God Moves in Mysterious Ways: Ark Park to Raise Money Using Bonds for an Interesting Reason

Posted 15 September 2013 by Matt Young

By Dan Phelps On September 12, 2013, I received a letter (see Appendix) signed by Ken Ham and a slick advertisement from the Ark Encounter touting funding the Ark Park via bonds. The bond issuer will be the City of Williamstown, Kentucky. According to the website mentioned in the letter, the co-borrowers will be Crosswater Canyon, Inc., a non-profit organization controlled by Answers in Genesis, and Ark Encounter, LLC (co-borrower, solely owned by Crosswater Canyon, Inc.). Interestingly enough, an agreement to issue bonds was made late last year between the City of Williamstown and the developers of the Ark Encounter. Oddly, this agreement failed to be reported in the local Williamstown and Grant County, Kentucky, media, although a classified announcement was likely published. The possible use of bonds issued by the city to finance the project was briefly mentioned way back in 2011. The reason they give for using bonds really is amazing and most amusing. Ken Ham doesn't mention the failure to raise sufficient donations and investors after trying since 2010, or claim that investors backed out, but rather he claims ... drum roll ... you will never ... that Obamacare is the reason they are using city bonds to help fund the Ark! Here is the text of the letter:

Late last year after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the "Obamacare" health care legislation, our legal counsel informed us of the critical impact that legislation was to have on the Ark project under its previous funding structure. In large part because of AIG's strong biblical stand against the Obamacare legislation's mandated coverage of abortion-causing drugs, AIG pursued a change in the Ark Encounter funding structure that now includes a bond investment opportunity for you to consider. Actually, God has used this legislation for good! Because of the changes we have had to make (which have taken several months behind the scenes), our stand has created an exciting opportunity for you. Now you will be able to invest in what I [Ken Ham] believe to be one of the most thrilling outreaches to challenge church and culture in the USA and worldwide concerning the authority of the Word of God and the saving gospel.

Who would have guessed that the Almighty allowed the Affordable Care Act to pass so that Ken Ham could raise Ark Park money? I bet no one saw that one coming. Of course, even though the Lord is on his side, Ken Ham does caution potential investors of risk in his fund raising letter. A disclaimer in a footnote to the letter states:

Investment in Ark bonds is not appropriate for everyone and entails a level of risk. The Ark bonds will be secured solely by the Ark Encounter project and will not be an obligation of Answers in Genesis. You should consult with your personal financial advisors regarding any investment in the Ark bonds.

Oh, Ken, this almost looks skeptical. Ye of little faith. How much of your own money will you invest in Ark bonds? So, what do Panda's Thumb readers think of this fund raising technique? Is Obamacare the real reason for Ark Encounter using bonds? Is it in Williamstown, Kentucky's best interest to issue the bonds? Appendix. Here is a copy of the letter from Ken Ham.

48 Comments

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 15 September 2013

Faith is great. You just need to have faith in things that can be obscured enough to claim that they happened even if there's no evidence for it ("worldviews," if you're really desperate), and for future chances that aren't all that risky. As in, don't expect money from the Author and Ruler of the Universe that can make anything happen--like a wholly miraculous "flood"--expect money from fallible humans via enablers such as local governments.

Isn't faith wonderful? PT Barnum and Ken Ham always thought so.

Glen Davidson

Karen S. · 15 September 2013

Indeed, we should prayerfully consider how we might be a part of this "incredible outreach." Because that's what it is -- incredible, as in unbelievable.

diogeneslamp0 · 15 September 2013

Is there even a single failure or loser in the United States of America who has not blamed his failure on Obamacare?

Joe Felsenstein · 15 September 2013

Sounds to me like the Obamacare law -- in the form of some refusal of them to pay for mandated employee health plans -- is pushing them to make the funding more "private" so as to get the Ark project into a status where it doesn't have to do that.

Would that make any sense? If so, why wouldn't that also apply to the Creation Museum?

nobodythatmatters · 15 September 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: Is there even a single failure or loser in the United States of America who has not blamed his failure on Obamacare?

I believe Jesse Jackson Jr. accepted responsibility for his crimes without invoking Obamacare as a cause.

ksplawn · 15 September 2013

They seem so very, very certain that the emergency contraceptives work as "emergency abortion drugs." Despite the lack of scientific evidence for that mechanism and the growing evidence that the drugs covered simply prevent fertilization in the first place. In fact, the Health and Human Services Secretary recently stated in no uncertain terms that no abortifacient drugs are covered by the act.

It's almost as if they're so invested in what amounts to a purely political position that facts simply don't matter to them.

How odd.

diogeneslamp0 · 15 September 2013

ksplawn said: They seem so very, very certain that the emergency contraceptives work as "emergency abortion drugs." Despite the lack of scientific evidence for that mechanism and the growing evidence that the drugs covered simply prevent fertilization in the first place. In fact, the Health and Human Services Secretary recently stated in no uncertain terms that no abortifacient drugs are covered by the act. It's almost as if they're so invested in what amounts to a purely political position that facts simply don't matter to them. How odd.

No, that's not possible. AIG has clearly explained that evolutionists are ignorant of the difference between origin science and operational science. Evolution and creation are origin science. Computers, airplanes and birth control are operational science. Totally different. Just because they lie about origins, there's no reason why young earth creationists should lie about operational science. Next you'll be telling me that YECs are wrong about every other part of operational science-- beneficial mutations are possible, natural processes create information, 2LOT allows entropy to decrease in a closed system, global warming is real, vaccines don't cause autism, genetic algorithms create information, the sun is powered by fusion, nebulae have been seen forming planets, exoplanets exist, the Kuiper belt is real, quarks are real... How dare you imply that YECs suck at operational science too! They only suck at origin science.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 15 September 2013

Do I understand this correctly: The City of Williamstown is borrowing money to Ken Ham's church and takes the risk of losing the money if Ark Encounter fails?

DavidK · 15 September 2013

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q said: Do I understand this correctly: The City of Williamstown is borrowing money to Ken Ham's church and takes the risk of losing the money if Ark Encounter fails?

I was wondering that myself, so then do the citizens of Williamstown understand that they're subject to financial loss should this venture very, very likely fail? Ham takes no financial responsibility nor risk, why should the people put themselves in jeopardy, or perhaps they aren't aware of the risk to begin with?

fnxtr · 15 September 2013

(somerestrictionsapplyseedealerfordetails)

JimboK · 16 September 2013

This makes you wonder how Noah paid for his boat. Did he sell "Ark Bonds", too?

Ron Okimoto · 16 September 2013

The footnote makes it sound like even though the city of Williamstown is issuing the bonds only the Ark Encounter group is responsible for paying off the bonds.

What happens if they do not sell enough bonds to the investors? They haven't gotten together enough funding in the last 3 years and bond investors have to rely on Ark Encounter to pay them off. My guess is that they will not sell enough bonds to fully fund the effort and will have to either look elsewhere for funding or do what?

What about the people that have already invested in the park? Do they get paid off before the bond investors? Can the bond investment money be used to pay the early investors off before the effort fails and they have to try to give the bond money back?

eric · 16 September 2013

In large part because of AIG’s strong biblical stand against the Obamacare legislation’s mandated coverage of abortion-causing drugs, AIG pursued a change in the Ark Encounter funding structure that now includes a bond investment opportunity for you to consider.

I'd love to hear Ken Ham try and explain this nonsequitur in detail.

harold · 16 September 2013

Joe Felsenstein said: Sounds to me like the Obamacare law -- in the form of some refusal of them to pay for mandated employee health plans -- is pushing them to make the funding more "private" so as to get the Ark project into a status where it doesn't have to do that. Would that make any sense? If so, why wouldn't that also apply to the Creation Museum?

I wish it sounded like that. I have no problem with a 100% privately funded Ark project. First amendment and all that jazz. Unfortunately, what it sounds like is that the City of Williamstown is going to issue some type of municipal bonds. Municipal bonds are a loan made by a public entity. If you buy the bonds, you get a stream of "coupon" payments, as with any other type of bonds ("zero coupon" structure is just a variant of a coupon stream). You can think of the coupon payments as interest on the loan, even though it works slightly differently than the variable interest savings account that most people are more familiar with. Bottom line, a municipality borrows money and taxpayers pay the interest. The hypocrisy here is unbelievable. I'm going to use the term "corruption" as well. There may or may not be anything technically illegal going on. But if this a surreptitious issuing of municipal bonds to fund a religious display, that may raise legal issues, and absolutely raises ethical issues. This really makes me quite sad. Not only are taxpayers in Kentucky more likely to be struggling than in many other places, but they are also far more likely than the average American to work in dangerous industries like mining and agriculture, and are more likely to have obesity, diabetes, tobacco addiction, and a variety of other health problems. They are also more likely than the average American to be uninsured. I happen to be a critic of "Obamacare" from the progressive end - I favor true universal coverage, don't like the policy of fining people for not being able to afford something ("mandated" coverage), and dislike the fact that even though denial for pre-existing conditions is eliminated, numerous insurance industry abuses will remain in force. Furthermore, Massachusetts is a very prosperous state and not a perfect model for a place like Kentucky. Having said that, it seems to have worked moderately well in MA. The probable net effect of "Obamacare" on KY, if it ever takes full effect there, will be that more Kentuckians are covered, and more health care professionals and facilities are attracted to KY. It is deeply saddening that KY tax dollars are being spewed on post-modern for-profit right wing political propaganda in the guise of extremist religion, and that the justification for this is an attack on desperately needed improvement in health care coverage.

diogeneslamp0 · 16 September 2013

To judge Harold's comment above, he's a medical doctor.

Dave Luckett · 16 September 2013

The way I heard it, fundamentalist religious groups opposed to contraception - usually because they conflate it with abortion in some way, although some are whacko enough to hold that it opposes God's will - really hate Obamacare because it covers contraception technologies. And they really, really hate it when it covers their employees, meaning that they themselves, as employers, have to contribute to it.

I wish the US could bring itself to not put things like that in employer's hands. It doesn't belong there. And here I shall go off-topic.

I am proud to say that I'm a citizen of a nation where basic medical care for all is provided by a levy on taxes. It's not as complete a coverage as I would wish, nor as immediate, and I'm lobbying government to do more. (With the government we elected last Saturday week, fat chance. But times will change again.) All the same, if that's "socialised medicine", then colour me Leon Trotski.

I priced out a knee replacement here before deciding that I didn't need one. I'd have to wait maybe two years for one fully funded on the public system, and that would be as a public-ward patient. It's not an emergency, see. I have private cover, though, for which I pay $27.50 per week. That would get me a private room and treatment within a month. If I paid all costs myself, it would come to about $15000 Australian.

Now, listen: that isn't with some guy doing it with a hacksaw in his basement. This is with a good orthopedic surgeon and a damfino gas-passer in a state-of-the-art hospital. Outcomes are as good as anywhere in the world. Better than most.

I'm told the same operation in the US would start at about $100,000, US. The reason for the difference is private profit on every damn thing to do with it. A prosthetic knee costs five times as much. Same prosthetic. Drugs, anaesthesia, consultancy fees, theatre fees, hospital time, everything, the same.

Insurers will fight paying for knee replacements, I'm also told, and they'll usually succeed, because the cause is usually long-standing.

I didn't need a new knee, as I decided after consultation with an orthopedic surgeon. But I could have afforded one here, if I'd needed one. In the US, nuh-uh. Suffer, baby.

I don't know how you guys put up with it. Or why.

Henry J · 16 September 2013

JimboK said: This makes you wonder how Noah paid for his boat. Did he sell "Ark Bonds", too?

He borrowed what he needed. And since the people who'd want him to repay it drowned...

j. biggs · 16 September 2013

Henry J said:
JimboK said: This makes you wonder how Noah paid for his boat. Did he sell "Ark Bonds", too?
He borrowed what he needed. And since the people who'd want him to repay it drowned...

Noah didn't even have to pay the people who helped him build the ark. He just let all of his sub-contractors know that they would receive full compensation for their labor just as soon as the project was completed.

ksplawn · 16 September 2013

Dave Luckett said: I'm told the same operation in the US would start at about $100,000, US. The reason for the difference is private profit on every damn thing to do with it. A prosthetic knee costs five times as much. Same prosthetic. Drugs, anaesthesia, consultancy fees, theatre fees, hospital time, everything, the same.

It's not QUITE that bad, but yes basically. Knee replacements tend to average "only" more than triple your price and usually max out around $70K. That's for a total replacement; partial replacements are about 90-80% of the price due to the shorter hospital stay. Insurance USUALLY covers the procedure, but they have every incentive to fight it and sometimes they will win. Things are more expensive here in large part because of privatized insurance and the prevalence of people without any coverage, which shifts costs first onto those that have it and then, down the line, back onto those that don't. Hospitals have to pay out-of-pocket for those who don't get covered, and that ultimate comes back to those who use the hospital. They also have to fight with insurers over coverage that a patient has every legitimate claim to. Many have entire departments dedicated to wrangling payments from insurers, which of course adds overhead to the whole system. And many insurers are for-profit businesses, so they will necessarily charge more for the same procedures or jack up premiums to maintain the black ink. So the risks are socialized and the rewards are not.

I don't know how you guys put up with it. Or why.

To drift off topic a bit, I think it is because we effectively have no far-left in this country anymore. The Cold War made that politically untenable by the time I was born in the early 80s, and the collapse of the Berlin Wall sealed the deal that Communism (and by extension, anything even slightly resembling it) was a failure, End of Story. The two-party system probably allowed this to happen more extensively than if we'd had a robust ecosystem of different parties. The lack of a far-left has done nothing to quell the rhetoric and antics of the far-right. Instead it just shifted the "center" of the political spectrum rightwards. This is why you had large numbers of Americans buying into the campaign-season fiction that Obama, a center-right politician, was actually the most radically liberal of Democrats in existence. There is no raving Marxist candidate that the public could turn to for contrast. We have plenty of far-right Libertarians, even in elected office, but zero Commies to balance things out. This distortion plays into the political debate surrounding anything having to do with the role of government anymore. Which results in the stillborn potential of even a public option for coverage in the last round of healthcare reform. Instead what we saw the right-wing party objecting to even the insurance mandate, which was a solution they themselves had proposed against a public option in the previous decade. This is despite the fact that Americans who use a public healthcare service like Medicare or Veteran's Affairs receive better care at lower prices and generally prefer it to the private alternatives.

eric · 16 September 2013

Dave Luckett said: ...really hate Obamacare because it covers contraception technologies. And they really, really hate it when it covers their employees, meaning that they themselves, as employers, have to contribute to it.

AIUI, an employer does not have to offer or cover contraception in their plans. If they don't, however, the health insurance company will make contraception available to the employee outside of the plan. So, let's say FundieCo is going to offer several possible plans from the health insurance company CaesarImpermanente. They do not want to pay* for contraception coverage, so they do not include it in their offered plans. According to US law, Caesar must allow FundieCo employees to buy contraception from Caesar directly (I say "buy", but the pill is now typically free). U.S. fundies (and the US RCC) object to even that arrangement. So to be clear, they don't just want to "not offer" it, they want to be able to prevent their employees from getting it outside of their plan. To control their employee's access to contraception. *** *Complicating matters is the fact that, according to some reports, giving out contraception for free increases health corporation profits (because what they pay out for pregnancy support services and delivery is so high). Essentially, health insurers *want* to offer it, it helps their bottom line. So FundieCo would never actually "pay" any extra money for the coverage in the first place. Their premiums will be exactly the same regardless of whether the plan includes coverage or not.

harold · 16 September 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: To judge Harold's comment above, he's a medical doctor.

I am a pathologist (MD), although ironically, actually knowing anything about "Obamacare" is not highly characteristic of physicians as a group. Physicians as a group are all over the political spectrum. I'm not sure how many truly committed far right wing physicians are still in practice, given their tendency to become Republican politicians. However, quite understandably, they all tend to fear any change in the medical reimbursement system. Let's face it, the current system is badly flawed and creates all kinds of hassle for doctors, but we're doing alright and it's the devil we know. A substantial proportion of physicians openly support a true universal system, and I'm a member of that proportion. (The official position of the AMA is, or has typically been, to recommend, in somewhat weaselly language, an unrealistically generous version of Obamacare. I'd have to check to see what vaguely worded policy statement is current, but they usually hint that the government should provide everyone with top quality coverage, but buy it from the private insurance companies. This is not economically tenable.)

To drift off topic a bit, I think it is because we effectively have no far-left in this country anymore.

Another major factor is the sheer economic power of the US health insurance industry. Before Canada put its system in place, most health coverage in Canada was via the US companies. They lost about 10% of their market overnight. Really off-topic - A good universal plan would unequivocally damage the health insurance companies, if not destroy them, even if it was some sort of "public/private hybrid" like the Netherlands system. That's not something to be taken lightly. If there was any serious discussion of a true universal system, which there isn't, something like the government buying out their shareholders and some kind of strategy for helping their employees might need to be considered.

Dave Luckett · 16 September 2013

One-payer tax-funded universal health care covering the most expensive and/or urgent treatments, with lesser cover for inessential or non-urgent treatment? That's "far left"?

Dear God. We really aren't talking the same political language.

fnxtr · 16 September 2013

When I was a naive 24-year-old visiting my sister in Vermont (from BC), I asked her friend what the difference was between your two political parties. She said, "Democrats are right wing, and Republicans are more right wing."

eric · 16 September 2013

Dave Luckett said: One-payer tax-funded universal health care covering the most expensive and/or urgent treatments, with lesser cover for inessential or non-urgent treatment? That's "far left"? Dear God. We really aren't talking the same political language.

As ksplawn mentions, we actually have that sort of system for veterans and old people. Nobody (or, at least, very few people) argue against those systems. I think that's one of the reasons the GOP fights so vociferously against national health care of any sort. Socialized medicine only seems to work as a boogeyman when the US public can't participate in it. The moment they can, they generally like it and fight to keep it.

diogeneslamp0 · 16 September 2013

Christ I was South Park would do an episode in which every man in town blames his sex addiction on Obamacare...

diogeneslamp0 · 16 September 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: Christ I was South Park would do an episode in which every man in town blames his sex addiction on Obamacare...

"Was" --> "wish". You know what I mean.

TrekJunky · 16 September 2013

Ken Ham is so full of entertainment qualities, I would almost say it is miraculous!!!!!!

DavidK · 16 September 2013

harold said: ... This really makes me quite sad. Not only are taxpayers in Kentucky more likely to be struggling than in many other places, but they are also far more likely than the average American to work in dangerous industries like mining and agriculture, and are more likely to have obesity, diabetes, tobacco addiction, and a variety of other health problems. They are also more likely than the average American to be uninsured. ...

This is no surprise as the top Senator from Kentucky is none other than Mitch McConnell who is trying to kill healthcare for his own citizens, cut their food stamps, gut unemployment compensation, let their infrastructure decay, let America drown in debt, etc., etc. And now the people of Kentucky think they're actually helping Ken Ham, and somehow they'll benefit from it? Perhaps they're thinking of the massive numbers of tourists that will flock to this Ark, if ever completed, and will pass through their town on the way unloading tons of money for their coffers.

W. H. Heydt · 16 September 2013

harold said: Really off-topic - A good universal plan would unequivocally damage the health insurance companies, if not destroy them, even if it was some sort of "public/private hybrid" like the Netherlands system. That's not something to be taken lightly. If there was any serious discussion of a true universal system, which there isn't, something like the government buying out their shareholders and some kind of strategy for helping their employees might need to be considered.

Probably be cheaper to bribe a few CEOs not to fight a public health plan. The individual bribes would be big, but there would be very few of them needed....

harold · 16 September 2013

eric said:
Dave Luckett said: One-payer tax-funded universal health care covering the most expensive and/or urgent treatments, with lesser cover for inessential or non-urgent treatment? That's "far left"? Dear God. We really aren't talking the same political language.
As ksplawn mentions, we actually have that sort of system for veterans and old people. Nobody (or, at least, very few people) argue against those systems. I think that's one of the reasons the GOP fights so vociferously against national health care of any sort. Socialized medicine only seems to work as a boogeyman when the US public can't participate in it. The moment they can, they generally like it and fight to keep it.

Furthermore, Medicare pays a very high proportion of total medical bills in the country (about 30%). It used to be administered very efficiently. George W. Bush privatized the administration of Medicare. Administrative costs thus went up, but are still far below administrative costs for private insurance. It already covers the most elderly and sickest, so extending it to younger, healthier people would not be outrageously costly. It isn't perfect by any means but has been exceptionally well-accepted by patients and physicians for decades.

When I was a naive 24-year-old visiting my sister in Vermont (from BC), I asked her friend what the difference was between your two political parties. She said, “Democrats are right wing, and Republicans are more right wing.”

An enormous factor is the confusion Americans feel. For example not long ago I was subjected to a rant against Obamacare by a woman, which was triggered by anger that I had noted that my brother and his family do fine with the Canadian system. I just waited. She finished up by complaining about what she perceived as problems with the US system - insurance costs too much, too many uninsured people, people lack needed care, non-profit institutions that care for the uninsured eat costs. Americans hate the current system but fear changing it. The 60's and 70's were a time of much greater turmoil in the US than elsewhere. Everybody had women's rights, hippies and colonial independence movements, but the US had the civil rights movement, assassinations, Vietnam, urban riots, a crime explosion, the "oil crisis", a sudden and dramatic (and so far, apparently permanent) economic contraction, and the Iranian Hostage crisis as icing on the cake. The old Robber Baron economic right, who had never been popular before, were able to team up with televangelists and brand themselves as "the party of square white people". Of course, not all of us square white people are fooled, but it's a surprisingly effective if crude deception. As I noted to a friend of mine who is in one of the last unionized professions (film industry), if you went into a working class bar in 1960 and said that you wanted to eliminate unions and give multi-millionaires a big tax break, you'd be punched in the face. Today, go into the average working class bar, and you'll be punched in the face if you argue against those things (although perhaps punched more softly than you would have been ten years ago). People want higher wages but they don't want unions, and they are outraged by the suggestion that poor precious executives shouldn't be paid ten times more than they would be at any other time here, or anywhere else, for doing a crappy job. (I've pointed out in other venues that if one year's pay sets them up as wealthy for life, they have no personal incentive to care how the company does.) Everyone wants exactly the government programs they use to be funded, and other programs to be cut. They often have no idea that they use government programs; "Get Your Government Hands Off My Medicare" isn't a satire, it was an actual sign at a Tea Party rally. They don't want to cut the programs, but they can't stand the thought of poor hypersensitive millionaires being "punished" by taxes. A huge part of it is the right wing propaganda machine. Imagine the equivalent - a network using every superficial trick in the book to promote communist revolution day and night.

harold · 17 September 2013

My comments about the health care situation in the US and KY in particular are in response to Ken Ham's claims, but I think I'm drifting off topic. Enough of that for now.

Matt Young · 17 September 2013

Josh Rosenau at NCSE characterizes the bond issue as another government bailout and writes that

the bonds will be a small government bailout for AiG, using the city’s borrowing power to cut the cost of loans to build the creationist theme park. That probably doesn’t violate the First Amendment, according to a church-state attorney I ran this past, though he observes, “Bond financing is quite complex, and the analysis can differ based on what precise type of bond financing we are talking about here.”

Rosenau also contacted a specialist in birth control to see if she could explain the non sequitur, "Obamacare made me float a bond issue," but she had not the foggiest idea. Neither do I, and neither does Ken Ham.

gnome de net · 18 September 2013

The Obamacare connection?

Perhaps it's just AIG's way of appealing to their base who are anti-Obamacare, abortion and birth control; will ignore or not notice the non sequitur; and will provide financial support to poor little victimized AIG in its efforts against those hot-button issues?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlNGE5CxtAF0XVtM918CQ5eIV7prUWQkWg · 18 September 2013

JimboK said: This makes you wonder how Noah paid for his boat. Did he sell "Ark Bonds", too?

I thought everyone knew that one: Noah was clearly very wise about his finances because only he managed to hold onto his stock by floating a lone, while everybody else liquidated and went under. If I didn't think they deserved it, I'd be tempted to feel sorry for Ken Ham's flock because of the fleecing that his letter is so clearly setting up for them.

stevaroni · 18 September 2013

A mystery panda (or possibly a lemur or even a slow loris) said: If I didn't think they deserved it, I'd be tempted to feel sorry for Ken Ham's flock because of the fleecing that his letter is so clearly setting up for them.

Speaking about investing in ArkLand, and in the spirit of putting your money where your mouth is, does anyone know how to invest in this project as a short position? Because I, for one, would put some real cash on the odds of this deal folding like a cheap lawn chair and Crosswater Canyon strolling away leaving Williamstown to pick up the tab.

Henry J · 19 September 2013

I thought everyone knew that one: Noah was clearly very wise about his finances because only he managed to hold onto his stock by floating a lone, while everybody else liquidated and went under.

And he avoided pier review, while everybody else missed the boat.

Just Bob · 19 September 2013

Maybe relieving some of those folks of disposable income is a net social good. It might slow their buying of more assault weapons and prevent the building of yet another barbed-wire-surrounded Christian Compound.

diogeneslamp0 · 19 September 2013

Henry J said:
I thought everyone knew that one: Noah was clearly very wise about his finances because only he managed to hold onto his stock by floating a lone, while everybody else liquidated and went under.
And he avoided pier review, while everybody else missed the boat.

STOP. STOP STOP STOP.

ksplawn · 19 September 2013

Henry J said:
I thought everyone knew that one: Noah was clearly very wise about his finances because only he managed to hold onto his stock by floating a lone, while everybody else liquidated and went under.
And he avoided pier review, while everybody else missed the boat.

He was a real visionary. He saw the sea change on the horizon and managed to structure his savings to ride out the disruption while everybody else was so grounded in the status quo they couldn't tread water and quickly got in over their heads when their properties and debts went underwater when the market flooded. They thought he was delugional, but later they could only look on helplessly as he rose to the top.

diogeneslamp0 · 19 September 2013

ksplawn said:
Henry J said:
I thought everyone knew that one: Noah was clearly very wise about his finances because only he managed to hold onto his stock by floating a lone, while everybody else liquidated and went under.
And he avoided pier review, while everybody else missed the boat.
He was a real visionary. He saw the sea change on the horizon and managed to structure his savings to ride out the disruption while everybody else was so grounded in the status quo they couldn't tread water and quickly got in over their heads when their properties and debts went underwater when the market flooded. They thought he was delugional, but later they could only look on helplessly as he rose to the top.

I KEEL YOU.

ksplawn · 19 September 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: I KEEL YOU.

No need to get so stern.

Henry J · 20 September 2013

Yeah, if he doesn't like it he could just say NOAH.

KlausH · 20 September 2013

I bow before your mastery of puns a raise a glass of Port.

fnxtr · 20 September 2013

He is a little pun gent, isn't he.

ksplawn · 20 September 2013

Well some people aren't impressed, but whatever floats your boat. Y'acht to sea me when I REALLY get the wind in my sails.

Henry J · 20 September 2013

It's not my fault; my first one had only two puns, then we got deluged!

raven · 28 September 2013

This makes you wonder how Noah paid for his boat. Did he sell “Ark Bonds”, too?

It would have been a brilliant move, one similiar to Ken Ham and his Ark Bonds. I'm sure after the flood, Noah would cheerfully pay the bondholders back. All that were alive anyway.

raven · 28 September 2013

AFAICT, the small city of Williamstown is going to be responsible for paying back the bonds if the Ark Park can't do it.

That is what Municipal bonds are and are for.

1. This is not a good idea. Dubious Municipal bonds have a history of failing.

2. The Creation Pseudomuseum and AIG are already struggling. Attendance is down and they are losing money.

3. Follow the money!!! My guess is that some people in Williamstown have plans and interests that would benefit if the Ark Park is built. Even if the Ark Park fails and the bonds go into default and/or end up being paid off by the city of Williamstown.

It could be real estate investments or some such in and around the Ark Park. So, even if it fails and the citizens of Williamstown get stuck paying off the bonds, a few private individuals still make money.

Just a wild guess, but we see this all the time. When Wall Street imploded during the Great Recession, the executives all made huge amounts of money while the taxpayers bailed out the banks and cleaned up the mess. Privatize the gains, socialize the losses.