Magic Landing was a theme park located in El Paso, Texas, that operated from 1984 to 1988. The park was initially developed as a joint venture between the city of El Paso and a private investor named Leon Crosby. The park was built on 470 acres of land and was designed to be a family-friendly amusement park offering a variety of rides and attractions. Magic Landing featured several roller coasters, including the Dragon Coaster and the Corkscrew. The park also had a water park area called Wet Wild and Wonderful, which included waterslides and a lazy river. In addition to the rides, Magic Landing also had live shows, games, and concessions for visitors to enjoy.

Magic Landing in Memoriam

This website is an archive of what remained of a park that was mired in controversy, tragedy then long forgotten about. All photographs were taken as an archive of what the park looked like back in June 2005, as well as various reader submitted photographs of their visits to the park when it was in operation. I DO NOT CONDONE THE UNLAWFUL ACT OF BREAKING & ENTERING, NO MATTER WHAT THE CAUSE.

In addition to the rides, Magic Landing also had live shows, games, and concessions for visitors to enjoy. Despite the initial excitement and anticipation surrounding its opening, Magic Landing faced several challenges that ultimately led to its downfall. The park struggled with financial difficulties, including issues with funding and attendance.

Monday, January 09, 2006

What Happened

Upon request, I would like to retell the unfortunate event that doomed Magic Landing from ever being anything short of a now forgotten joke that this city has quietly let disappear into the desert sands.

For the record, there had only been one death attributed to this park. Several accidents did happen at the park in its tenure, but the one incident that marked the beginning of the end would have to be the unfortunate accident on the Wildcat ride, more infamously known as the parks lone rollercoaster.

Lets rewind a bit before we get to the subject. When Magic Landing opened its doors in 1984, none of their rides made their completion deadline. On July 4th, the gates opened, but only the shops & food stalls were open to the public. There were some rides that were completed, but because the insurance company hadn't signed off on the safety of them and proper insurance policies weren't in place at the time, the ones that were finished and waiting for people were inoperable. People were still awed into the park by the seemingly lavish and frequent fireworks shows. Being outside of the El Paso city limits meant they were exempt from fireworks bans and their shows often eclipsed that of Western Playland.

According to the news articles posted at the time, there had been serious lapses in training & operator safety around the park. The evening in question was a normal operating day at the park, and by all accounts rather mundane. In years previous, the train would frequently spend more time shut down due to the train tracks being washed away durring El Paso's heavy monsoon season. The train this time was operating as normal, the frequent flash floods known to wash parts of the track away didn't hamper rides and the Wildcat was churning with life. No one knows why he did it, but what happened was at best strange. A park patron lost his hat while riding the rollercoaster and when he came to the end of the ride, asked the ride operator if he could retrieve it from high on one of the supports. The ride operator obliged.

It's unknown from the newspaper articles, and people who were on the ride aren't coming forward with what happened but the operator climbed a certain distance up the ride while it was in operation. While he was resting his arm on a part of track still in use, a ride car turned the corner and severed his arm quite cleanly. It's unclear if he fell from the ride, however, he was on an ambulance rushing away from the park to save his life. Newspapers report that the operator died halfway to the hospital due to loss of blood, his veins collapsed. Investigators later determined that the ride operators failed to stop the ride completely and before attempting to climb its structure or wait till the end of the parks operating hours before retrieving the hat.

This accident along with several seemingly minor accidents through the park raised insurance rates higher than normal. Couple this with the publics lack of trust within the parks safety record and you get a recipe for failure. It's also noted that around this time the park received its most infamous nicknames: Tragic Landing. The once whimsical aura of the park forever mired in the publics eye as an unsafe and ill-managed for letting such obvious safety rules and regulations go without practice. The lack of trust also meant lack of paying customers.

Soon, as the years dredged on and the combined low attendance & insurance became a factor, coverage for the rides became lapse and many times the rides would fall silent for weeks at a time. Several times in 1988 the park closed for weeks, reopening when more funding was sought (usually from concerts & corporate sponsors) but when a major fight broke out in late spring of '88, the park closed for good. Pending lawsuits from the minor accidents & the large cash settlement doled out from the Wildcat accident sealed the parks fate.

It's strange, being present at the park when the unfortunate accident with the rollercoaster, I still remember going back to the park with my family and seeing people idly walk by. Somewhat enjoying themselves, I remember the people who paid for admission walked the park peering around corners at every turn and watched the park start its death throes. The whispers were in the air, and the once light whimsical music that filled the main drag was gone. An eerie silence was cut with the hushed tones of parents grasping the hands of their children tightly, not knowing what might happen.

The park stood quiet in the desert for a total of two and a half years. All of its rides stood right where they were, ready at a moments notice to resume operation. A few attempts were made to re-open the park, some efforts even called for people to go to the park for job applications. All efforts were futile. The park was locked down tight and all of its rides were unceremoniously dismantled & sold to other amusement parks around the world. As seen in previous postings, the only standing structures are the buildings & snack shops. All current attempts to purchase the park go upon deaf ears.

Its sad to say that if someone were to really purchase the park, it would be completely demolished and rebuilt brand new. As it stands right now many of the buildings are falling apart, their usefulness to the park is limited, their need is none. While researching information about the park and realizing what I have been writing about, I am sickened and saddened that no matter how much information is given back to the public, the park is far from being saved. My efforts to give El Paso one last look at a park that disappeared before its time is probably just that.

It's unclear whether or not my efforts might prompt park owners to demolish what stands of the park or let Mother Nature take care of that. Whether it be time or human intervention, Magic Landing will never exist the way it did some 22 years ago.

posted by The Archivist at 9:00 AM

12 Comments:

I drive by there occasionally and noticed that the parking lot is full of trailers. Did the owners sell the property or are they renting space out? I visit your site regularly for updates and it brings a tear to my eyes when I look at the pictures. It is a sad story of once promising jewel for El Paso.

I forgot to mention. One of the many accidents that happened at the park happened to the daughter of my 7th grade math teacher. I remember our teacher coming in to the classroom on a Monday and telling the class not to go to the park because it was very dangerous. She told us how her daughter had been in an accident at the park over the weekend. Acorrding to the teacher, her daughter's ear had been cut-off in half on the ferris wheel. Something about her sticking her head out of the carriage she was riding in. Let's see, in the 7th grade I was 12 going on 13 so it must have been sometime in 1984 or 1985 that this happened. She was pretty shaken up when she told the class so I'm sure she was honest about what happened. I don't remember ever seeing anything in the news about this particular accident. I don't remember my teachers last name so I don't know if this can be researched. Do you know of any way we can confirm this?

The owners of the park/ land have leased the use of the property to CFI Trucking to keep their truck trailers. The park hasn't sold anything to anyone, they refuse to sell for unknown reasons. Several theories do float around, but are unsubstantiated.

Having worked at Western Playland, I can tell you that the amusement park doesn't keep records of any accidents for verry long. They are reported, but seldom make headlines. Fights, major accidents that require longer-than-overnight hospital stays usually make news, so finding proof (other than your former teacher's daughter) will be next to impossible.

I researched some information, and short of finding the parks records for that year, you can get in contact with the Texas Dept. of Insurance and speak with Richard Baker. He is in charge of Loss Control Regulation. The online database I found his information on only goes as far back as 1998, but if they have anything archived, he would be the person of contact to steer you in the direction you need to go.

I remember going to Magic Landing a couple of weeks after it had opened. It was the talk of the town.I remember the logride and the railway and of course the sound of the Wildcat. It was a cool place, it was brand new and it was a mustdo for all El Pasoans. I saw FOGHAT there, when their whole right side sound system went out and the concert I'll never forget there was ROBIN TROWER. I recall going there about a month after I had gone the first time and most all the big rides weren't working. I rtemember that it seemed that from then on all I ever heard was negative things. We never went back (other than those 2 concerts) and then the tragic news was all over the TV. We knew this place was doomed. No one was going there anymore.
It saddened me to see those pictures. I showed my two daughters 16,17 and they had never heard of this place.
Thanx for the pix and the little part of El Paso History. Keep up the good work and hope El Pasoans might have pix of itz heyday.
Thanks Alot!! Rick

Is the foundation of the park all full of big cracks?

The foundations to the buildings seem to be holding, without going inside to them its hard to tell. The buildings themselves are the ones suffering. The combined decades of rain & harsh desert sun have warped wooden buildings and are compromised.

There are several pictures I have yet to show of the paths in the park that are damaged by water. Certain areas of the back & left side of the park have asphalt that is cracked, and in large chunks. One small area of the park actually still has the crushed red gravel pathway.

I would love to see more pics of Magic Landing. I would probably pay 50 dollars to enter the park as the way it is now.

I only got to go to Magic Landing once. I pass by it often on my way to Horizon, Clint or Fabens. I have a memory of a Yo-Yo ride being there as well. Later there was a Yo-Yo at Western Playland. Am I misremembering? There was a rumor that a mother was on the Yo-Yo with a child and the child slipped out from under her and fell. The child did not die, however. Any truth to this? Very good pictures and story, by the way. I currently work for KLAQ/KSII/KROD and the old event posters framed and hung inside the station list Magic Landing and Mountain Shadow Lakes (another wasted El Paso venue) often. I even remember the television commercials and the "Magic Landing" jingle on them.

I had no idea that the Castle Park/Malibu Castle characters wound up there. There's one missing though. There was the dragon, the fox lady, the rattlesnake and also a wolf. The wolf would sing the song "Back in the Saddle Again" and say he sang it as a cub riding on his mother's back.

Well, you are correct. However, in researching the animatronic charachters found at the park, there were a few variations of the charachters. Foxy Roxie & Tex Critter were both staples, however Skeeter the Rattlesnake was often times sidelined for a different charachter, who was a cougar.

I have some old VHS tapes of Magic Landings commercials, and every once in a while, when I remember which tape it is, I replay it and am haunted by the sound of the jingle.

I have also been to the old Mountain Shadow Lakes. I visited that park back in 2004 and took some photos. Magic Landing has always been my labor of love, but I think I might start a new site devoted to the old lake (currently known as Lake El Paso).

Look for that within the next year.

PS, cube, please email me @ [email protected] I would love to see the posters you have hanging inside the office.

Is there anything stored in the boarded up buildings?

Frank Guzman Jr.
He was suppose to graduate with my father and mother in 1986 he attended Bel Air High School.
My parents keep the '83 and '86 yearbook with the memory of him.
It's honestly sad that he died so young and the worst way. I would do anything to just drive by or walk-in into Magic Landing! Just to see or imagine how it looked 26 years ago. Please if some on has some good information or photos or videos of Magic Landing please send me some at [email protected]

my grandmother lives around the corner of the magic wash and dry,I remember it being open when I was a little girl then just closing this was when I was like 4 so back in 95. I now live further down the road from magic wash on the other side ofmoon rd. I always wondered what was of magic landing since I live practically in back of it, thank you for all the info.

I-10 and Eastlake

Formally the Magic Landing Amusement Park. This property can be used for an amusement park, water park, outdoor concert, arena, or sport complex, since it already has 20 acres of paved parking with ilumination as well as a fence and a wall throughout the property and most important a water treatment plant.
It can also be used as a transportation facility or even a resedential development.

Just East of Eastlake Ave on I-10

Highlights

• 20 acres paved
• Water treatment plant
• More than 70,000 cars drive by the property all day
• Great visibility
• Easy to develop

Utilities

• Electricity/Power
• Water
• Telephone
• Cable
• Gas/Propane

Traffic

FORECA, SA v. GRD Development Co., Inc.

FORECA, S.A., Petitioner, v. GRD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Rehearing Denied November 16, 1988.

Russell H. McMains, McMains & Constant, Corpus Christi, David K. Anderson, Caddell & Conwell, Houston, for petitioner.

Gerald B. Shifrin, El Paso, for respondents.

At issue in this case is whether negotiations between the parties to this suit produced a valid, enforceable contract. Based on a jury verdict finding a breach of contract, the trial court rendered judgment for Foreca, S.A. (Foreca) for $389,940. The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the written instruments contained a condition precedent to the formation of a contract that had not been met. 747 S.W.2d 9 (Tex.App.). The court of appeals rendered a take nothing judgment in favor of GRD Development Company, Inc. (GRD) and George R. Dipp. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The negotiations underlying this lawsuit involved the purchase of six amusement park rides. Foreca is a Belgium corporation. GRD is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in El Paso, Texas. GRD and its owner and president, George R. Dipp, planned to open the Magic Landing Amusement Park in El Paso. In this endeavor, they sought to purchase six amusement park rides. On September 2, 1983, Foreca's president, Wim Poulussen, wrote Dipp and offered to sell and deliver six amusement park rides for approximately $2,000,000. The September 2 letter discussed financing and expressed Foreca's awareness that GRD wanted delivery of the rides before the end of January 1984. The letter concluded, as follows:

As a general rule of the house all offers are subject to:

satisfactory legal and financial documentation,

legal restrictions or prior sale of one or more machines.

On September 12, 1983, GRD responded to the Foreca proposal, agreeing to the terms in general but proposing a different financing structure. Soon thereafter, the parties arranged to meet in El Paso.

After negotiating in person in El Paso with George Dipp, Poulussen prepared a handwritten document dated October 19, 1983. The document contained several provisions: *745 (1) the cost of six amusement park rides ($1,950,000); (2) the terms of payment; and (3) delivery information, including warranties. Provision 4, the genesis of much of the current controversy, read:

4. SUBJECT TO LEGAL DOCUMENTATION CONTRACT TO BE DRAFTED BY MR. DUNLAP.

Mr. Dunlop (not Dunlap) was Foreca's attorney in Houston. The document also provided that George Dipp and Paul Dipp would guarantee certain promissory notes and GRD would bear legal and out-of-pocket costs. Both Poulussen and George Dipp initialed the document. Foreca presented evidence that Poulussen advised George Dipp, during this meeting, that Foreca could not deliver the rides in February 1984 unless an immediate commitment to purchase was made. Poulussen testified that Dipp replied that such a commitment had been made.

On November 22, 1983, GRD wrote to Poulussen and informed him of GRD's decision "not to pursue any further negotiations" with Foreca. Foreca brought suit alleging breach of contract. The jury found: that the September 2 and October 19, 1983 documents constituted a buy and sell agreement; that GRD, by the November 23, 1983 letter, repudiated the agreement; that Foreca was ready, willing and able to perform under the agreement; and that Foreca would have made $389,940 profit on the deal.[1]

Foreca contends that the September 2 and October 19, 1983 writings constitute an agreement breached by GRD. GRD responds that no enforceable agreement existed because the "subject to legal documentation" provision in the October 19, 1983 instrument constitutes an uncomplied with condition precedent. GRD concludes that the court of appeals properly construed the meaning of an unambiguous contract provision.

This case involves a situation increasingly common in business negotiations. GRD and Foreca negotiated over the sale of amusement park rides. Agreement was reached as to certain material terms, yet another formal document was contemplated by the parties. Was the contemplated formal document a condition precedent to the formation of a contract or merely a memorial of an already enforceable contract?

Professor Corbin's writing is instructive on this question:

One of the most common illustrations of preliminary negotiation that is totally inoperative is one where the parties consider the details of a proposed agreement, perhaps settling them one by one, with the understanding during this process that the agreement is to be embodied in a formal written document and that neither party is to be bound until he executes this document. Often it is a difficult question of fact whether the parties have this understanding; and there are very many decisions holding both ways. These decisions should not be regarded as conflicting, even though it may be hard to reconcile some of them on the facts that are reported to us in the appellate reports. It is a question of fact that the courts are deciding, not a question of law; and the facts of each case are numerous and not identical with those of any other case. In very many cases the question may properly be left to a jury.

A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 30 at 97 (1963) (emphasis added). Professor Corbin is not alone among commentators in espousing this view. See, e.g., J. Calamari & *746 J. Perillo, Contracts § 2-7 (3d ed. 1987). Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 27 (1979);[2] Note, Contemplated Written AgreementsContract or Memorial, 26 Baylor L.Rev. 132 (1974); 17 Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 28 (1964).

This court quoted with approval, more than a decade ago, this excerpt from Professor Corbin's treatise. In Scott v. Ingle Bros. Pacific, Inc., 489 S.W.2d 554 (Tex. 1972), we encountered a similar contract formation dispute. Scott sold a mop manufacturing plant to Ingle. The purchase agreement provided that an employment agreement "[had] been prepared" whereby Scott would manage the business for five years at a stated salary. No such employment agreement had actually been reduced to writing. A dispute arose, and Ingle discharged Scott. Scott brought suit for breach of an employment contract. In a unanimous opinion, Chief Justice Greenhill posed the question before the court:

[W]as that portion of the "purchase agreement" dealing with the employment of the seller, Scott, an enforceable contract? This depends upon the intention of the parties. An agreement simply to enter into negotiations for a contract later does not create an enforceable contract. But parties may agree upon some of the terms of a contract, and understand them to be an agreement, and yet leave other portions of an agreement to be made later.

Scott, 489 S.W.2d at 555. Thus, the intention of the parties would be determinative: "Whether the execution of a separate employment agreement was, and is, essential to a mutuality of assent is a question of the intention of the parties." Id. Upon restating the principle that intention is usually an inference to be drawn by the fact finder, the court held that whether the clause in the purchase agreement was meant to be a contract was for the trier of fact to determine. Id. at 557. See Note, Contemplated Written AgreementsContract or Memorial, 26 Baylor L.Rev. 132 (1974). See also Preload Technology, Inc. v. A.B. & J. Construction Co., Inc., 696 F.2d 1080, 1090 (5th Cir.1983); Kanow v. Brownshadel, 691 S.W.2d 804, 806 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, no writ); Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc. v. Buck, 678 S.W.2d 612, 629 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1009, 105 S. Ct. 2704, 86 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985); John E. Mitchell Co. v. Anderson, 520 S.W.2d 927, 934 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Houston Chronicle Publishing Co. v. McNair Trucklease, Inc., 519 S.W.2d 924, 928 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Scott guides our analysis today. Accordingly, we hold that it is a question of fact in this case whether the terms agreed to and embodied in the September 2 and October 19, 1983 writings were intended to be the final expressions of the contract or were only preliminary negotiations which the parties did not intend to have legal significance until execution of the contemplated legal documentation. This question was properly submitted to and answered by the jury in fulfillment of its fact finding responsibilities. In some cases, of course, the court may decide, as a matter of law, that there existed no immediate intent to be bound. This case, however, is not such a case. The evidence as to the intent of the parties is disputed. More important, the "subject to legal documentation" language is not conclusive on intent to contract. See Scott, 489 S.W.2d at 556. The jury's resolution of this issue should be allowed to stand.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

ROBERTSON, J., dissented and filed an opinion in which WALLACE, MAUZY and CULVER, JJ., joined.

*747 ROBERTSON, Justice, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. The majority has constructed a somewhat persuasive argument; however, in the process, it has divorced itself from a basic tenet of contract construction.

The sole issue presented in this case is simple: Is the phrase "subject to legal documentation" an ambiguous term? Under settled rules of contract construction, ambiguity is a question of law for the court to decide by examining the contract as a whole in the context of the circumstances present when the contract was drafted. Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tex. 1983); R & P Enterprises v. LaGuarta, Gavrel & Kirk, Inc., 596 S.W.2d 517, 518 (Tex.1980). And if a contract is written so that a provision can be given a definite legal meaning, then it is not ambiguous and the court will therefore construe the contract as a matter of law. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp. v. Daniel, 150 Tex. 513, 518, 243 S.W.2d 154, 157 (1951). This is the exact situation presented in this case.

During trial, neither party contended that the term "subject to legal documentation" was ambiguous. Absent any dispute as to ambiguity, it thus became the trial court's duty to construe the contract as a matter of law.

It is well settled that terms such as "subject to" create a condition precedent. Hohenberg Brothers Co. v. George E. Gibbons & Co., 537 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Tex.1976). And, in this case, the term established a condition precedent to the formation of the contract. Inasmuch as the required "legal documentation" never took place, no contract was established between Foreca and GRD.

I would therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

WALLACE, MAUZY and CULVER, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.

[1] The jury issues, in pertinent part, read as follows. Issue No. 1:

Do you find that the writings of September 2, 1983 . and October 19, 1983 . constituted an agreement whereby Foreca would sell and GRD . would buy the six amusement park rides .

Do you find that GRD . by its letter of November 22, 1983, repudiated the agreement, if any, with Foreca?

Do you find that Foreca would have been ready, willing, and able to perform its agreement, if any, with GRD?

What profit, if any, would Foreca have made if GRD . had purchased the six amusement park rides from Foreca, pursuant to the agreement, if any?

[2] Comment c to section 27 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts sets forth the following circumstances which may be helpful in determining whether a contract has been concluded: the extent to which express agreement has been reached on all the terms to be included; whether the contract is of a type usually put in writing; whether it needs a formal writing for its full expression; whether it has few or many details; whether the amount involved is large or small; whether it is a common or unusual contract; whether a standard form of contract is widely used in similar transactions; and whether either party takes any action in preparation for performance during the negotiations.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

You're all set! You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. You can explore additional available newsletters here.

Magic landing el paso

Six Flags Magic Mountain
Valencia, California

The Newhall Land and Farm company wanted to build a park for their 'master planned community' of Valencia, and the result was Magic Mountain. Since the park opened in May 1971, it has been home to numerous television and movie shoots. The original park theme centered around gnomes or trolls, but, when Six Flags bought the park and renamed it Six Flags Magic Mountain in 1979, they threw out the theme and brought in a hodgepodge of rides. While the park was up for sale in 2006, Six Flags was unable to find a suitable buyer, so the park remains in the Six Flags chain.

• Mountain Express (1973-1982) was a Wildcat from Schwarzkopf. After leaving Magic Mountain, it ran briefly at the now defunct Magic Landing in El Paso, Texas. After a half-decade of sitting dormant, it was moved to Bosque M�gico in Mexico. Since 1993, it has been known as Monta�a Rusa.
• Sarajevo Bobsleds (1984-1986) was an Intamin bobsled coaster. It is now La Vibora at Six Flags Over Texas.
• Shockwave (1986-1988) was an Intamin stand-up coaster. In 1990, it started a three-year run at Six Flags Great Adventure as Shockwave. In 1993, it opened as Batman The Escape at Six Flags AstroWorld. Since 2006 it has sat in storage at Darien Lake.
• Psyclone (1991-2006) See pictures below for details.
• Flashback (1992-2003) After sitting dormant since 2003, it was removed in December 2007. See pictures below for details.
• Deja Vu (2001-2011) is now Goliath at Six Flags New England. See pictures below for details.
• Colossus (1978-2014) was recently transformed into Wicked Colossus, a steel coaster with inversions. See pictures below for details.

Apocalypse The Ride

Batman The Ride

Green Lantern: First Flight

Magic Flyer
(formerly Percy's Railway, Clown Coaster, Wile E. Coyote Coaster, and Goliath Jr.)

New Revolution
(formerly Revolution, La Revoluci�n, and Great American Revolution)

Road Runner Express

Speedy Gonzales Hot Rod Racers

Superman: Escape from Krypton
(fomerly Superman The Escape)

The location of the park also posed a challenge, as it was situated on the outskirts of El Paso and was not easily accessible to the city's residents. Over time, Magic Landing's attendance continued to decline, and the park was unable to generate enough revenue to sustain its operations. In 1988, after just four years in operation, the park closed its doors for good. The closure left many disappointed, as Magic Landing was seen as a potential source of entertainment and tourism for the El Paso community. Today, the site formerly occupied by Magic Landing remains vacant, serving as a reminder of the park's short-lived existence. Despite its closure, Magic Landing left a lasting impact on the community and is still remembered by those who visited and experienced its attractions. It also serves as a cautionary tale for future amusement park ventures, highlighting the challenges and risks involved in such undertakings..

Reviews for "How Magic Landing in El Paso Became a Magical Destination"

- John - 1 star - Magic Landing El Paso was a complete disappointment. The rides were outdated and rundown, and seemed like they hadn't been maintained in years. The staff were unfriendly and unhelpful, and the food options were limited and overpriced. Overall, it was a waste of time and money. I would not recommend this place to anyone looking for a fun and enjoyable day out.

- Sarah - 2 stars - I had high hopes for Magic Landing El Paso, but I was left underwhelmed. The park was poorly laid out, making it difficult to navigate between attractions. The lines for rides were ridiculously long, and there were not enough staff members to ensure smooth operations. The cleanliness of the park was also questionable, with trash scattered around and unclean restrooms. It's a shame because with better management and maintenance, this park could have been something great.

- Michael - 1 star - Magic Landing El Paso was a huge letdown. The park lacked any exciting or thrilling rides, and most of the attractions were geared towards young children. The admission prices were too high for the limited offerings available. The overall atmosphere was dull and uninviting. I would advise anyone looking for a fun day out to consider other amusement parks in the area, as this one falls short in every aspect.

The History and Legacy of Magic Landing in El Paso