Noah's ark project in Ky. to move forward

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    March 4, 2014 6:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 1, 2014 6:44 a.m.

    Can't help but wonder, did Noah "float" a bond to build his ark?

  • Tajemnica West Valley, Utah
    Feb. 28, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    @ cavetroll

    Really? You actually need to ask that question?

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    Feb. 28, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    @ Hutterite

    The 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.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 28, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    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.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 28, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Feb. 28, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    This sounds like the type of thing they would do in Kentucky.

  • DocHolliday reno, NV
    Feb. 28, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    Either way it is a huge waste of time and money.

  • Northern Lights Arco, ID
    Feb. 28, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    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?

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 28, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    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 pole.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Feb. 28, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 28, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    In keeping with the flood theme, there's a pretty good chance the local taxpayers are going to take a bath on this one.

  • Social Mod Fiscal Con West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 28, 2014 9:18 a.m.


    "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?

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    Feb. 28, 2014 8:56 a.m.


    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.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Feb. 28, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    One would hope the tax payers are not on the hook for investment in a "theme" park.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 28, 2014 8:16 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    Feb. 28, 2014 8:09 a.m.


    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."

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 28, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    "... a municipal bond offering ..."

    Are taxpayers funding this nonsense?