I read that article and I think it's important to point out that the following is misleading at best and complete bull**** at worst.
Attendance has dropped from 1 million in 2005 to 390,000 last year.
Back in 2005, the park operated in a completely different way than it does now. Back then the park had at least 4 entrances and admission was free. Everyone that wanted to ride the rides had a fun card which they could keep as long as they wanted and re-charge at a kiosk. Now the park is gated and admission is required. All rides are free once you get in the park (a standard pay-one-price park).
This means a few different things, first of all... the guests they've lost probably didn't spend much money. They didn't ride rides, a lot of these guests were kids that spent little money and caused trouble which is probably the main reason they made the price pay-one-price... to eliminate people using the park as a free babysitter in an attempt to bring a more affluent crowd and eliminate some of the rowdy teens. Sure some other people were turned off by this policy (grandparents for example that wanted to watch their kids on the rides) but how much money were they really spending? This stat is very misleading.
Also... and this is even more important. It can't be stressed enough that they have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how many people visited the park in 2005. They had at least 4 separate gates with no security points or turnstiles... any attendance figure they have is purely an estimate based on an average of what they think each guest spent or how many people are in each car that paid to park in the lot (which probably isn't how this was calculated since a lot of people are dropped off or take public transportation). They're making this number up... it's a load of crap. They have no way of knowing their attendance before 2009.
Also, the way they phrased this is very misleading and I think it was done deliberately to sensationalize the story. Saying that "Attendance has dropped from 1 million in 2005 to 390,000 last year." implies that this is a trend... in reality almost all of that loss was from 2008-2009 when they changed over to a pay-one price park and presumably actually started keeping track of attendance. They knew attendance would drop and spending per guest would go up... which is exactly what happened.
Playland has a lot of problems but these people are manipulating the numbers to make it look much worse than it really is. The fact that they have an operator for the Ice Casino is encouraging because they thing is responsible for a huge percentage of their losses. I'm glad they saw through Sustainable Playland's plan... hopefully they go with someone like Zamperla who has a history of turning parks around while preserving historical rides and attractions.