notherbob;1592749 said:
What disturbs me is the ease with which he can find local corrupt politicians to deal with in cheating the local folk. My guess is that those politicians get re-elected time after time.
1 - I have no problem with what Daniel Snyder/Six Flags wishes to charge for parking in their own lots. The lots belong to them, they are in a for-profit business. They are under no ethical/moral obligation to make Six Flags available to everyone for a family day of fun.
2 - I do have a problem with their lobbying of local officials under a guise of 'safety' issues, when there are two problems. One - there is no statistical or historical information to support the idea that there are safety issues. Two - it is likely a lie anyway. The whole thing reaks, especially because there is no reason that pedestrianism should be considered 'unsafe' in itself. There was a time when we were all pedestrians.
3 - This is why I quoted you, NotherBob. Just because the town officials passed it, i can't assume that they are corrupt. Granted, doesn't look good for the mayor of the town, but I can understand how the proper amount of rhetoric in a town meeting could make people think, on the surface, how there could be a safety concern. Now, that doesn't mean that they are
correct, but they could be mistaken and not corrupt (such as the councilman cited in the article who had second thoughts). I do find it incredibly irresponsible that they didn't question the motives a bit more than they did.
4 - It seems to me that the business folk who were damaged by this are taking excellent steps to rectify their situation, for which they should be commended. Should they prevail, and assuming that the article divulged all relevant information, then the system will have succeeded in the end (if after a brief delay).
It's not an injustice to you because you can afford to wipe your butt with steak! 
