1.96 is right...While I'm religious, I don't love the idea
of this park for many reasons.But the fact is that governments issue
bonds to any organization credible to pay it back. I've heard a lot of
people accusing them of something that hasn't happened yet. I haven't
heard a single valid reason why, or any reason for that matter.If
you want to call the project a waste of money, go for it. I'll even agree
with you. But the criticisms people are posting here, whether founded on secular
or economic reasons, are unfounded and without precedent.
Can't help but wonder, did Noah "float" a bond to build his ark?
@ cavetrollReally? You actually need to ask that question?
@ HutteriteThe tax payers are going to get hosed big time. ANd if this is a creation museum, why are their going to be "robotic
animals"? I didn't know God created robotic animals.
Northern Lights,"I don't understand why anyone in Utah even
cares how the state of Kentucky uses their tax revenue. Isn't that a matter
for Kentuckians? Or is it really because this project has a religious
theme?"______________________________Why should anyone
outside of New York even care about an Islamic Community Center in lower
Manhattan that is to be built entirely with private funds? Let the backers of
the Noah’s Ark theme park go and do likewise and you won’t hear any
objections from me.
@ 1.96 Standard Deviations, "quoting Ken Ham (the creator of the park)"
hardly seems like an objective way to argue your point unless one is merely an
apologist. It's still a private enterprise relying on public funding, and
it promotes a specific religious perspective. I don't think that's an
appropriate use of public funding mechanisms. So tell me, if the park promoted
a Satanic point of view and met the criteria, you would be OK with that? I
dou9bt it and I doubt Kentucky would go for it. Let's not pretend.
This sounds like the type of thing they would do in Kentucky.
Either way it is a huge waste of time and money.
I don't understand why anyone in Utah even cares how the state of Kentucky
uses their tax revenue. Isn't that a matter for Kentuckians? Or is it
really because this project has a religious theme?
These days, municipalities are seeking innovative ways to lure private sector
money into public coffers, the selling point being that it eliminates the need
to raise taxes. But if the venture flounders and defaults on payment, the public
could be stuck with underwriting the bonds. It amounts to gambling with public
revenues for a private venture which in this case is promotion of a Christian
ministry and its beliefs.It might be good for the local economy if
it succeeds but it’s getting into some sticky areas. If I were a public
trustee in Kentucky, I wouldn’t touch a venture like this with a ten foot
The ark will float or sink on its own merits, but using the credit of a
governmental unit (city) to fund such a project is a very bad precedent.
In keeping with the flood theme, there's a pretty good chance the local
taxpayers are going to take a bath on this one.
@Esquire"More conservative socialism for business."Any true conservative should be just as opposed to this idea as you are. If this is a legitimate, profit generating enterprise, there are
numerous other funding options that don't include getting the city to
become their venture capital partner.This this is not a the sort of
thing a private investor would take the risk on, then why is the city doing so?
Esquire:Even though this is a religiously themed park based on Bible
history, the park is profit-based. If there is an economic incentive for the
state (under the Kentucky's Tourism Development Act), then Kentucky cannot
discriminate against projects like these IF certain criteria are met. Based on this article, apparently the state of Kentucky feels this Biblical
history theme park meets those 5 criteria under its Tourism Development Act and
cannot be discriminated against.Also, to get a good debate on this
issue with Government involvement with a potential "church" issue, do a
Youtube search for "Ark theme park kentucky." Click the first result. It
is a 9 minute CNN clip with Anderson Cooper. A lot of what I said is quoting Ken
Ham (the creator of the park) from this video.
One would hope the tax payers are not on the hook for investment in a
@ 1.96 Standard Deviations, repayment through park revenue (one hopes). It is
still being underwritten by the taxpayers. Government should not have anything
to do with this, on multiple grounds. More conservative socialism for business.
Ranch:Read the article further down... "The bonds are to be
repaid through revenue from the park, and the city is not liable for the money,
according to bond documents."
"... a municipal bond offering ..."Are taxpayers funding