So, having read this now there's a couple of observations on my part;
If the conscious decision has been to take a hit on the presentation of the park while attendance is down; what would the conscious decision have been had the events at TRR not transpired?
Many restuarants when trade is down go into what I would term a 'death spiral' whereby they cut back on staff numbers and/or food quality to reduce operating costs until trade improves, but that trade never improves because poor service and food exacerbate the operating conditions. I would wonder whether Dreamworld is in the same condition - trade is down because of consumer confidence; so the strategy is to present a park that looks tired and unpolished? Yeah, I'm confused.
The Mine Ride is something that has been talked about in earnest since 2015 - but somehow we don't yet know the state of the structure of the ride, nor what sort of lifespan or ROI it might offer? Sorry, that just doesn't sound reasonable.
I keep hearing all of this "part of our history" talk at Dreamworld and am starting to wonder what the heck is going on. So far we have talked about the Mine Ride (1988), Log Ride (1981), Wipeout (1993) explicitly. Are we operating a museum or a theme park here? The 'Big 9' are now HWSW (1995), Buzzsaw (2011), MDMC (2007), Pandamonium (2012), Tail Spin (2014), The Claw (2004), The Giant Drop (1998), TOTII (1997), Wipeout (1993). Average year? 2003. How about we stop worrying about the history for just a moment and wonder about the future? What do we want it to look like? I doubt five years from now anybody is going to be heralding the resurrection of the Mine Ride (and little else since that time) as what's set the park up for success for the next decade.
It's great that they will be looking at fixing up a mess of pathways and removing SBNO infrastructure - but what good is that when areas of the park are crying out for basics like lightbulbs and paint?