Latest on MJJC

Neverland State Park???

mysterygirl7 said:
Not at all..
Click to expand...

Then please, explain the rationality behind the opposition. Do they honestly think it's going to transform their community into some chaotic circus? You say you talked to some people there, then please, let me know specific reasons ;)
 
Tsukiji said:
For the "community" to not support it is completely idiotic, more people=more $ for the community. The place is not going to turn into a party festival or anything, yeesh. Oh also, maybe if people in that community knew what would actually happen then they wouldn't be opposed to anything. They have this whole perception of "oh it will just be so chaotic" uh, no it won't.
Click to expand...

The thing is Neverland is at country side. There's a one lane road that goes to it. All of the neighbors are the ranches that raise animals and/or produce.

Turning Neverland into a public place (either a museum or a park or whatever) would mean to build bigger roads, hotels, food establishments etc. And everything aside it would definitely increase the number of people and the traffic that goes to that area.

If you bought a ranch because that's away the city, traffic and population, you wouldn't want your area to turn into a high interest high traffic high population area either. It has got nothing to do with money or hate.
 
Last edited:
ivy said:
The thing is Neverland is at country side. There's a one line road that goes to it. All of the neighbors are the ranches that raise animals and/or produce.

Turning Neverland into a public place (either a museum or a park or whatever) would mean to build bigger roads, hotels, food establishments etc. And everything aside it would definitely increase the number of people and the traffic that goes to that area.

If you bought a ranch because that's away the city, traffic and population, you wouldn't want your area to turn into a high interest high traffic high population area either. It has got nothing to do with money or hate.
Click to expand...
The Hearst Castle California State Park is in an isolated area.
I and millions of other people have viisited it, and, well, we left eveything pretty much intact. :cheeky:

Hearst Castle is located on the majestic Central Coast of California. Nestled in the hills at San Simeon, the Castle sits halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles and is approximately a five hour drive from either of these metropolitan areas.

Click to expand...
 
ivy said:
The thing is Neverland is at country side. There's a one line road that goes to it. All of the neighbors are the ranches that raise animals and/or produce.

Turning Neverland into a public place (either a museum or a park or whatever) would mean to build bigger roads, hotels, food establishments etc. And everything aside it would definitely increase the number of people and the traffic that goes to that area.

If you bought a ranch because that's away the city, traffic and population, you wouldn't want your area to turn into a high interest high traffic high population area either. It has got nothing to do with money or hate.
Click to expand...

:clapping::clapping:
 
mysterygirl7 said:
:clapping::clapping:
Click to expand...
Here's the "remote" Hearst Castle millions have managed to get to:
2009-03-26_20-19-18-10-75-F8-84.jpg
 
yeah hearst castle is a mainstay on the fly drive pacific coasts holidays that get sold over here.

personally i couldnt careless what the neighbours think or want. where were they in 03-05 for a start. to busy cursing him out while their local hotels and shops made $ off mj and the fans just like they would if anything happened to the ranch this time. persnally to me it should be opened for charities to use and rarely to the public or celeb do's to rasie money to run the place so it cost the estate nothing. i find nothing more cringe worthy than the thought of haters and non fans going in that sacred land just for a laugh and a chance to say ive been there like what happens with graceland. mj should never be sold out like that.nev is way to special for that
 
Even if the state wants to do it its going to take a while to come into effect as neighbours have already voiced opposition at Neverland becoming a tourist attraction due to the peace and quiet of the area. Who knows what will happen.
 
californias broke. they cant afford squat. its only a motion by the NAACP and id hope the estate wouldnt agree to it anyway. the ranch is to much of a money maker in the long run and should be controlled by the estate and kids and no one else
 
I believe Neverland will be opened back up again.
It is just a matter of whether is will be a public-private or
just plain private.

003944426.jpg

 
yeah i agree. theres to much $$ to be made one way or the other
 
nothing is guaranteed. most people think about the bottom line..but Michael was of a different breed, and he didn't think like that. and we can't be sure how his kids think either. and quite frankly, that's refreshing. that's why they are a successful family. you really cannot predict what they will do.
 
well however much id like to see his kids involved they are only that,kids. and i doubt the place is gonna be left doing nothing for the next 5 years or so until jr gets to 18 and can start to have a say. at this stage its upto branca and co
 
CherubimII said:
The Hearst Castle California State Park is in an isolated area.
I and millions of other people have viisited it, and, well, we left eveything pretty much intact. :cheeky:
Click to expand...

CherubimII said:
Here's the "remote" Hearst Castle millions have managed to get to:
Click to expand...

I didn't say that people cannot manage to get to Neverland. I said it doesn't necessarily have the ideal conditions for travel and lodging. Hearst Castle seems to be on a Highway and there seems to be lodging and food establishments etc.

However none of it was my main point. Neverland has neighboring ranches whose owners want to keep that area away from high traffic and high number of visitors. Was Hearst Castle in a similar situation?

Also don't forget that "let the kids decide" requires a really really long time. Even though executors may opt to hold on to Neverland even though it's a cost item, there's also the factor of Colony Capital (that has the 50% of Neverland).
 
ivy said:
I didn't say that people cannot manage to get to Neverland. I said it doesn't necessarily have the ideal conditions for travel and lodging. Hearst Castle seems to be on a Highway and there seems to be lodging and food establishments etc.

However none of it was my main point. Neverland has neighboring ranches whose owners want to keep that area away from high traffic and high number of visitors. Was Hearst Castle in a similar situation?

Also don't forget that "let the kids decide" requires a really really long time. Even though executors may opt to hold on to Neverland even though it's a cost item, there's also the factor of Colony Capital (that has the 50% of Neverland).
Click to expand...
yeah..but fifty percent is like having all and no control at the same time, so, in the end, it's a moot point. it takes a real special talent to be able to get someone to agree with you in such a vast situation. Michael was rare, in that regard. so..we'll see what happens. but nobody can predict, no matter what they think.
 
144 said:
yeah..but fifty percent is like having all and no control at the same time, so, in the end, it's a moot point. it takes a real special talent to be able to get someone to agree with you in such a vast situation. Michael was rare, in that regard. so..we'll see what happens. but nobody can predict, no matter what they think.
Click to expand...

I agree
 
Last edited:
according to reports when the deal was announced it said mj was majority owner.. im inclined to believe that as the media dont make up positive info about mj. and there would be no point mj selling 50% as he basically loses control.beats the point of the deal in the first place
 
While the "ideal" concept of opening Neverland to special needs groups, etc., sounds promising; and even a supremely well done state "park" such as the Hearst Castle property set's an example, it still belies the immense amount of discussion, agreement, and work that would be needed.

And opening Neverland to the general public as a park means just that, the "general public". Until there is some sort of way of distinguishing fans/people honestly interested in seeing the beauty and ideals of NVL from morbid curiosity seekers, I just don't know-

And like many others have said, from personal experience, it truly is a narrow 2 lane country "road" that goes on for miles. The entire long road is abutted by personal property. To enlarge the road requires buying property from current owners, or somehow mandating that enlargement will happen. Can the state afford such an endeavor?

The idea of shuttling people from the nearest town to NVL seems viable, then there would be limited traffic to some extent. But has anyone ever heard of a state park/agency offering such services when you're talking miles from a gathering point to the actual entrance to a park? What I can't even imagine is any actual road work being done, the time and upheaval and mess that could potentially take several years to complete, and the neighboring land owners should just say fine, no problem, won't affect me at all.

Private events, charitable events, restricted access for special groups with special needs (physical/low income, etc.), those could probably fly with minimal disruption or actual encroachment to other properties and peoples privacy (and actual access to their property). But a state park and/or general opening to the public on a daily basis, I just can't see it happening readily or in the near future. Until one actually travels that road, sees the surrounding land, the lack of anywhere to expand unless usurping personal property, it may sound like no problem.

Bottom line would also be whether the estate would agree to such a thing at this time, regardless of the percentage it owns. And should the decision be made by Katherine, or wait until the children come of age and can legitimately decide for themselves what they want to have happen with "their" land.

Just my input/opinion.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
nice to see you ATLF:)
Click to expand...

Hi, Elusive. Yep, I'm still around.

Anyway, no matter what they do with the property, if it is revenue generating, Santa Barbara County, the same one that almost ruined his life, will benefit from it in the form of tax revenue. So bit it though....cause I want to see his children get the opportunity to fulfill their wishes, if any, for Neverland. After all, it was their home....their father's...and no one knew Michael like his children.
 
What else could they possibly do with the property? There is no way they could re build over it! There would be a far worse outrage than what a few locals would have to say about opening Neverland up to the public as a tribute to Michael.

What are they going to do? Let it sit there for decades? Who has that say? If Prince one day decides he would like to open it up to the public, how much power does his say hold?

I personally think there is no harm in making it open to the public. Michael did this anyhow when he was alive. He allowed fans and people in and busloads of children! There was always media attention there because of who lived there and residents never seemed to complain so what is the difference?

I truly believe opening Neverland would bring enormous wealth to the state and a global gathering of love from all over the world. There is no wrong in it, only right.
 
*MissChanel* said:
What else could they possibly do with the property? There is no way they could re build over it! There would be a far worse outrage than what a few locals would have to say about opening Neverland up to the public as a tribute to Michael.

What are they going to do? Let it sit there for decades? Who has that say? If Prince one day decides he would like to open it up to the public, how much power does his say hold?

I personally think there is no harm in making it open to the public. Michael did this anyhow when he was alive. He allowed fans and people in and busloads of children! There was always media attention there because of who lived there and residents never seemed to complain so what is the difference?

I truly believe opening Neverland would bring enormous wealth to the state and a global gathering of love from all over the world. There is no wrong in it, only right.
Click to expand...
his say doesnt hold any power until he is 40 with 35 he takes 50 % control of it 1/3 when he is 30 same goes for his sibs
 
OMG :cry:

I hope the 2nd one happens and I hope its soon. I pray the project is opening up Neverland as a Memorial Park to Michael for the fans and the public. All the other options are just too depressing! :(
 
Something will be done with it but there is no rush to choose what happens, let the kids make the decision. They lived there.
 
xsmooth_criminalx said:
I think Prince, Paris and Blanket should keep it. They may decide to do what LMP and Priscilla have done with Graceland, or they may decide to keep it a private reverie. In any case, I think the decision is theirs to make in the end. No one else has the right to decide what happens to the place, not even Mrs. Katherine Jackson, IMO. The children have the only valid say in the matter, because it was their home and no one else's.
Click to expand...

:agree: you took the words right out of my mouth here, couldn't of put it any better myself :clapping:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top