david wrote:Speaking of Scream! isn't it possible to cover the lot with soil and plant grass? Sure it would require some downtime, but that could easily be done during the off-season. And by off-season I mean January-February.
EDIT: I look like a dork because BP/19 deleted his post.
I wonder if it has to do with an irrigation system in which they would have to demolish the parking lot in order to do it, and thus it would be really hard to not destroy the footers in the meantime. California does get a lot hotter than IL during the entire season. If they don't want to do that, you think they would at least get rid of the yellow lines, or they could make something like Raging Bull with the rocks underneath the ride.
If I were the park, I would retheme the ride to something better than such a stupid name as Scream! If they did something like Green Lantern, maybe you could paint the parking lot based on where the Green Lantern people are from? To me, it would be so much easier have a Superman ride and than you can just put make those ice things on the ground, and paint the ground white, but Superman is already covered at that park. For Batman, which is again already at the park, you can make it look like it's a city down below with building cutouts, and the black ground makes sense in a city.
"I've been staring at the world, waiting. All the trouble and all the pain we're facing. Too much light to be livin' in the dark. Why waste time? We only got one life. Together we can be the CHANGE. So go and let your heart burn bright"
Brian, I'm not sure about Jackson, but I know my town, ( also Agawam (SFNE) does this to ) are late on posting things to the site. Sometimes things don't ever make it to the site. But you are right, that does look bad on the GAdv fanboys part. Sometimes if its a secret thing, Agawam doesn't post secretive things for SFNE until weeks later.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, these meetings cannot be private. They are meant to inform the public that there is a new addition, and if they have any complaints, to bring it up there.
onyxhotel08 wrote:sorry but no there was no ruling yet on chang that said it goes back or you pay up. it was not on the news anywhere. ^
I've just got my proff, the state wants Chang back or money for the ride.
Talking about Chang is at the end of the video about the -1:30 mark, Watch the whole video if you like were they talk about how the park used to be a success and etc. http://www.whas11.com/community/blogs/p ... 04059.html
The reason why its quite now is because Ed Hart has the park back!
onyxhotel08 wrote:sorry but no there was no ruling yet on chang that said it goes back or you pay up. it was not on the news anywhere. ^
I've just got my proff, the state wants Chang back or money for the ride.
Talking about Chang is at the end of the video about the -1:30 mark, Watch the whole video if you like were they talk about how the park used to be a success and etc. http://www.whas11.com/community/blogs/p ... 04059.html
The reason why its quite now is because Ed Hart has the park back!
onyxhotel08 wrote:sorry but no there was no ruling yet on chang that said it goes back or you pay up. it was not on the news anywhere. ^
I've just got my proff, the state wants Chang back or money for the ride.
Talking about Chang is at the end of the video about the -1:30 mark, Watch the whole video if you like were they talk about how the park used to be a success and etc. http://www.whas11.com/community/blogs/p ... 04059.html
While that does answer onyxhotel08 's question for proof that the State Fair Board wants Chang back, if you notice the date on that page (Posted on May 6, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Updated Thursday, May 6 at 5:13 PM), that took place BEFORE SFGAm went to the village of Gurnee to ask for the height variance, which was on May 26, 2010.
Now, logic would tell me that if SF had to give the ride back (based on the info on that video 20 days prior), why would the have gone in front of the board to ask for a height variance? So, that leads me to believe that SF and the State Fair Board worked out some kind of cash deal for Chang. Either that, or things were in the works for one of those, and maybe the cash deal fell through, and SF did have to give the ride back. That could be a reason why the park pulled out of the Village of Gurnee Board Meeting on June 21st.
And, depending on how all that unfolds, that makes me question the whole "Chang is going to SFGAdv to replace GASm" saga. If SFGAm could not have it due to the State Fair board asking for it back (SF choose to not pay for it, and gives it back), then why would SFGAdv be allowed to have it? Just another reason I don't believe the whole rumor that Chang is going to SFGAdv.
And, David is right. Village / Town / City etc meetings are open to the public, and CANNOT be private. The park cannot go to the governing board and say "Hey..we want to add this 500 foot 20 looper ride...but, don't tell anyone if you approve it or not". That's not allowed at all. The public is informed in one way or another in regards to the items on the agenda for the meetings. While they may not appear on a web page, the agenda (and minutes that follow) should be avilable for review at the town hall. The public is also allowed (and in most cases enocuraged) to attend, so that they can voice their views on the subject.
While there are cases where the town can have "closed door meetings", things of this nature are not part of that.
--Brian
PS: Sorry in advance for any spelling errors...I'm @ SFGAm in the Cyber Cafe, and they run IE (not firefox), so there is no spell cheker.
BrianPlencner wrote: While that does answer onyxhotel08 's question for proof that the State Fair Board wants Chang back, if you notice the date on that page (Posted on May 6, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Updated Thursday, May 6 at 5:13 PM), that took place BEFORE SFGAm went to the village of Gurnee to ask for the height variance, which was on May 26, 2010.
Now, logic would tell me that if SF had to give the ride back (based on the info on that video 20 days prior), why would the have gone in front of the board to ask for a height variance? So, that leads me to believe that SF and the State Fair Board worked out some kind of cash deal for Chang. Either that, or things were in the works for one of those, and maybe the cash deal fell through, and SF did have to give the ride back. That could be a reason why the park pulled out of the Village of Gurnee Board Meeting on June 21st.
idk, in the news about a month ago, they said that nothing has yet been settle about the rides.
I don't think Chang is going to GAdv anymore. I think they're getting sick of everything getting leaked out and keep changing it. We'll see where it ends up, but its safe to say Chang isn't going to GAdv anymore...
Knowledge the park pulled out of second meeting with the board; though no info on if they plan to go in July perhaps.
Chang pieces at Great America and Kentucky.
No reason to think it will be installed in New Jersey.
Knowledge even land clearing/prep work on a ride like Chang can begin in August/September. We, unlike Great Adventure, do not have to remove a ride to install Chang.
I still have a gut feeling Chang will make a miraculous re-appearence at Great America. I think Weber is just looking at what may better suit the park before proceeding with anything and breaking ACErs hearts. lmao
He is not an idiot as was not Shapiro. He will want to prepare us for the not-so-far away day Iron Wolf will be removed. Chang has a good amount of life left. Wolf does not. For all we know Iron Wolf could be used as part of the Ride Rotation Program and sent away next season or 2012.
david wrote:Actually, if I'm not mistaken, these meetings cannot be private. They are meant to inform the public that there is a new addition, and if they have any complaints, to bring it up there.
You would be amazed what some money in a politician's hands can get for you.
Does this mean GASM is not being removed? In the span of a few days it went from this
acquaz10 wrote:not a rumor. Its a known fact right now. Face it. Chang is going to Great Adventure. Anyways thats not even who my source is in the first place
acquaz10 wrote:This is still GASM's last year. If you find the right person at the park to talk to they will tell you. The outrage on the Facebook page kept it open a little longer. It didn't make sense to close the patriotic coaster before July 4. Chang is still going to GAdv. Carry on.
acquaz10 wrote:More proof that its leaving. The third train is no where to be seen. Its done forever. You guys are just in denial, thats whats funny. Why do you even want a second stand-up. Face it people, its going to GAdv.
Demon's red train didn't make it onstage all of 2006 because of issues with it's rehab but that train was operating in 2007. Demon is still at SFGAm and still operating.
to this
acquaz10 wrote:I don't think Chang is going to GAdv anymore. I think they're getting sick of everything getting leaked out and keep changing it. We'll see where it ends up, but its safe to say Chang isn't going to GAdv anymore...
Everyone on these boards were saying the whole time that nothing was confirmed and you just ignored everyone and proceeded to insist everything you were saying were facts. We've been around long enough to see things that are "confirmed" not happen. And don't give us any of that "well it was confirmed but due to it being leaked now it's not going to happen" BS...you guarenteed that Chang was being built at Great Adventure, and your probably wrong. I hope now you realize why SFGADV's facebook was making fun of people like you.
onyxhotel08 wrote:sorry but no there was no ruling yet on chang that said it goes back or you pay up. it was not on the news anywhere. ^
I've just got my proff, the state wants Chang back or money for the ride.
Talking about Chang is at the end of the video about the -1:30 mark, Watch the whole video if you like were they talk about how the park used to be a success and etc. http://www.whas11.com/community/blogs/p ... 04059.html
The reason why its quite now is because Ed Hart has the park back!
I can see only two outcomes from this. a. Six Flags gets away with taking Chang as it was on a majority of Six Flags property at KK. b. Six Flags pays KK for taking the ride and the ride is installed elsewhere or put into storage until everything is sorted out which may in fact determine the actual outcome of the ride.
Also this has been bugging me for a while but if Chang was to be installed out our park when would we be seeing actual ground work and track arriving in the park (and by that I mean way more then we have now to the point where prep work has begun for installation).
Now that you brought this article up I think this is probably 90% of the reason why Six Flags had to cancel the second meeting to add the ride to our park. This seems to be fitting correctly into the puzzle....
I was right. David was wrong. All that matters. Same with you BP/19. Pathetic.
EDIT: Sorry. I had to gloat. I'm not usually like that. Its just. Well. You should have seen the way some of you acted. We all told you its been confirmed but would have gotten in trouble. Now its 100% confirmed.
Stupid fanboys.