CLP Junction

[Junction118]

[Junction118]

It's been a busy past couple days for CLP news, here's a few more articles...

Park's opening critical to one tourist attraction
http://www.meadvilletribune.com/local/local_story_094214725.html

Park has made payments on delinquent real estate taxes
http://www.meadvilletribune.com/local/local_story_094214835.html

Current condo plan only part of residential development expected
http://www.meadvilletribune.com/local/local_story_094215125.html

[cappy]

Just a couple of thoughts on this so called master plan thing. Or should I say more of a disaster plan unless your a real estate developer.

I see on the Meadville Tribune message board that folks are really critical of reporter Jane Smith. Saying she is raising questions about the Plan and being critical of it because she is a Leroy Stearns supporter. All I say is thank goodness someone is being critical and asking questions!!! Keep it up Jane! What I would like to know is why in the world was this so called master plan put in the hands of Mark Turner and the Economic Progress Alliance of Crawford County.

We were all so excited a year or so ago when the state gave the Park a grant to develop a real plan for the Park. I guess I like many were too naive and thought the money would be used to develop a real plan. A business plan on operating the Park as it should be run and how to get it out of debt and back to the way it use to be. As it turned out the plan created was how to take the Park and cut it up into condo and other retail areas. Turner himself admitted that the plan did not even address the operation of the Park. Guess that should be expected from a bunch of county planners!! One wonders if during this process any consultants with real amusement park experience were used. One wonders if anyone even thought about that notion. Rather I think they were way too concerned about identifying all of the available land that the Park owns or leases out and how they could exploit it for comercial reasons.

It just seems that the saga of the Park goes on. I know one thing, if the sale goes through and this master plan is approved all of those on leased land surrounding the Park need to organize and form an association and hire an attorney. It appears that the real master plan for Conneaut Lake Park and the surrounding area is to become something similar to Chataqua on the Lake in NY.

I hope that Summit approves the request and the sale can go through. I also think in the process that the township should forgive the Park for the back taxes that it owes in a sign that the township is committed to seeing the Park get back on its feet. The sale can go through and the Park will open and have some breathing room. I also hope very much that Judge Vardaro strongly rejects the overall master plan since it goes way too far in the direction of commercial development of the Park which in the end will destroy the Park. At the very least, the Judge should table this so called master plan until a new board of directors is in place.

[Junction118]

I totally agree 100% cappy. The land sale needs to go through if we're ever going to see CLP open as an amusement park again but the so-called master plan is a joke. It focuses way too much on commercial development and practically ignores what CLP has been for the past 115 years. I wouldn't be worried too much if the plan does get approved however since the plan doesn't include any funding details or many specifics on how to implement to plan. Considering the "plan" itself was presented 6 months late I doubt much will ever come of it.

Just found this bit of info on the Tribune site...

[cappy]

Here is the latest article on the so called proposed Master/Disaster Plan.
Couple of worthwhile points in the article. What a novel idea bringing in a real amusement park consultant to review the plan. Bravo to LeRoy for figuring that one out. It should be interesting to hear the consultant's comments. Second point is Jack Lynch's thought about the core of the Park (rides, midway, boardwalk/beach, hotel) should be protected from development in any master plan. Could not agree more! I might add that included in the list should be the picnic shelters and sufficient parking for all of the Park's customers. If it was up to the Economic Alliance folks, they would propose a Walmart to be built in the big parking lot by Camperland and then people have to park there and walk across the road to ride the train!

One last thought.. Crawford County Board of Commisioners Chairman Morris Waid, don't back down from being involved! This is YOUR Conneaut Lake Park too! You and the other commissioners need to be engaged in being good stewards of the Park! Question things, hold people and ideas accountable and for goodness sake don't let the developers take advantage of the situation, they are only out for the $$.

Here is the article:

Officials look at newest alternatives to park’s master plan

By Jane Smith

04/18/07 —
Worried about the direction and content of the master plan being developed for Conneaut Lake Park, Crawford County Board of Commis-sioners Chairman Morris Waid suggested an alternative.

However, as soon as his involvement in the plan became public, Waid backed off and announced Mon-day he wouldn’t pursue it further.

The park’s court-appointed overseer, LeRoy Stearns, released Waid’s plan to the Tribune after he was criticized in a column published in the paper. A section of the column, penned by Economic Progress Alliance of Crawford County Executive Director Mark Turner, questioned why Stearns hadn’t sought court approval for the report the Alliance did as part of ongoing work on its master plan for the park. The Alliance and park secured a state grant to do the work.

Stearns gave two reasons for not submitting the report to the court. First, he wants the park’s attorney to review it. And second, he was approached by Waid and the county’s top planner, Jack Lynch, who expressed concerns about the Alliance’s report and asked Stearns to review a document that they titled the “Game Plan.”

Waid said the game plan was drafted by Lynch after Waid talked with “several people” and he wanted a “second opinion from a neutral board” concerning the future of the park. The new game plan was developed by Lynch.

Lynch said he and Waid wanted to make sure the park’s rides, lake access and other features were preserved under the park’s mandate as a public trust. He said the two also wanted to set specific parameters for development. In contrast, the Alliance plan sets few parameters for development, instead waiting until developers submit proposals before becoming concerned with specifics.

“We just want to be certain the public’s interest may not get lost in the shuffle,” Lynch added, saying the game plan and Alliance plan can “complement each other.”

Stearns referred to the game plan during Tuesday’s court hearing concerning sale of land at the park, but also told Crawford County Court of Common Pleas Judge Anthony Vardaro about another possibility that has developed in the last 72 hours.

Holding up a master plan for an amusement park in New York, Stearns said he would like pursue the possibility of hiring a consultant who worked on that plan to review the Alliance’s work and determine the park’s future.

The game plan calls for a five-member Investment Plan Development Committee.

In the first four months, the committee would define the public elements to remain in perpetuity at the park while simultaneously identifying a strategy for leasing parts of the park.

“We wanted to do something to help the park,” Waid said, noting his idea is to keep the park open. “We want to make the park viable,” he said, noting the game plan was designed to do that.

“This is not to supersede the (master) plan,” he said. “It’s really for an evaluation and assessment (of the master plan).”

However, he said that he didn’t want his involvement in developing the game plan to be public knowledge. Because that information did become public, he said he will no longer push the game plan.

Turner declined comment on the game plan because he hadn’t heard of it before being contacted by the Tribune.

[Onion Sandwich]

Woah Cappy. You're way off!! Did you read the master plan? There's no mention of a Wal-Mart or strip mall! It says Retail and Commercial zone for the northeast parking lot. do you realize how much retail the park used to have in it? Do you realize how much retail other parks have? Kennywood has shops on every corner. People hear retail and they think strip mall right away. The EPA's master plan was nothing more than a study to make the park more favorable to developers. Now, when developers ask questions like "where's the property line?" or "does that building have architectual problems?" or "how may years are left on what lease" there's an answer. Also, the master plan was not carved into stone tablets. It's a road map to the future. The different zones are all "possiblilities."

[Junction118]

I don't think the concern is just the labelling of those areas as "retail" or "commercial". It mostly because the plan seems to be to offer those areas to outside developers and to create retail areas that are separate from the existing amusement park. The development vultures have been circling CLP for years waiting to get their claws on parts of the land. Many fear that this master plan gives them a way in. Most of the retail areas in other parks like Kennywood are gift shops that are still part of the park itself. The CLP master plan would be similar to Kennywood allowing an outside developer step in and build stores in one of the picnic groves. If any of the current parking lots are used for anything other than parking it should be to expand the camperland area.

Has anyone here been following the discussion in the forums on the Tribune site? There's some interesting stuff on there regarding Dana Watson, the attorney who is objecting to the sale and seems to be responsible for delaying the judge's decision. The objection is based on the terms of the agreement which prohibits any other condo development on CLP property for 5 years. Mr. Watson wants the property to be re-listed for sale due to that provision not being offered when the property was first advertised. He also represented the park while it was owned by the infamous Gary Harris. Is anyone surprised to hear that?....I know I'm not. Here we are a little over a month away from Memorial day and we still have lawyers playing games with the future of a park that is supposed to be owned by the people of NW PA.

[cappy]

Thank you Junction118! What you wrote was very well said! My sarcasm got the best of me when I used the example of selling off parking space to Walmart! My point was like you said the master plan from what I read was very much slighted to new commercial and retail business interests rather than amusement park commercial and retail. Now if someone proposes to buy/lease a chuck of one of parking lots and put in a first class water park that would complement the Park I am all for it.

I do agree about Camperland, that is a potential cash cow and there really should be some thought into expanding and upgrading the facilities.

As for the Dana Watson posts. I have been reading those posts. I find it very interesting the objection to the 5 year wait on further park land sales for more condos. And people wonder why there is so much resistance to the master plan and the current land sale!! I was quite amazed when I read the initial proposed land sale article and it listed all of the conditions that Gregory Sutterlin put on the sale. I know he wants to protect his investment, but it was like he was doing the Park a big favor by buying the land and then profiting from it by building $300,000 condos.

The next couple of weeks should be interesting!

[CLPfan]

i think it is funny some talk of all these restrictions put on the sale. The 5 year issue is only for more LAKEFRONT development of condos and that is it and has nothing to do with development of any other parts of the park. Of course the developer would not want another set of condos going in next door after bidding close to $2 million for the land alone. Plus who really thinks this matters anyway as this would mean the Beachclub, beach or Hotel would be sacrificed for them anyway as this is the only beachfront property left in the park that can realistically be developed. The only other restrictions are for the granting of the ordinance change and Judge approval, again just common sense. Remember NO ONE bid on this property previously and the park said it would not borrow money to open. Clearly Dana Watson is working for SnowWaters as was seen at the hearing talking to their representatives. Even the Lieutenant govenor of PA, Knoll backs the sale. Lets see - pay over half the parks debt or risk losing the only cash offer for the land, tough decison. The sale will be approved by the Judge on Monday and Dana Watson aka SnowWaters will most likely appeal causing a delay in the park opening and lost business across the area. I bet the lawsuits are already planned against Dana if this happens. i have to wonder how he expects any business in the area with his actions. Just MY two cents.

CLPfan

[cappy]

Hmmm seems to me a good while ago I heard a rumor that Mr. Davenport (aka Snow Waters developer) proposed an offer to Leroy to partner with the Park and aquire the land along the lakeshore from the Flynn property to the Hotel for condos. The offer was thankfully rejected.

Maybe this manuvering by Dana Watson is a calculated move and all part of a bigger master plan for the Park area! This last minute objection and the possible appeal process could ruin the chances of the Park opening in 2007 and thus there might be a lot of Park land to be aquired!