Bell's Amusing Park???

[AquaMan]

Structure insurance is strictly for the benefit of the owner and wouldn't have kept it from going up in flames.  As a business owner, there is no requirement you insure your structures unless it's mortgaged and your lender requires it.  Your building is generally not considered to be a hazard to others, though your actions or inactions in maintaining it could be.  That's what liability insurance is for.  Just like a vehicle.  You have the option to buy property insurance to protect you and or your lender from hazards and you have liability insurance to protect others from your negligence operating the vehicle or if it slips out of gear, etc.

As well, Blake had no more reason to expect his screen would go up in flames with children playing near it than you have an expectation for your furnace to blow up when you are having a holiday party with 30 guests in your house.

Relax a little, spontaneous combustion happens 

Take that argument to heart, businessmen, if you dare! A reasonable man, or businessman, would or should, have plenty of reason to believe that a wooden structure over 50 years old, with wiring that didn't even require grounded plugs when it was constructed, might be a fire hazard. I would relish being on that civil suit jury.

This is not a personal structure that he owns free and clear. This is a profit making business holding itself out to the public as safe and well maintained. He has a legal obligation to ensure their safety. Insurance may make a structure safer because they inspect such properties to make sure their exposure is not too extreme. So, no, insurance per se does not keep a building from burning but an insured structure is less likely to burn down than one that is not.

Let me give you a concrete example. I operated a tour bus for a little while in an old 60's vintage bus. At the time I considered buying an English Double Decker bus but finding insurance for them was difficult since some of them had been driven through underpasses that skimmed the top off of them and cost lives in California. The insurance company I used refused to insure them. If I had paid cash for the bus, it seated less than 30 passengers and didn't have air brakes, I could have operated it myself without insurance or inspection to shuttle people to my boats. Of course, had I skimmed the top off and killed people< i"m in jail right now!

[Conan71]

Take that argument to heart, businessmen, if you dare! A reasonable man, or businessman, would or should, have plenty of reason to believe that a wooden structure over 50 years old, with wiring that didn't even require grounded plugs when it was constructed, might be a fire hazard. I would relish being on that civil suit jury.

This is not a personal structure that he owns free and clear. This is a profit making business holding itself out to the public as safe and well maintained. He has a legal obligation to ensure their safety. Insurance may make a structure safer because they inspect such properties to make sure their exposure is not too extreme. So, no, insurance per se does not keep a building from burning but an insured structure is less likely to burn down than one that is not.

Let me give you a concrete example. I operated a tour bus for a little while in an old 60's vintage bus. At the time I considered buying an English Double Decker bus but finding insurance for them was difficult since some of them had been driven through underpasses that skimmed the top off of them and cost lives in California. The insurance company I used refused to insure them. If I had paid cash for the bus, it seated less than 30 passengers and didn't have air brakes, I could have operated it myself without insurance or inspection to shuttle people to my boats. Of course, had I skimmed the top off and killed people< i"m in jail right now!

If you negligently drive a 13ft. tall bus under a 12 ft. underpass that's negligent homicide and yes you'd wind up in jail.  Little kids could die in a single decker tour bus if someone crashes into it your you run it off a bridge.  Oh No!

Property owners generally don't wind up in jail for negligent homicide when someone dies in or around their structure unless they intentionally set the fire.  You make it sound like he's some sort of vicious felon when all he was trying to do was maintain a nostalgic Tulsa icon in operational condition and make a living at it.  He probably never imagined that low voltage wiring in steel conduit would have ever presented a fire hazard.

[AquaMan]

If you negligently drive a 13ft. tall bus under a 12 ft. underpass that's negligent homicide and yes you'd wind up in jail.  Little kids could die in a single decker tour bus if someone crashes into it your you run it off a bridge.  Oh No!

Property owners generally don't wind up in jail for negligent homicide when someone dies in or around their structure unless they intentionally set the fire.  You make it sound like he's some sort of vicious felon when all he was trying to do was maintain a nostalgic Tulsa icon in operational condition and make a living at it.  He probably never imagined that low voltage wiring in steel conduit would have ever presented a fire hazard.

I knew I had mislead you with the last sentence trying to be humorous. First, I am not a lawyer. Just some college classes to enlighten us budding businessmen. But, my understanding is that yes, you are still liable, even though not directly negligent, when operating a bus or operating a drive in movie and a mishap occurs. Even if you did not start the fire. In fact, the knowledge that an insurance company would not cover your property is prima facia evidence that the property is probably inherently dangerous. The rule is usually, "what would a reasonable man expect?" I think if an insurance company won't cover you, your building is over 50 years old and made of wood and hasn't been inspected in years (iirc), a reasonable man might expect that it could catch fire or collapse from termites. I'd take that one to court. Whether or not it was a negligent homicide might rest in explicit knowledge of any defects. Reckless disregard.

I don't think he was vicious or committed a felony but, I don't hold him in as high a regard as you do. He was taking an unnecessary risk to save money. Same reason he didn't want the minimum wage raised. And as far as the wiring goes, I don't know if it was low voltage to operate warning lights at that height. Unless you think 110v is low. And the wiring at that time, may or may not have been in conduit. Not required if it was in an enclosed wall.

I certainly don't think he deserves any hero status as protector of a nostalgic icon.

[carltonplace]

I certainly don't think he deserves any hero status as protector of a nostalgic icon.

you mean the nostalgic icon that burned to the ground? "protector" must not mean what I think it does.

[swake]

Wetman, sorry but your argument is just goofy. You don't like the Blake guy because 15-20 years ago someone that may or may not have been him insulted Clinton. Ok, I agree that it's bad form for anyone in a place of business to spout politics to strangers but it makes no sense to knock the Smith guy all these years later for it and in the same post you praise Robbie Bell's business acumen.

The Bell family are well known Birchers active in the local Republican party. Robbie's mother is chair of the county Republican party and an obvious hypocrite because she is so publically vehemently against basically all public funding for anything while her family has their hand out to local governments wanting taxpayers to rebuild Bells. The Bell family, no matter what the county did wrong, ran Bell's into the ground. It was a mess there at the end and had been for years, there's no arguing that.

This Smith guy owns a real chain of three movie theaters and seems to be legitimately trying to reopen.  Compare that to Robbie who has the Zingo for sale on Ebay. I was upset how Bell's was treated and am sad they are gone. It  would have been best if they had been forced to take on a business partner or something constructive by the county instead of what happened but the Bell family has said many things that have turned out to be at best more hope than truth and at worst some real baldface ridiculous lies. Like they were selling the Zingo but not the plans. Really?

In a Tulsa Today article it says that Blake bought it in 2000. It seems he bought it from his father. I refuse to link to that site, you can find it on your own if you want. General Cinemas died before well 2000 so I don't know when it was sold between the late 80s and 2000, I didn't find the article you found.

[RecycleMichael]

I certainly don't think he deserves any hero status as protector of a nostalgic icon.

I completely agree with this.

[AquaMan]

Wetman, sorry but your argument is just goofy. You don't like the Blake guy because 15-20 years ago someone that may or may not have been him insulted Clinton. Ok, I agree that it's bad form for anyone in a place of business to spout politics to strangers but it makes no sense to knock the Smith guy all these years later for it and in the same post you praise Robbie Bell's business acumen.

The Bell family are well known Birchers active in the local Republican party. Robbie's mother is chair of the county Republican party and an obvious hypocrite because she is so publically vehemently against basically all public funding for anything while her family has their hand out to local governments wanting taxpayers to rebuild Bells. The Bell family, no matter what the county did wrong, ran Bell's into the ground. It was a mess there at the end and had been for years, there's no arguing that.

This Smith guy owns a real chain of three movie theaters and seems to be legitimately trying to reopen.  Compare that to Robbie who has the Zingo for sale on Ebay. I was upset how Bell's was treated and am sad they are gone. It  would have been best if they had been forced to take on a business partner or something constructive by the county instead of what happened but the Bell family has said many things that have turned out to be at best more hope than truth and at worst some real baldface ridiculous lies. Like they were selling the Zingo but not the plans. Really?

In a Tulsa Today article it says that Blake bought it in 2000. It seems he bought it from his father. I refuse to link to that site, you can find it on your own if you want. General Cinemas died before well 2000 so I don't know when it was sold between the late 80s and 2000, I didn't find the article you found.

Swaaaake, I'm not arguing anything. My personality may be pretty goofy though. I asked my wife if she remembered the time we took the kids to the drive-in and a guy who said he was the owner spoke to us. She said, "You mean that jerk who complained about Clinton and the minimum wage?" So I guess it had an impact on her too. The more I look at the guy, the more I think it was him but that could just be mental. The article specifically stated they owned it since 1987 and I got that on a casual Google search of the words "Admiral Twin Drive In Fire" which linked to the TW article. More importantly and something you refuse to grasp, is,  I don't like the way the guy ran his business. I am suspicious of the constantly changing cost of building a new one. I don't know him enough to know if I don't like him personally, I just know his business practices offend me. That and a buck fitty, gets you a ride on an MTTA bus.

Second, I never praised the Bell's business acumen. Frankly, I suspect Robbie was in over his head with the county. I loved Bell's but he didn't plan very well for its preservation. Tough job for anyone. I simply noted that he could make the thing work again if he kept it small, targeted and safe.

Lastly, you are emphasizing what I intended to communicate all along. Mixing politics with business is a bad idea. Especially when it comes from the business to the customer. I ate once in Nelson's Buffeteria and customers, including Nelson, were jumping up and yelling derogatory remarks at hearings that were being chaired by Ted Kennedy on the TV set there. First off, don't put your damn TV on a political channel while people are eating!! But yelling out political garbage?!! Dumb.

When you talk about the Bell's as Birchers or not logging on to Tulsa World, that's what you're doing. Business wise, I don't care what politics the Bell's embrace any more than I do his religion. I knew his family politics when he operated the park but still loved it. It had nothing to do with my comments on their current plans or how they ran their last business. I may truly despise the Domino's Pizza CEO for publicly supporting Bush, but I still occasionally eat their pizza. Bad form for the CEO, pretty below average pizza, but still....