Comments on: Water Park was profitable

By: bbox231

bbox231 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:27:31 +0000

Here is a brief summary of the earliest staff (and their consultants’) projections for the Water Park.

http://www.tricityvoice.com/articledisplay.php?a=6532

Hopefully, the proverbial “numbers” that have been suggested in this BLOG as important to a thorough discussion will include the kinds of operating line items that were (for some reason) left out of these earliest projections . . .

Reasonable accruals for non-cash items such as maintenance or the additional park features recommended to be constructed and added every 3 to 5 years (presumably to maintain the parks “draw” appeal) will need to be included therein.

By: Charlotte Allen

Charlotte Allen — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:32:15 +0000

Like Gus said, we can’t really know anything until we see the numbers. I’d be happy if the Water Park showed a profit. It’s already built. Tearing it down would create an even bigger hole in the budget. If it starts losing money, it will drain the funds from Park maintenance for all Fremont Parks. So let’s hope it’s profitable!

By: swampwarblesquidfly

swampwarblesquidfly — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:47:05 +0000

In a separate study Baade alone examined the income and employment consequences of a stadium project for its host city. He found little or no evidence that a stadium can raise income or create jobs for a city. In fact in the case of employment he states that jobs may instead be: “diverted from the manufacturing economy to the service economy, or from higher-skilled to lower-skilled (and lower-paid) occupations.”

Writing more recently Baade and Dye state that:
“The evidence presented here is that the presence of a new or renovated stadium has an uncertain impact on the levels of personal income and possibly a negative impact on local development relative to the region. ”

http://www.dast.gov.ie/pdfs/feasibility/campusappendix8b.pdf

By: Brandalyn

Brandalyn — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:34:36 +0000

But Andy, one cannot argue that Union City is safer on any account. Your reasons why UC is “better” is no more than a weak opinion, and what does size have to do with anything?

P.S. At least our kids aren’t swimming in that forsaken lagoon anymmore.

By: Swamp Squid

Swamp Squid — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:09:14 +0000

And shame on coach Ashmore for all of his unethical recruiting!!!

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:13:58 +0000

The govt job is to ensure services that otherwise would be hard to get. Since we know pvt establishments dont come to fremont or maybe discouraged from coming, it makes sense for city council to make a water park. As Marty says, even in this economy the water park breaking even, its more than good enough.

Why do you think Fremont doesnt have a movie theatre? Or decent clubs/lounges? decent restaurants?. Union city, 1/3rd size of fremont is better than fremont on all these counts. No wonder fremont doesnt have money to repair roads.

By: WarbleFly

WarbleFly — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:26:54 +0000

Squid is spot on. Fremont will NEVER recover from giving in to
the not so warm springs nimby “well heeled” anti prosperity mob!
It’s a tragedy! Shame on the nimby mob!!
This issue will not go away. Fremont will forever regret losing the opportunity to be home to a major league team.
Oh well, at least we still have the downtown project,,,(sigh)

By: Swamp Squid

Swamp Squid — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:48:31 +0000

You are now entering Fremont…Welcome to Palookaville! Now let us all rejoice because our water slide turned a buck…big woop! Get your corn dog and enjoy one our cities cultural wonders. All of you who killed major league baseball coming to our boring (but safe} bedroom community must be asking yourself “Oh my god, what have I done?” We will never again get the opportunity to have every newspapers sports section and web sports site mention (dateline Fremont, Cisco Field) and blast it all over the world from April-November…but at least we have a profitable water slide!A sarcastic thanks to all who opposed this deal for your shortsighted blunder! I welcome all fingers for a counterpoint.

By: Gus Morrison

Gus Morrison — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:09:04 +0000

Before we get too far into a debate over the first year results, we need a balance sheet and a report from the staff. I would guess an average attendance of around 700 a day would be a disappointment, less than half the consultant estimated as the maximum attendance. I can’t wait for the data.

By: bbox231

bbox231 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:19:23 +0000

Marty – you’re generalizing and obfuscating.

I’ll take it a step further. YOU were talking about businesses – as in “,…Any business that covers their operating cost …” – so why are you changing your tune now ?