Kentucky Kingdom (SFKK, KK) Discussion Thread

[mr_teisco_delreyI wrote the book about donkeys!]

Under KRS (Kentucky Revised Statutes) a fixture that is permanently attached to the land is part of the real estate, not personal property. Permanent attachment would be in force since bolting a fixture to the ground would constitute permanent attachment under KRS. So in this case, Chang is property of the Commonwealth, not Six Flags. If the lease between the Commonwealth and Six Flags states that a fixture can be sold or moved by the lessee, then Six Flags is free to remove the ride. The Commonwealth would have no recourse. If there is not a clause that over rides KRS, Chang needs to be returned, and rebuilt to operating condition. This would need to be done to avoid harm to the lessor. I am basing this on my experience as a landlord in Kentucky, and legal advice I have received over the years as a landlord.

[CPmaverickI don't know the difference between waist and waste.]

That would suck if Six Flags had to bring back Chang, rebuild it, and get it back to operational shape. Talk about a waist of time and money.

[uwgbdorkDonkeys give me orgiastic scream!]

Chang is not going to come back! It is gone whether the fair board likes it or not. The only thing that is going to come from it will be to get the damages, aka the worth of the coaster in cash. It is all about the money. The Fair board probaly could care less if the ride is rebuilt.

[mr_teisco_delreyI wrote the book about donkeys!]

Given the states finances, Kentucky Kingdom probably won't be back. Your right about Chang not ever coming back. Even though the remedy under KY law would be to restore the asset, if it indeed is a fixture, it's about the money in the end.

[thrillriderAm I allowed to eat donkey during lent?]

Chang was on a section of land that six flags owned.

[mudvayneimnI think Intamin should make a donkey!]

^From the info it sounds like Chang was on part of the land Six Flags owned, not all. Maybe it'll get really nasty and the KSFB will end up with the lift hill, drop, and Loop from Chang and the rest Six Flags will keep.

[rizashI Guess Donkeys Are Okay]

The Kentucky state fair board is both biting the hand that feeds and shooting themselves in the feet. Six flags planned a water park, then entered bankruptcy protection. Sf said this is our final contract offer or we opt out, Kentucky fair says "omg what?" completely unexpected..... Then they sue to try to repo all the rides sfi bought from the previous owners.... Now they sue and put a pr spin on it in order to make sf look bad. Ok, fine.

Two problems... Even if Kentucky fair owns all permanent rides, all theme stuff, props, cars, and flat rides would be sf property. Six flags also claims to have paid property tax each year on all the rides they bought (many, many millions in total) not only is this legal precedence that establishes ownership, but is also leverage that if Kentucky fair owns the rides legally, then they will owe tax refunds to six flags, and may have committed fraud by making six flags pay taxes on tens of millions of dollars of equipment each year.

Other problems: six flags owned most of the land chang was on, tt was on, t2 was on, and other rides were on. Most land under chang and parts under tt and t2 and other rides. Six flags has no obligation to sell their land, an the same laws protect them so even if the state fair own parts of those rides, they would neither be able to operate nor remove the rides....

So with no rides, a broken up park with little land, and a landlord that has been proven to be greedy and will claim ownership of anything you invest in the park, nobody will run this park. Heck even if six flags loses all rides on fair land, they could hold their land and not sell it just to prevent the fair from running the park and rides partly on sf land.

This situation sucks, and I think the best solution for everyone would be for the fair board to accept six flags contract offer.

[mr_teisco_delreyI wrote the book about donkeys!]

Chang was on a section of land that six flags owned.

To the government - drop it. What's really funny is if the land that Six Flags owned was big enough for a water park, and they decided to build (don't bet on it), the state would have to grant an easement through the Kentucky Kingdom property without compensation. Down dare ask me how I feel paying taxes to the state government.

[spaceace12Cubs/Colts Fan]

This situation sucks, and I think the best solution for everyone would be for the fair board to accept six flags contract offer.

I think that solution is far gone now......I think even if the KSFB accepted SF offer, I don't think SF would accept now. The only way I see another park in KK spot is for another operator to run it.

As for what is left on KSFB property, what SF put in that is transportable (correct me if I am wrong) is Greezed Lightning. And I don't see GL being moved again by SF unless they sold it to someone.

In the end, my theory on what will happen is. Six Flags will not be back in Louisville. They will either win the KSFB lawsuit and not have to pay a thing for Chang and anything else they have removed or they will have to pay for damages. As for the land they own, I could see them holding that land for a while just be a trouble to anyone who wants to take over the property.

[mr_teisco_delreyI wrote the book about donkeys!]

Other problems: six flags owned most of the land chang was on, tt was on, t2 was on, and other rides were on. Most land under chang and parts under tt and t2 and other rides. Six flags has no obligation to sell their land, an the same laws protect them so even if the state fair own parts of those rides, they would neither be able to operate nor remove the rides....

The state has eminent domain. They love to use it under the guise that it is for the good of the state and the people. They use it alot to get things they want.
You are right though that the government is in a pickle. Who would want to operate the park given the SF precedence? KI and Holiday World will eat their lunch this summer.