irregularjoe Posted April 8, 2007 Report Share Posted April 8, 2007 (edited) No Screaming! Edited April 8, 2007 by irregularjoe Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bozodog Posted April 8, 2007 Report Share Posted April 8, 2007 Not in MY backyard. I wonder what was there first? The subdivision or the park? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted April 8, 2007 Report Share Posted April 8, 2007 It is too bad they mentioned the park was 30 years old without mentioning how long the homes had been there. I have no patience for people who buy property near something that is bound to be a nuisance, then complain about how the nuisance is ruining their property values. O'Hare is the nearest major airport to me and there're no end of complaints regarding airport operations. Hey, I grew up in a home within spittin' distance of the Chicago EL tracks so I know from noise. Every six minutes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hitest Posted April 8, 2007 Report Share Posted April 8, 2007 We have a ride that is similar to that up here in Canada at our amusement park, in Vancouver. I love screaming my head off when the seat plummets to the Earth:-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dragon Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 there next step will probably be suing the amusement park allowing people to enjoy some warm weather fun. Don't people have better things to do than complain about something, they willingly moved next too.I agree with JDoors, No sympathy from me, if the house was built or bought after the amusement park was in operation then they new what they were doing. and they should also know that the likely hood of it being quiet was slim to nil. A classic case of how our society has become extremely negligent of intelligence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
screi Posted April 11, 2007 Report Share Posted April 11, 2007 (edited) interesting responses...might i respectfully point out that a closer reading of the article indicates that this ride is brand new and a recent addition to the park..the park apparently has added a ride that is significantly taller...larger and apparently noisier than a 12 lane highway..and tall enough that the FAA requires aviation lights..from the article:"Tom Gardner and other neighbors acknowledge that living next to Interstate 80 is noisy, but say the Screamer has become an entirely new kind of nuisance. It is loud, lights up at night and gives riders a peek into backyard swimming pools, they say.The 165-foot ride is so tall that the Federal Aviation Administration forced the amusement park to install warning lights on its rotating arms."it's also apparent that the park knows it's on thin ice...otherwise why would they go to such extremes to try to keep the ride quiet...it seems to me that other than the obvious irony of the ride being named "the Screamer" this story is about a company who has intruded on the privacy of its neighbors..wayne Edited April 11, 2007 by screi Quote Link to post Share on other sites
irregularjoe Posted April 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2007 interesting responses...might i respectfully point out that a closer reading of the article indicates that this ride is brand new and a recent addition to the park..the park apparently has added a ride that is significantly taller...larger and apparently noisier than a 12 lane highway..and tall enough that the FAA requires aviation lights..from the article:"Tom Gardner and other neighbors acknowledge that living next to Interstate 80 is noisy, but say the Screamer has become an entirely new kind of nuisance. It is loud, lights up at night and gives riders a peek into backyard swimming pools, they say.The 165-foot ride is so tall that the Federal Aviation Administration forced the amusement park to install warning lights on its rotating arms."it's also apparent that the park knows it's on thin ice...otherwise why would they go to such extremes to try to keep the ride quiet...it seems to me that other than the obvious irony of the ride being named "the Screamer" this story is about a company who has intruded on the privacy of its neighbors..wayneit's never as simple as it seems, is it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted April 11, 2007 Report Share Posted April 11, 2007 I read the article closely and thoroughly thank you, and I have the same response: You live next to an amusement park, get used to it. They expanded? That's what amusement parks do, or they go out of business (plenty of vacant property around Chicago from out-of-business amusement parks, if you're lookin' for some land). That's what airports do, and factories, and residential developments. Towers go up, electrical lines are run, roads are built. Things change. They made an effort to be good neighbors in spite of the fact that they are only doing what amusement parks do, thrill their customers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
screi Posted April 11, 2007 Report Share Posted April 11, 2007 well i certainly cannot agree with your assertion that an amusement park has any more inherent "right" to expand ...over a homeowners right to privacy and a level of peace and quiet..it would seem from what i've read about this story that the there was never an issue between the home owners and the park until the park introduced this new ride..which became a nuisance greater than the highway which separates the two..this ride seems to me to have crossed the line...people's property rights are being eroded fast enough... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 ... homeowners right to privacy and a level of peace and quiet.. ... Not exactly a privacy issue unless the riders are peeping in the homeowner's windows, and they're probably too busy muffling their screams to be thinking about doing that. Many cities have noise ordinances that, at the very least, restrict the hours you can produce noise ... The homeowners can always work towards an ordinance that further limits the "right" of the amusement park to do business. There's a nearby town that's enacted draconion noise laws, you can't have your car stereo turned up for example. I'm sometimes annoyed by the billion-megawatt car stereos thump-thump-thumping along, but they're in a public place -- I think you can go too far restricting what others can do just because you don't like it. Don't get me wrong about homeowner's "rights." I hate being told what I can or cannot do with my own property. But by extension, I shouldn't be able to tell others what they can do with THEIRS. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
screi Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 well as quoted above in my earlier post...the fact is the height of the ride allows the patrons tp "peek' in the backyard swimming pools..and in my opinion excessive noise IS a privacy issue...any thing that can penetrate your walls...disturb your sleep...your children's sleep and the normal activities in your household..is an invasion of your privacy..!and i will not start a debate of your statement:"Don't get me wrong about homeowner's "rights." I hate being told what I can or cannot do with my own property. But by extension, I shouldn't be able to tell others what they can do with THEIRS."..other than to point out that is not the social contract that is established by law and convention here in the USA...indeed there is the implied responsibility of respect for privacy and property rights of others..as good citizens we must respect the rights of others in order that we my receive our due respect..and when other intrude or trespass on our rights we have recourse...without that there would be chaos...and we would all live under the rule of the bullies and despots...but i think that this thread is in danger of becoming too political.. so i've said my piece on the subject..which in a nutshell..is..don't be so quick to criticize others whose privacy is invaded...you might be next..wayne Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bubba Bob Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 (edited) THis topic can be argued on all day long, but with the shotty and incomplete journalism it's all moot. Edited April 12, 2007 by Bubba Bob Quote Link to post Share on other sites
irregularjoe Posted April 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 (edited) LOL.I only reported the story here because of it's absurdity."No screaming on the screamer".It's amazing that it caused this much angst in it's wake.But I guess disussion is a good thing. No? Edited April 12, 2007 by irregularjoe Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.