try and get us to pay them for the privilege of having a facility that will let them charge us for more. (GM and Clay Bennett in OKC).
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 25, 2010, 08:35:48 PM
Since the richest of the rich already skate by paying 16% total taxes compared to (most of us) 40%, they just want to go ahead a make it unanimous - and pay nothing.
Or like Bells, Whirlpool, Kimberly-Clark, et. al; try and get us to pay them for the privilege of having a facility that will let them charge us for more. (GM and Clay Bennett in OKC).
Absolutely correct but misleading. Taxes are paid on INCOME. Most of the wealthy are either retired and using their wealth to live, or are able to claim no income because they do not collect a pay check, therefore they only pay taxes on investments, dividends and any other income.
We do not tax people simply because they have money (Net Worth). This is why we use the term AGI when calculating tax liability.
So the reality is that the top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all the taxes. The lower 50% only pay about 3% of the total tax burden.
If you look at Adjusted Gross Income (the way you should view this statistic)
The breakdown looks like this:
Top 1% pays 40.42% of the tax burden.
Top 5% pays 60.63% of the tax burden.
Top 10% pays 71.22%
Top 25% pays 89.59%
Top 50% pays 97.11%
And the other half of Americans only pay 2.89%
Now if you are a redistribution of wealth Marxist, you may have strong feelings about wealthy people keeping their wealth. If this is the case than you may wish to levy anger upon the wealthy (based on Net Worth) for not paying the majority of taxes even though they have no liability to do so. You may seek legislation changes the tax code from one based on income to one based on net worth. This represents simple Marxist theory. It would certainly be very transfomative. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on May 26, 2010, 10:27:40 AM
Now if you are a redistribution of wealth Marxist, you may have strong feelings about wealthy people keeping their wealth. If this is the case than you may wish to levy anger upon the wealthy (based on Net Worth) for not paying the majority of taxes even though they have no liability to do so. You may seek legislation changes the tax code from one based on income to one based on net worth. This represents simple Marxist theory. It would certainly be very transfomative. ;)
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/CLASS/130-055.jpg)
Quote from: rwarn17588 on May 26, 2010, 11:13:19 AM
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/CLASS/130-055.jpg)
I just read that paragraph to myself in a Groucho Marx voice and it was really funny! :D
Haven't even gotten to the topic of income on investments.
Let me clarify; this is same as has been covered before... the top employees in corporate America who can 'vote' themselves a paycheck every time they want.
Who are paid 10, 20, 50, 200 million per year, mostly in 1 year deferred checks so they can count it as a 'long term capital gain' investment.
The one's who pay 16% on 100 million in income from "work" while we pay 40%+ on income from real work.
Don't disambiguate.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 26, 2010, 01:55:37 PM
Haven't even gotten to the topic of income on investments.
Let me clarify; this is same as has been covered before... the top employees in corporate America who can 'vote' themselves a paycheck every time they want.
Who are paid 10, 20, 50, 200 million per year, mostly in 1 year deferred checks so they can count it as a 'long term capital gain' investment.
The one's who pay 16% on 100 million in income from "work" while we pay 40%+ on income from real work.
Don't disambiguate.
Any chance you have a source for any of that?
(and why would you want Gaspar, or anyone, to ... not make an ambiguous expression unambiguous... ? What does that even have to do with the discussion?)
/\/\/\/\ Huge thread drift!
So while some in Wagoner County say they'd rather not pay new taxes to create a place for Bell's others are popping up with "Then you must not want Bell's here."
That must be it.
Didn't Jenks have an offer on the table to a while back?
Bell's wanted to be in Jenks, I don't think the feeling was mutual.
Lynn Mitchell bought the land Bell's wanted, it's the site of the stalled River District.
Quote from: bmuscotty on May 27, 2010, 11:55:19 AM
Didn't Jenks have an offer on the table to a while back?
NOPE
Oil Capital,
That was an older thread where the calculations were shown on what the CEO's of some major corporations get to take home compared to real people who WORK for a living. People like Mike Jeffries, the CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch. GM Fritz Henderson and Rick Wagoner.
This has also been covered repeatedly and publicly by people like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and John Bogle (Vanguard group). Warren in particular has noted how grotesquely unfair it is that he pays such a much lower percentage on his taxes than his secretary does.
Easy calculations; all in the IRS 1040 instructions.
Quite a noble statement from someone worth billions. Mr. Buffet is always welcome to donate more money to the government.
Ahhhh, the traditional irrelevant comment with message dispersant.
Not at all noble. Just a recognition of the gross inequity of people like Fritz Henderson paying 16% and you and me paying 40%+. As well as every CEO and higher manager in every corporation in the US at this time.
And not just Warren but also two more of arguably the most visible and successful representatives of capitalism and the American dream available today. And even "The Donald" has obliquely referred to similar thoughts and lamented the total lack of leadership from the previous Bush regime. And no, he is no fan of Obama, either.
Or do you actually think it IS fair?
So Bell's . . . new location . . . cool.
Here you go boy's. Now play nice !
http://www.nobellstax.com/
Quote from: DTowner on May 25, 2010, 03:28:31 PM
Many Tulsans have a very nostalgic view of Bell's. Not being a native, I only saw Bell's as a small, dirty and run down collection of a few mismatched rides that looked below fair standards and quality. Who's fault that was will probably be forever debated. Nonetheless, I don't see how Bell's could succeed at the old location at the fair grounds - an active amusement park with attractive and updated rides located in the center of a residential area was not compatable.
However, given the current economic climate in general and the struggles of amusement park companies in particular, securing adequate funding to build a viable park from scratch seems like a very iffy propositon.
Maybe they have changed their business model and will actually keep the park clean and attractive, whereas the old site was run down, dirty, and generally unpleasant to look at. Unquestionably, alot of people looked at Bells through rose colored glasses--and they will never be convinced otherwise.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 28, 2010, 08:05:03 AM
Quite a noble statement from someone worth billions. Mr. Buffet is always welcome to donate more money to the government.
Several of my much less wealthy, but still far more wealthy than I'll likely ever be, clients say the same thing for what little that's worth.
Wagoner county would have to be as stupid as Tulsa was to get on board with something like that.
2% is a big bargain. Tulsa State Fair charges concessionaires 20% (yep, 20) of gross receipts for a place in the sun. That's why turkey legs cost 7 or 8 bucks.
Vote on tax for Bells and fairgrounds cancelled.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on June 01, 2010, 10:26:32 AM
Vote on tax for Bells and fairgrounds cancelled.
Source? What happened?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2010, 10:40:10 AM
Source? What happened?
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/bell%27s-sales-tax-vote-pulled-by-wagoner-county-commissioners (http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/bell%27s-sales-tax-vote-pulled-by-wagoner-county-commissioners)
QuoteTuesday morning, Wagoner County commissioners voted to rescind a vote that could have brought Bell's Amusement Park to Wagoner County. Commissioners say they wand to see a new business plan from Bell's before proceeding.
Owner Robby Bell has been looking for another location after the Tulsa County Fair Board did not renew the park's lease in late 2006.
Before Tuesday's action, voters were scheduled to decide on a 1/4 penny sales tax increase to create the space needed for the park. The money would also pay for a new expo center and animal shelter. Several locations are being considered, including Coweta off Highway 51.
If not Wagoner, Rogers County by the Hard Rock would be a good place. Access to I-44/412 and near the existing Hard Rock. The land just to the east south of Catoosa High would be a perfect location with the improvements being made at that interchange plus it would have 44 frontage which is a lot better than 51. The Cherokee's might even be interested in helping fund another attraction for their flagship casino/resort..
Quote from: Townsend on June 01, 2010, 10:46:28 AM
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/bell%27s-sales-tax-vote-pulled-by-wagoner-county-commissioners (http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/bell%27s-sales-tax-vote-pulled-by-wagoner-county-commissioners)
Damn! Scotched by that business plan thingy again!
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2010, 11:30:50 AM
Damn! Scotched by that business plan thingy again!
Get out of my brain cell, Co...I was looking for your funny crayon letter that Robbie wrote to the County...LOL.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2010, 11:30:50 AM
Damn! Scotched by that business plan thingy again!
I want to see what Mr Bell's response is. When the Tulsa Fairgrounds asked for a plan... he (Mr Bell) griped they made demands and gave him not enough time to respond.
He's had several years to dream up a very elaborate plan. One that would almost assure his acceptance by many Counties.
My guess..... He will have an excuse or the same tired worn out plan that he had been living off of for so many years.
Sorry if I offend anyone with this. I liked Bell's... But then it became static and stale after so many years.
All "Great" amusement parks change.
Just like the comic books I liked are not the cup of tea for the kids today. Entertainment, like everything else, has to keep pace with the times.
A point that I believe eludes Mr Bell.
Just my opinion of course.
Quote from: Hoss on June 01, 2010, 11:55:34 AM
Get out of my brain cell, Co...I was looking for your funny crayon letter that Robbie wrote to the County...LOL.
First page of this thread, my friend.
If/when the new Bell's opens, it should be renamed "Fantasy Park".
Project is off. Wagoner County Commissioners change mind...
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/bell%27s-sales-tax-vote-pulled-by-wagoner-county-commissioners
An effort to revive Bell's Amusement Park is now on hold. Tuesday, Wagoner County Commissioners called off an election to raise taxes for a new fairgrounds.
"There's a lot more information that needs to be gathered before we ever get to that point," stated District 2 Commissioner Chris Edwards. His comment was met with applause from opponents who attended the regularly scheduled meeting.
Commissioners Edwards and Jim Hargrove want more studies done, and they want a business proposal from Bell's before moving forward.
The unexpected decision surprised Commissioner Tom Vincent, who was out-voted two to one.
"I didn't know anything about it until they started going into it. And by that time they'd done so much damage that it just killed the whole deal," said Vincent.
No one is more surprised than Robby Bell. He had "no clue" the motion to cancel the vote would be made.
It was just last week that the three commissioners signed off on a deal with Bell, who has been looking for a new location since the Tulsa County Fair Board didn't renew the park's lease in November 2006.
The Wagoner County lease agreement was contingent on passage of a 1/4 penny sales tax increase, which would have funded 40 acres for the amusement park and built an Expo Center and animal shelter off Highway 51 near Coweta.
Edwards fears the project will end up costing more than what the taxes would generate.
"I think we need to back up and do a better study; and maybe do it in phases instead of trying to do it all at one time," Edwards said.
Bell isn't sure what will happen now.
"If they were afraid the tax wasn't going to generate what they needed for all the elements, they should've decided that before they talked to us," said Bell.
No word on a time frame for another vote.
Anyone care to bet someone at Wagoner County tracked down Randi Miller and quizzed her about Bell's dismissal from the Fairgrounds? Either that or commissioner Vincent went public with this a bit soon.
Rico does pose a good question, I'm curious what the Bell's have in writing. A bunch of warehoused rides isn't the same as a business plan.
Anyone bet there was no way in hell Wagoner county was going to vote in favor of increasing sales taxes for an amusement park? Coweta looks to be about 10% of Wagoner county's population if you want an idea of how the "Does it benefit me directly?" vote would go.
I'm no fan of David Arnett, but this recent report about Bell's is pretty damning, and I have few doubts about its veracity:
http://tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1860:bells-relocating-what-to-where&catid=58:local&Itemid=106
Money quote:
Shortly before the park's closing, Brewster said, "Executive Director Rick Bjorklund had representatives from Six Flags come out with their ride inspectors and walk through Bell's. They were just aghast at the state of disrepair of the rides. As I remember it, they noted that it was the only major rollercoaster in American without automatic brakes – Zingo only had hand-brakes.
"Had the Bells come to the Board and said they would reinvest in the park and maintain the park, then certainly, that would have been a win-win situation. It would be nice to have a downtown Tulsa amusement park that was vibrant, well-maintained and well-run, but that option was not available," Brewster said.
"Brewster had previously represented in a lawsuit the family of a child killed by a failure of a ride at Bell's on April 20, 1997."
Revealing comments by Clark Brewster in the story. I don't know if anyone was previously aware that Bell's was in arrearage on rent or whatever it was they owed Expo Square. I know I'd not heard that before. It sounds as if the manager of ES was in possession of a posted-dated check from the Murphys at the time Bell's was booted out for rent on Big Splash.
One can only guess that Bell's was suffering from a cash flow issue. As an outsider, the biggest flaw I saw in their business model was their dated concept of a cheap admission (what was it? $5?) and charging per ride. This made entry a reality for young punks who were there to do nothing but stir up trouble. That also meant that probably many parents or grandparents who paid $5 per head to watch their kids have fun probably didn't spend money on rides once in the park, but may have bought some concessions. I still think a $20 admission which was inclusive of all rides would have gotten rid of undesireables who weren't there to ride rides in the first place, raise revenue and not have run off their core crowd. At that rate, they still should have had plenty of money for better upkeep and pay a rent Expo Square was happy with. Being rid of thugs and doing a make over on the park would have helped drive more people to the gate.
All that said, Clark Brewster had no business voting on whether or not to renew Bell's lease, he should have recused. I consider he had a conflict-of-interest from representing the Kurek family in their lawsuit against Bell's. It should also be noted that the Bells did not drag the family through a long painful process, they settled relatively easily.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 07, 2010, 10:44:33 AM
It should also be noted that the Bells did not drag the family through a long painful process, they settled relatively easily.
Indeed - what fine upstanding people they are! "Sure we killed your kid through our gross negligence, but it's all good since we didn't string it out in court!" Honestly dude - that has to be the dumbest idea since Greedo shooting first.
Quote from: tulsabug on June 08, 2010, 01:20:20 AM
Indeed - what fine upstanding people they are! "Sure we killed your kid through our gross negligence, but it's all good since we didn't string it out in court!" Honestly dude - that has to be the dumbest idea since Greedo shooting first.
Agreed. The Bell family settled because if they'd let the process proceed through court, that jerryrigged part would have cost them way more money from a mad and disgusted jury.
It sure would have cost the Bells a lot more if it went through a full trial. I wonder if the family of the deceased would have gotten any more.
We've discussed this point before around the time Bell's lease was not renewed. They were horrified by the accident and did not want the family to suffer any more than they already had. It was found in the investigation by the Dept. of Labor that Bell's had manufactured a replacement part out of un-approved material and did not notify the DOL such modification had been made for a re-inspection. They screwed up and admitted as much. They were quite cooperative throughout the investigation.
Portraying the Bells as some sort of callous business operators is grossly inaccurate. I hope if you have the misfortune for someone to be accidentally killed on your personal or business property that you aren't treated near as harshly in public discourse. They carried more than the statutory minimum liability insurance, which at the time was $300K. It's never been publicly stated how much that policy amount was, nor how much the Kurek's settled for. Pat Kurek's father stated at the time, he'd recieved phone calls that industry advocates and attorneys would have pointed to rider negligence, so he accepted a settlement offer. There were multiple witnesses at the time who stated the boys in the ride car which broke were horsing around, bouncing up and down and forward and back. Yet, the Bell's never resorted to a contributory negligence defense even though the riders were not observing ride safety rules. It would appear that Mr. Kurek was more worried about a jury reducing his award if testimony about the boy's behavior in the ride car came out in court.
"Rep. Richard Phillips, R-Warr Acres, questioned the requirement cap for liability insurance for amusement parks, which must total at least $300,000. He said that is a low limit, especially in cases such this one that result in the deaths of children.
Kurek noted that Bell's liability was covered by insurance above the minimum. However, he said that because the case has been settled, he could not go into specifics.
He said he settled because he feared industry attorneys would have tried to attach blame to the boys, because that has occurred in similar cases.
"That's what they do," Kurek said, adding that he has received phone calls intimating that this would be the tactic the industry would take if the case went to trial."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19990826/ai_n10130769/pg_2/?tag=content;col1
I discovered while trying to find settlement details on OSCN in the Kurek case that Brewster & Deangelis represented another family in a "friendly suit" in 1999. Why was Clark Brewster allowed to vote on the Bell's lease when he was on the Fair Board? Didn't that create at a bare minimum a conflict of interest since Mr. Brewster already had an adversarial relationship with the Bells and their business? Should he have voted on such a contract? That seems rather corrupt to me. I also find distaste in him dishing over details of one of the cases now as if the Bell's were the worst amusement park operators in the world.
Rick Bjorklund was quoted in the Arnett article that Rwarn posted. That's the same Rick Bjorklund who was fired for holding a check for 1/2 of Big Splash's 2006 rent for more than a yaer and their 2007 rent had been allowed to go unpaid.
Also noted was that Bjorklund employed Six Flags inspectors to look over Bell's. This is the same Six Flags which has had multiple deaths at it's parks across America due to operator negligence and improper maintenance and which was cited by OSHA for multiple violations at one of it's parks, including 38 in one inspection in 2007.
"Between 2004 and September 2007, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspected Six Flags parks five different times and found a total of four violations. On September 10, 2007, OSHA cited Great America with 38 safety violations, alleging "multiple serious and repeat violations at the amusement park, ranging from defective emergency brakes on an industrial truck to a lack of labeling procedures for preventing inadvertent machine start-ups." OSHA fined the park US$117,700.[18]"
I hate to cite Wiki as scholarly, but sometimes, it's the best clearinghouse of information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidents_at_Six_Flags_parks
That said, the dismissal from Expo Square was entirely something beyond the Bells not paying enough rent, one customer death in 55 years of business, nor peeling paint.
(Simple matter of disclosure: I went to HS with Robby Bell and always considered him a friend. That said, I've never given them a moral "free-pass" on the Kurek case. I was appalled at the treatment they got from the Fair Board, considering the obviously more favorable treatment Murphy was getting on Big Splash and the fair midway contract. Bell's needed updating and I've consistently criticized their business model. However, I also personally understand the struggles of owning and maintaining a seasonal business- from a business my family owned and how weather can affect your fortunes from year-to-year. It's not mentioned anymore that they had secured funding to the tune of $750K for a new ride shortly before being booted from the fair grounds and they had ostensibly secured funding for a multi-million dollar roller coaster. No easy task if they weren't solvent. No, I'm not in the Bell's pocket. I helped campaign against Sally Bell for Karen Keith in the County Commission election. My only purpose in posting this is so that an accurate account is left here instead of gross generalizations, half-truths, and downright ignorance of actual events which happened. I happen to believe an amusement park could be a great regional draw for the area).
Conan, you get my vote for most informative psot of the day.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 08, 2010, 10:24:54 AM
We've discussed this point before...
Thanks for the memory jogs.
Conan -
This is all fine and good - however I would think if they were so concerned about rider safety to begin with, they would have fixed the ride correctly with the right part instead of just overinsuring and crossing their fingers. I'm not saying they aren't human and they didn't go through emotional havoc due to this, but clearly they weren't thinking long-term at the time they fixed the ride, and it's probably fair to say every other ride there suffered from the same sloppy maintenance. No owner's manuals for the rides - no training on how to fix them - little training on how to run them - these are all documented with how Bell's was run. Frankly I get angry everytime I think about when I rode on the Wildcat as a kid thinking it was scary but knowing that it was safe, when in actuality the danger was very real.
In the end - the whole Wildcat incident was just a microcosm of everything that was wrong with Bell's when the family ran it. They don't know how to run a business by any means - and it's not because seasonal businesses are tough - it's because they have no business sense. They like to blame everyone else for their problems - they band-aid problems and hope that's good enough - the don't plan long-term - and the list goes on and on. How they have the rides warehoused now just goes to show they haven't changed at all. It's so easy for people who do run businesses (like you and myself) to see what they are doing wrong yet they're completely blind to it. Why anyone in their right mind would give this family the chance to do it again, I have no idea. I'll climb off my soapbox now.....
Quote from: Conan71 on June 08, 2010, 10:24:54 AM
I discovered while trying to find settlement details on OSCN in the Kurek case that Brewster & Deangelis represented another family in a "friendly suit" in 1999. Why was Clark Brewster allowed to vote on the Bell's lease when he was on the Fair Board? Didn't that create at a bare minimum a conflict of interest since Mr. Brewster already had an adversarial relationship with the Bells and their business? Should he have voted on such a contract? That seems rather corrupt to me. I also find distaste in him dishing over details of one of the cases now as if the Bell's were the worst amusement park operators in the world.
A mere "adversarial relationship" is not enough to create a legal conflict of interest that would require Brewster to recuse. If that was enough the Tulsa City Council would never make quorum. Instead, there must be a current financial stake in the outcome. If anything, because of his historical success in extracting money from the Bells operation, Brewster had a financial interest in their continuing to operate.
Interesting tidbit I came across in an article in Urban Tulsa (SIAP):
QuoteCity Councilor John Eagleton said Tulsa's ride toward a new amusement park might be climbing its way to the top. Although the councilor previously discussed a plan to reopen Bell's Amusement Park in Tulsa with Bell when the park first closed, Eagleton said the idea was just one of a number that business leaders have discussed with him.
"Robby is not the only game in town," he said.
Eagleton would not disclose the names of any others he has talked to about opening an amusement park, but some of the locations that have been discussed as possible sites for a new park include an area close to Woodland Hills Mall, land in west Tulsa and a brownfield near downtown.
Some Tulsans pointed to Murphy Brothers Exposition as the possible creator of a new amusement park. But Jerry Murphy, owner of the local amusement corporation that sets up rides and concessions temporarily for the Tulsa State Fair and six other national fairs, said he had no plans to open a permanent amusement park. Eagleton would not comment on if he had spoken with Murphy Brothers Exposition about creating a stationary amusement park in Tulsa.
Although he would not release names of businesses he has talked to, Eagleton said Tulsa needs an amusement park to fill the void left behind after the gates were closed at Bell's in 2006.
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A30700
An amusement park downtown could be interesting.