Randi Miller wants Bell's business plan released

[Shavethewhales]

^See, I don't understand that. I was at the park several times last year, and I thought everything looked pretty clean. Sure, it wasn't Disneyland, but I sure as hell felt 100 times safer than at the fair, and everything looked about what I expected it should. I mean, the place needed some TLC soon, and that was planned, but I don't understand why everyone expected Bell's to be the ultimate in cleanliness. It's like everyone has a desire to eat off the midway.

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

There isn't a new plan, and Bell's isn't going to reopen anywhere.

And in the age of computer games, starting an amusement park from scratch is not cost-effective. It's a slowly dying industry.

Tell that to all the parks who spend upwards of $10 million a year on new rides, and make killings. Actually, almost every notable park in this country has been reporting increases in attendance for many years now, and new parks are opening up all over the place.

[waterboy]

FWIW, I drove up 21st from the West yesterday towards the fairgrounds and noticed the new view without Bell's. It is going to be a really nice entryway. You can see the Driller, the Expo and now the Arena very clearly. The new buildings also show up. Suddenly you can see some potential.

We all miss Bell's. Even those of us who realized its time was past. Nothing good ever lasts forever.

It should reopen in Sand Springs.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Perhaps it's not fair. But an amusement park operator has to be stupid or oblivious to not know that this is a crucial factor in remaining viable. You have to appeal to the parents as well as the kids.

And of course, the remedy to a stupid or oblivious owner is to tear down the amusement park.

It just seems funny coming from you, rwarn. The El Vado Motel in Albuquerque shouldn't be torn down just because it had a owner who didn't appreciate what he had, right?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Townsend

The best part of the fair, IMO, is the people watching.  Those overweight, spandex and tube top wearing, BUPA having rednecks with dirty screaming future rednecks are interesting to see.

The worst part?  How those mentally challenged mouth breathers park.  They destroy landscaping, endanger pedestrians, and break the law.  

Maybe a free parking lot isn't such a bad thing.  I'm sorry for the loss of something that is important to so many but it's gone.  Hopefully something good will come from the new addition of pavement.  Less collateral damage to my neighborhood.

That wasn't your yard I parked in last year was it?  I'm about 6'2" 130 pounds, long mullet.

Do you look like Tommy Lee......

We're the same build from the waist down.

[rwarn17588]

Michael Bates said:

And of course, the remedy to a stupid or oblivious owner is to tear down the amusement park.

It just seems funny coming from you, rwarn. The El Vado Motel in Albuquerque shouldn't be torn down just because it had a owner who didn't appreciate what he had, right?

<end clip>

Did I say that I supported the tearing down of Bell's? I do not.

I'm stating facts here. Robby Bell allowed the legacy that his dad built to deteriorate. That is the reality. And I see you've already agreed with me on that.

Is it fair that the county did this? Of course not.

But had Bell's been more viable and not so ramshackle in its operation and condition, this never would have happened.

Robby Bell certainly is partly culpable in this whole situation.

And you're going off-topic with the Route 66 connection, but ...

Yes, I already knew the El Vado Motel in Albuquerque was in jeopardy even before it was sold to a redeveloper because the motel owner didn't run it properly and thus made it into a near-marginal business.

One of the biggest problems Route 66 preservation faces is neglectful or indifferent property owners, not just developers.

That too is reality. I'm not looking at this through the misty eyes of sentimentality and denying it.

But you've been silent about Albuquerque's likely bid to seize the historic structure with eminent domain to save it. You've railed against eminent domain before. Would you oppose eminent domain as tool to save a historic structure?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

But you've been silent about Albuquerque's likely bid to seize the historic structure with eminent domain to save it. You've railed against eminent domain before. Would you oppose eminent domain as tool to save a historic structure?

Wow.  That is a good question for Michael.

[Shavethewhales]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588



I'm stating facts here. Robby Bell allowed the legacy that his dad built to deteriorate. That is the reality. And I see you've already agreed with me on that.

Is it fair that the county did this? Of course not.

But had Bell's been more viable and not so ramshackle in its operation and condition, this never would have happened.

Robby Bell certainly is partly culpable in this whole situation.

And here's where the real debate lies (or rather, was). Since Bell's had announced plans for a massive new roller coaster, and since Robbie had unofficially announce the park-wide re-hab project, shouldn't they have been given a chance? Robby Bell was wrong to let the park get as dirty as it was (not that it was really that terrible), but I still say he should have been given the chance to live up to his word and clean it up. After all, the sole reason for Bell's dropping to the state that it was in was because of the fact that they had spent the last several years on the verge of giving up and moving for lack of being able to expand. They weren't going to trouble themselves in really fixing up the park if they were just going to move, but when they got permission to finally expand and spruce the park back up, the fair dropped them. It's almost like they didn't want them to become successful again.

Still though, it's no worth really talking about anymore, as it's all over for that part of the story. The only thing I want to know now is what Robbie is up to. It's been so long since we've heard anything from him that his web domain has expired. I guess these things take time though; after all, most parks take +2 years to plan and build. The fact that he's still defending his park is a sign that he is at least still trying to some degree.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

But you've been silent about Albuquerque's likely bid to seize the historic structure with eminent domain to save it. You've railed against eminent domain before. Would you oppose eminent domain as tool to save a historic structure?

Rwarn, I didn't mean to pick on you, but you were saying some things that seemed surprising, knowing how committed you are to historic preservation, particularly preservation of places that a lot of people would write off as too tacky and kitschy to be worth saving. To me Bell's seems much like a typical Route 66 business: Family owned, family built, with a lot of sweat equity invested.

I guess I missed the latest developments in the El Vado situation. I wasn't aware of Albuquerque's plans to use eminent domain.

I've "railed" against the abuse of eminent domain for private benefit. I would also argue that eminent domain is often used to enable massive redevelopment projects which damage a city's urban fabric -- e.g. the Williams Center -- and to bypass the gradual revival of an area which preserves existing buildings and street patterns -- e.g. Cherry Street.

Eminent domain has its proper application when land is being taken for public use -- the classic example being public right-of-way for roads.

On the other hand, I think its wrong for government to "lease" its eminent domain powers to private businesses or organizations. No one should be forced to sell their home so Donald Trump can build a casino parking garage. There's something pernicious, too, about taking someone's property because it doesn't generate as much tax revenue as some other use might.

Some eminent domain malpractice is well-intentioned but nevertheless destructive. The demolition of Greenwood is one such example; the Williams Center is another. Much of the historic district of Savannah, Ga., would have been destroyed by a similar rationale, had not the citizens there rejected urban renewal on three separate occasions.

I will have to give this further thought, but at first blush, a taking with just compensation for the sake of historic preservation doesn't seem abusive. On a continuum, it's not as plainly just as a taking for a road or utility easement, but it's nowhere near the types of abuse I mentioned. Some might argue that an eminent domain taking with compensation for historic preservation is more respectful of private property rights than a regulatory "taking" that limits an owner's options without providing any compensation. (I don't buy the argument that a new land use regulation per se constitutes a taking.)

But all this is moot when it comes to Bell's. The land is owned by a governmental agency, which can and should look beyond profit and loss in making its decisions. The fair board could have granted Bell's lower lease payments, weighing that loss of revenue the public good of having an amusement park in Tulsa. Given the amount of public subsidy for facilities to support events like the Arabian Horse Show and the Tulsa Talons, a lower lease payment for Bell's would not have been unreasonable.

Another option would have been for the fair board to buy out Bell's lock, stock, and barrel, and issue an RFP for bidders to become the new amusement park operator. Again, the assumption is that a well-run amusement park is every bit the public amenity and "gathering place" that a fountain and a bit of statuary on the river would be.

The real defect in Bell's business plan had nothing to do with finances. If the plan had said, "Bell's will transform into a dirt lot prior to the 2008 Arabian Horse Show," it would have been perfectly acceptable.

[rwarn17588]

<Michael Bates said:

I will have to give this further thought, but at first blush, a taking with just compensation for the sake of historic preservation doesn't seem abusive. On a continuum, it's not as plainly just as a taking for a road or utility easement, but it's nowhere near the types of abuse I mentioned. Some might argue that an eminent domain taking with compensation for historic preservation is more respectful of private property rights than a regulatory "taking" that limits an owner's options without providing any compensation.

<end clip>

I concur.

[pmcalk]

What really happened to Bell's Amusement Park?

http://www.kotv.com/news/topstory/?id=135092

Interesting story.  Makes me even more curious about that business plan....

[Copperhead]

Oh didn't Randi Miller look like a deer in headlights when asked why the "business plan" request from Bells and none from Murphy?.

Indeed why not, or one for Murphy's Big Splash Water Park, the Drillers, or from the Off-Track Simulcast operator?  Her response, "Well, what I do know is business plans will be asked on every tenant."  Sure Randi . . we best not hold our breath on that.

There is little doubt Murphy's money is just irresistible to those in power, especially Commissioners Miller and Smaligo.  What a disgrace and violation of the public's trust, IMHO.  It would appear the Oath of Office both swore to means nothing to them, but truth be known they aren't the only ones!

If the public doesn't call for, no demand a full investigation of what appears nothing short of corruption at the fairgrounds and of the TCPFA, they deserve the government they've got; the best leadership a Carny's money can buy!

[Double A]

Looks like Artist is choking on this as hard as Randi "Brain Candy" Miller. Misery loves company. Talk about a gruesome twosome, though.

[RecycleMichael]

I think that Bell's did a terrible job keeping the facility clean, safe and running. The park was an embarrassment.

Everything else on Expo Square was getting nicer and Bell's was becoming a dump that wasn't safe for families.

I don't know if competitors worked to get him out or not, but what he was doing was not working. He ran the family business into the ground and now blames everybody else.

[sgrizzle]

Wow, I give KOTV credit for actually reporting on something newsworthy.. or just cabbaging their story from this forum.

Either way.

[breitee]

Murphy's Big Splash is not in any better shape than Bells was. What a sham! Miller is a disgrace to the city and should be removed as soon as possible.