Have the Branson Board of Aldermen and the Taney County Commission invented a new game called “Seweropoly?” If so, it appears that the rules for playing the game are in dispute. In acts reminiscent of childhood, the Branson Board of Aldermen and the mayor are pointing fingers at the Taney County Commissioners, calling them names, and accusing them of not playing the game according to the rules. On the other hand, the Taney County Commissioners want to “take their toys and go home” if Branson won’t play the game according to their rules.

Unfortunately, as the aldermen and commission play Seweropoly the residents of the Bee Creek Watershed are still without an efficient central sewer system and are forced to live with the pollution and health hazards caused by leeching septic fields and overflowing septic tanks. Does it take an environmental Einstein to appreciate that overflowing septic tanks and leeching septic fields are not good for the drinking water supply and could be a major pollution source for Lake Taneycomo?

“But Seagull didn’t the state issue $16 million in bonds to the Taney County Regional Sewer Board in January to sewer the area?”

“That they did.”

“Is the County required to make payments on the bonds issued?”

“Yes, about $90,000 per month.”

“Wow that’s about $3,000 per day.”

“In Seweropoly the stakes are a lot higher than ‘passing Go and collecting $200.’”

As the Ole Seagull sat in the Branson aldermen’s meeting on Apr. 25 he was surprised, embarrassed, and shocked as they launched into an obviously scripted and orchestrated attack against both the Taney County Commission and the Taney Country Regional Sewer District. As he sat there and listened he thought to himself, “How can anyone involved with this presentation, being given in this manner, be hypocritical enough to talk about how low someone else has allegedly stooped?”

Interestingly enough, in an Ole Seagulls opinion the Branson Board of Aldermen had the “high ground” for about the first four pages of the statement. Even their “appeal” to the Taney County Regional Sewer District asking them “to focus on what you have been charged to do, and have the authority to do, rather than allowing yourselves to be intimidated and caught up in agendas that have nothing to [do with] your responsibilities” seemed appropriate.

“Then what’s your problem Seagull?”

“All the personal issues discussed after that portion of the statement saying, ‘We had originally intended to end our statement at this point’ and the manner in which the presentation was orchestrated and executed.”

“What personal issues?”

“Personal issues peripheral to the central issue?”

“What is the central issue?”

“That the County Commission, through its actions, is delaying the Bee Creek Sewer Project at a cost of about $90,000 per month or $3,000 per day for each day of such delay.”

It’s ludicrous. Virtually every one acknowledges the critical need for the sewering of the Bee Creek Watershed. The resources to do it are in place and the independent Taney County Regional Sewer District has “approved an RFP for the selection of construction management on the project” that will move the project on to the next step. Yet the project has virtually stopped and is being delayed because of inaction by the Taney County Commissioners.

“Why won’t the Commissioners take the necessary action to move the project forward as quickly as possible?

“Because they want a Feb. 28, 2000, Sewer Services and Exclusive Territorial Agreement signed by the Taney County Commission, Taney County Regional Sewer District and the City of Branson five years ago to be changed.”

“Why can’t they continue with the sewering of the Bee Creek watershed while their concerns about a five year old agreement are worked out?”

When asked that same question, Presiding Taney County Commissioner Chuck Pennel said, “Because it [the agreement] is the only tool and leverage that the County has to strong arm the city council into amending the agreement and to protect the citizens of Taney County from what I believe is the unfair tactics of the city.”

“They signed the agreement. In view of their actions, how can anyone citizen, business, developer, state agency etc. rely on their word?”

“Time will tell.”

It’s too bad that the Branson Board of Aldermen didn’t end their statement where they had originally intended to end it. It’s not what they did but how they did it that stinks but then, in the game of Seweropoly, there is plenty of stink to go around.

A recent news article reported that “Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon shares the frustration of many American citizens who seek information from the federal government.” Nixon said that it is “a headache and a pain in the neck” to try to get information out of Washington.

If Nixon thinks that it’s a headache and pain in the neck to get information out of Washington he ought to try to get information out of local governments in Missouri, such as the city of Branson, using Missouri’s Sunshine Law. It too is a “headache and pain,” one that is caused, in large part, because of an Attorney General’s Opinion issued by him!

“Seagull, I thought you admired Nixon and the job he is doing?”

“That’s true but it doesn’t change the question.”

“What question?”

“Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?”

As an example, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent and obligated over the last three years for recreation centers, conventions centers, infrastructure costs, marketing and other contracts, etc. by the Branson Board of Aldermen. Unless an Ole Seagull misses his guess, an awful lot of the discussion relating to those expenditures has taken place behind closed doors in what the Branson Board of Aldermen call an “Executive Session.”

“Is that what the Sunshine Law refers to as a closed meeting?”

“That’s it.”

“Then why do they call it an “Executive Session?”

“Don’t know for sure, maybe because it gives them a chance to meet with the real “executives” that control Branson and discuss issues without public involvement or scrutiny.”

The Sunshine Law states that it Missouri’s public policy that meetings of public governmental bodies be open to the public and that exceptions to that policy shall be strictly construed to promote that openness. In furtherance of that policy, the very section authorizing the exceptions for closed meetings states that its provisions shall not be construed as to require a public governmental body to hold a closed meeting to discuss or act upon any matter.

“Gosh Seagull, does that mean that in most situations where the Branson Board of Aldermen hold closed meetings that the law doesn’t require them to?”

“That’s a distinct possibility.”

“Then why do they do it?”

“As evidenced by their action involving the removal of the Liberty Tree, one reason could be so that government and their ‘executives’ can do what they want when they want with minimal public involvement in the process.”

Unfortunately, Attorney General’s Opinion No. 68-95, issued by Nixon’s office, makes it very easy for those who do not want to comply with the Sunshine Law to do so. The law appears to require that the notice for a closed meeting contain both the subsection of the law authorizing the closed meeting and “its tentative agenda, in a manner reasonably calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered.”

Nixon’s opinion states that “the mere reference to the subdivision” authorizing the exception is sufficient and completely ignores the requirement that the notice be “reasonably calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered.” How can a notice that merely says, “Subsection 610.021.12” be reasonably calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered, provide even the basic information needed to formulate a request for information under the Sunshine Law, or ensure that the exception being used for the closed meeting is authorized?

“It can’t”

“Well, the same person complaining about what ‘a headache and a pain in the neck’ it is to get information out of Washington says it does. That creates ‘a headache and a pain in the neck’ for Missourian’s who are trying to use Missouri’s Sunshine Law.

“But Seagull the Branson Board of Aldermen could give as much detail in their notice as they want to or even open up a lot of closed meetings to the public?”

“That’s true but, they could ask Target and Home Depot to build in Hollister, contribute toward the four laning of Highway 65 to the Arkansas state line, and support casino gambling in Rockaway Beach too.”

Anyone want to bet that they will?

The very first sentence of an Apr. 5 Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and CVB press release on the Gas Buster Program says, “Visitors will be rewarded with Gas Buster discount cards, accepted at more than 100 Branson area businesses.” The release goes on to point out that the Gas Busters card is “worth $50 in discounts at participating area shows, attractions, restaurants, lodging and retail businesses.”

“Seagull, what’s not to like about ‘100 Branson area businesses’ offering discounts to encourage people to come to Branson?”

“Nothing if in fact there were 100 businesses participating in the program on Apr. 5.”

The press release said, “For more information, log on to http://www.explorebranson.com/.” On the morning of Apr. 14, nine days after the date of the press release, the Ole Seagull did just that and clicked on the “Gas Buster” link. At the Gas Buster link there was another link to “a list of participating Branson area Gas Buster sponsors.” The list was conveniently set up in categories with the participants in each category listed by number. There were 7 attractions, 25 lodging establishments, 6 restaurants, 1 retail shop, and 14 shows listed.

“But Seagull, that wasn’t anywhere near 100.”

“Didn’t I just say that?”

“But why would they say they had a hundred if they didn’t?”

“Who really knows, perhaps someone was humming the song “Anticipation” when the release was being written and got a tad carried away.”

“Isn’t it kind of sad that out of the hundreds of attractions, shows, restaurants, and retail establishments in Branson that only a total of 28 of them are participating in the program?”

“Yes, but it’s even worse than that!”

An inspection of the list of participants documents the obvious, that the program does not currently have the participation or support of the vast majority of Branson’s shows, attractions, restaurants and retail establishments. Even more foreboding, is the fact that it does not enjoy the active support of some of Branson’s most popular and advertised attractions and shows such as but not limited to: Silver Dollar City, Celebration City, White Water, Ride the Ducks, Dixie Stampede, Show Boat Branson Bell, Presley’s, Andy Williams, Cirque, the Grand Palace, Shoji Tabuchi, Shepherd of the Hills, etc.(Editor’s Note: for update please see note #2 below.)

To an Ole Seagull, the lack of participation by Branson’s major shows and attractions indicates that the real purpose of the Gas Buster program is not to actually give Branson visitors $50 dollars worth of discounts that most of them would actually want to or be able to use. Its purpose, apparently relying on the media’s gullibility, was to use the program to get as much “free” publicity from newspapers, magazines, television etc. as possible.

Ironically, unless an Ole Seagull misses his guess, within a few months, the owners of a lot of these non-participating attractions and shows will be trying to convince the voters of Branson that they should vote a one percent retail tax on themselves to be used for the marketing of Branson. Why wouldn’t these same attractions and shows jump at the chance to show their public leadership and commitment to the marketing of Branson by participating, particularly when the program is originated and sponsored by the very organization that most of them want to market Branson?

At a minimum, one would hope that the attractions, shows, restaurants, and retail establishments represented by members of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and CVB’s Marketing Advisory Council and board of directors would participate in the program and, through their example, encourage others to participate.

(Note 1: As of 8:00 a.m., on Apr. 15 the number of attractions, shows, restaurants, and retail establishments participating in the program has grown from 28 to 36. The participation of the major attractions and shows listed in the column remains the same, non existent.)

(Note 2: As of 6:00 a.m. on May 1 the number of attractions, shows, restaurants and retail establishments has grown to at least 62. Of the organizations listed in the column Presleys’ , Ride the Ducks, Cirque (Remington), and the the Grand Palace are now part of the program. Counting lodging estabishments and the multiple shows at Grand Country the program now has over 100 participants. ) There will be no further updates on particpation.

The Ole Seagull, recently received an email from a lady who said, “Branson for decades has ignored the huge pedestrian problem its popularity has created. Shame on you, Branson.” What had so riled this lady that she would cast shame upon Branson? The tragic and needless death of her grandfather and serious injury to her grandmother which occurred Apr. 27, 2004, as they attempted to cross Branson’s “76 Country Music Boulevard,” in the middle of the famous Branson “Strip.”

The writer said that as her grandparents attempted to cross the street, a 22-year-old uninsured motorist drove into the center turn lane, passed a stopped car which was letting pedestrians cross the street in front of the Presley Show, and stuck both of her grandparents. She went on to point out that, as a result of being struck, her grandfather incurred a back broken in three places, broken, knees, legs, and feet, had a massive heart-attack at the scene, had internal bleeding, and “suffered for 16 days in neuro-trauma ICU in Springfield” before he died.

Then she said something that just jumped off the page, “It is an outrage that the City of Branson doesn’t value the lives of the tourists it attracts. It is an outrage that in over four miles of the main strip there are no crosswalks, not even at the four stoplights.” The Ole Seagull thought to himself, “Surely this is wrong, there has to be places for tourists to cross from one side of the Strip to the other.” Boy howdy, was he ever wrong!

As he “drove” west on Branson’s famed strip, from its junction with Highway 65 to its junction with the Shepherd of the Hills Expressway the Ole Seagull could not find one marked pedestrian crossing. The question that came immediately to his mind was, “How are pedestrians supposed to get across highway 76 safely?

Going to the nearest stop light and crossing is not really a viable choice because there is about a 2.5 mile distance between the stop light at the junction of Highway 76 and Roark Creek and the light at the junction of Highway 165 and Highway 76. As has been previously discussed going to the nearest pedestrian cross walk is not a viable choice because there are none.

The only other choice is to use ones own devices to safely get across the street. Easier said than done on most days, especially when the average age of the typical Branson visitor and the volume of traffic on Highway 76 during the season is factored in. A normal progression would be to wait for a traffic break to get from the curb to the center turn lane and then, wait for another break in the traffic to try to get from the center turn lane to the other side.

“Come on Seagull; from a safety point of view that’s a “crap shoot” and you know it.

“Of course it is but it does describe the reality of the current situation.”

To an Ole Seagull it seems ludicrous that as a community we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in building new developments and advertising to bring more visitors to Branson when we can’t even get the ones we have from one side of the road to the other without risking their lives. There are thousands of hotel and condo rooms within a two block range of Highway 76. Does it take a Solomon to realize that a lot of those people are going to walk up to the Strip, to participate and enjoy all it has to offer? Besides, isn’t that what we want them to do?

It logically follows that there will be large numbers of pedestrians crossing from one side of the Strip to the other. Along with building infrastructure like roads, bridges, sewer and water plants, it almost seems negligent not to build the necessary infrastructure to get our visitors from one side of the road to the other safely. If “sin city” can use “crossovers” to get its visitors safely across Las Vegas Boulevard without impeding traffic why can’t Branson use a modified version to get its visitors safely from one side of Highway 76, or the Shepherd of the Hills Expressway, to the other safely?

At a minimum, would it be inappropriate to suggest that either the Chamber or the City form a “Pedestrian Safety Committee” to study the status of pedestrian accessibility and safety? Obviously, an Ole Seagull doesn’t think so.

On Apr. 5 the voters of the Branson School District will vote on whether or not to approve a $22.8 million dollar bond to, among other things, build a new school for the 5^th and 6^th grade, add 12 rooms to the existing high school, complete the athletic, whoops, sorry, the “activities” complex, and improve the traffic congestion problem at the Cedar Ridge elementary school. This will be on top of the $35.8 million dollars in bonds issued in 1998 for the expansion of the Cedar Ridge elementary complex and to build the new high school.

“Wow Seagull, that’s a lot of money to spend on education.”

“That’s certainly one way to look at it but, in reality, isn’t it an investment in the future of our children and grandchildren?

“Oh, give me a break Seagull, I don’t have a problem with giving our kids the best education possible but why do they have to build a new football stadium when they have a perfectly good one at the junior high?

“I know you asked first but, your concerns about the football stadium aside, where would the education of Branson’s children be if the $35.8 million dollars used to fund the new high school and the improvements to the Cedar Ridge elementary complex had not been authorized by the voters in 1998?”

Hey, here’s an idea, let’s close the new high school that was built with the proceeds of the 1998 bonds, take the students currently attending it and move them back to the “old” high school. Of course to do that the 7^th and 8^th graders currently attending class at the old high school, the “new” junior high, would have to go back to the Cedar Ridge complex. Oh, what the heck, while we’re at it let’s remove that portion of the Cedar Ridge complex that was built or improved with the 1998 bonds.

“Now that’s just stupid Seagull. There’s no practical way that either the junior high or the Cedar Ridge complex would be able to efficiently handle the load under those conditions. Are you suggesting that we move kids back to the old elementary school downtown or add whatever number mobiles it takes, to handle the situation?”

“No, just describing the type of conditions that our children’s education would be challenged with today if the bond issue had not been authorized in 1998 for the new high school and the improvements to the Cedar Ridge elementary complex that it funded.”

Things can always be better managed, particularly in hind site, and will never work out so that everyone is satisfied simply because our personal perspectives, perceptions, concerns, values, and priorities are different. In an Ole Seagull’ s opinion, peripheral issues, what ever they are, should not cloud over what should be the primary concern, the quality of the education that our children and grandchildren are receiving. The quality of the education that is so basic and vital to their ability to effectively live and compete in a much more advanced, complex, hectic, and technical world than any generation before them has ever had to face.

In 1998, as the voters went to the polls they had to answer the question, “Where will the education of Branson’s children be in 2005 if we don’t pass this bond issue?” In Apr. of 2005, as voters go to the polls, the children of the district reap the benefits of the choice the voters made in 1998. An Ole Seagull’s prayer would be that the children being educated as voters go the polls in 2012 will be as blessed.

How many would go to a horse race and bet on a three legged horse? Not too many and for good reason. Unless every horse in the race has three or less legs, all else being equal, a horse with four legs will have a better chance of winning than one with three and the horse with four healthy legs has a better chance of winning than one with a bad leg.

In the “Destination Derby,” an annual reoccurring horse race, where the prize is millions of first time and repeat visitors, the horse “Branson” has four legs to help it win the race. Those four legs are, entertainment, shopping, outdoors, and Silver Dollar City. In terms of the reasons why major segments of people come to Branson, there are those who come for entertainment, those who come to shop, those who come for outdoor activities, those who come to go to Silver Dollar City and the majority who come because of a combination of one or more of these things.

Now there will be those who might ask, “Why is Silver Dollar City a separate leg, isn’t it just another attraction that provides entertainment to Branson’s visitors? Yeah sure, and Mount Rushmore is just another mountain located near Custer, South Dakota.

Silver Dollar City is the single entity in the Branson area providing a “stand alone reason” for a major segment of potential Branson visitors to decide to visit Branson. What other single entity, retail store, shopping center, show, or attraction brings as many people to Branson as Silver Dollar City and has done it for as long?

The horse “Branson” not only has four legs as it enters the gate for this season’s Destination Derby but those four legs are in excellent condition. Branson’s already strong entertainment leg is strengthened by the addition of the new Dick Clark’s American Bandstand Theater Complex, the return of “The Promise,” the steady stream of name guest talent that theatres such as the Grand Palace, Welk Resort Theatre, Branson Variety Theater, Tri-Lakes Center bring in, the addition of the “Great Exposition” at Silver Dollar City, the Titanic Museum, the brand new “Butterfly and Rainforest Attraction, etc.

The addition of Branson Landing will provide a shopping experience available nowhere else in southern Missouri. The entire experience that will be Branson Landing will strengthen not only the shopping leg of the horse Branson but its entertainment and outdoor legs as well.

A horse can have four great legs but without a healthy heart those legs aren’t going to take it very far. The heart of a destination race horse is its marketing and the blood that keeps it pumping is funding.

Wisely, in Nov. of 2005, voters in the Branson area voted for a marketing tax to help rehabilitate Branson’s ailing marketing heart and keep it healthy for years to come. Thanks to that vote and the coordinated efforts of the Branson Board of Aldermen, City Administrator Terry Dody, the members of the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District, and the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, as the horse Branson breaks from the gate in 2006, it’s heart is not only healthy but will continue to grow stronger with each beat as the race goes on through 2006 and into the future.

To an Ole Seagull, from a destination city point of view, the horse Branson has always had the legs of a champion. Now it has the functioning marketing heart of a champion and is being ridden by a jockey that will be able to maximize the potential of both to put Branson “in the money” for the 2006 season and beyond. “Now hold on there Seagull, are you saying that it’s the marketing heart and the jockey, not all the “new stuff” that will put Branson in the money?”

Exactly, Branson has new stuff every year, some of which lasts and some of which doesn’t. What has lasted and served Branson well is its historic entertainment foundation. From the very beginning Branson has had the “right stuff” and the innovators to provide its visitors with an evolving enjoyable experience that they return to again and again.

What it has not had up till now is the ability to effectively market what it had. It’s not the “new stuff” that is the key to Branson’s future prosperity, it’s remaining true to its values and family entertainment roots and their effective marketing that will preserve it and enable it to prosper and grow in 2006 and into the future, nothing more and nothing less.

What happens to the body when the heart does not receive a constant supply of fresh oxygen enriched blood?” From an Ole Seagulls perspective, probably some of the same things that happen in an individuals life without cooperation, “very little that is good and a lot that could be really really bad.”

Cooperation, working together toward a common goal, is a word that everyone uses and knows and, like the very blood that flow through our bodies to our heart, is taken for granted. Yet cooperation is as necessary to living life as the very blood that courses through our veins.

From conception to death and on into eternity cooperation is the necessary common thread. Is conception a singular activity or is it a cooperative activity? How many have given birth to themselves without the cooperation of others? Even in death does it not take the cooperation of others to handle the corporal remains and comfort those remaining behind?

For Christians, is not cooperation, working together toward a common goal, an inherent part of God’s plan for eternal salvation? Who could save themselves without the cooperation of Jesus with His Father and His sacrifice on the cross? Even then, does not God’s word indicate that the gift of eternal salvation involves the cooperation of those to be saved?

It tells us that “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” It goes on to say, “Repent and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” If God requires our cooperation with Him to believe, obey, repent, and be baptized for our eternal salvation is it logical to believe that cooperation is any less important between birth and eternity?

It’s cooperation within families, everyone working together toward a common goal that gets everyone up each day and off to school or work. At school it takes the cooperation of teachers, school administrators, and the taxpayers of the school district to provide the opportunity for learning to take place and yet, without the cooperation of the student, paying attention in class, doing assignments, etc. that opportunity can be wasted.

Cooperation is a two way street. To an Ole Seagull, the word “together” in its definition, “everyone working together toward a common goal,” would be more consistent with what cooperation is if it were spelled “twogether.” It is impossible to have cooperation without two or more people and a common goal.

The interesting thing is that getting two or more people is not normally the problem. The problem is on agreeing on the common goal. In school, work, and home, as individuals and nations there cannot be true cooperation with agreeing on the goal. How many relationships have failed and families broken apart because of the failure to cooperate in their preservation? How many wars have been fought over the failure of nations to cooperate? How many squander opportunities each day simply because they are not willing to cooperate with others? Sadly, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, too many do just that.

In most cases cooperation, like most of the important things in life, takes effort. To paraphrase the words written by someone a lot wiser than an Ole Seagull it could be said, “Cooperation is patient, cooperation is kind and is not jealous; cooperation does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hope all things, endures all things.”

It has been said that “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.” What kind of love can there be if there is not cooperation between the loved and the beloved? About the same as the quality of life one would have without cooperation with others. Now there’s a theme, “Life’s a lot fuller for those who love to cooperate with others.”

On Christmas Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, the Christ, the only begotten Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, in Bethlehem. It is both a commemoration and celebration of that first Christmas when “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, Jesus, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

In today’s vernacular, what God delivered on that first Christmas was His gift of redemption and the promise of eternal life. What He did not deliver was a reason for anyone to accept that gift. If that first Christmas was all there was, there would be little reason for anyone to believe in Jesus and the promise of eternal life would be lost to all. But that is not all there was.

God sent His only begotten Son, to single-handedly wage war with Satan for the souls of all mankind. Like many fathers before and after, who have sent their sons off to war, God was familiar with the horrible price of war. But, unlike earthly fathers sending their sons off to war, God did not have even the hope that His son would come home unscathed. He knew full well the type of world that He was sending Him into and the terrible price that He would have to pay to win that war so that “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

Jesus, as he lived and walked among men did so as a man. He faced the same temptations that all mankind faces, the same needs and desires, the same choices between good and evil, and had to deal with personal relationships and the other problems of simply being human. In the end it was His supreme faith in God, prayer, willingness to submit Himself to God’s will, and His love for us that led Him to the agony and humiliation of the cross so that “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

As He anguished in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” The “cup” was not the beatings, the crown of thorns, public humiliation and scorn, or His agonizing crucifixion on the cross. What was paining Jesus was the knowledge that He would be separated from His Father as He bore the burden of all mankind’s sins and sacrificed Himself for its redemption so that “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

If that was the end, that Jesus died a horrible and painful death for that in which He professed belief, most of His followers would have considered Him a hero and, like thousands of heroes and martyrs before and after Him, He would have either been lost in the sands of time or, at best, become a paragraph in a history book. But, that wasn’t the end and because it wasn’t “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

At various times during His ministry Jesus had predicted His suffering and death and that He “would be raised up on the third day.” The same political and religious power and clout that lead to His suffering and death on the cross went through great lengths to make sure that Jesus stayed dead and would become a distant memory as soon as possible. They sealed His body in a tomb with a large rock and placed Roman soliders to guard its entrance and, because they did, provided proof that “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

As Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early on the third day, she found the rock rolled away, the guards shaking in fear, an empty tomb, and an angel of God who said, “He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said.” In the following days His disciples and many others saw the living Lord, Christ, Jesus, the Son of God and because He lives “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

Praise God, we have a risen Lord who lives and yet, loved each and every one of us enough to pay for our sins, those of yesterday, today and tomorrow, by shedding His own body and blood on our behalf. All we have to do is accept His gift, for “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

The news abounds with numbers this week. The thing about numbers is that they generally don’t mean too much by themselves and it is only when they are associated with something else that they become meaningful, dollars, lives, years, etc.

For example, the number “6” by itself doesn’t mean much. But, add a dollar sign and a few zeros, come up with $6 million, and you have quite a hunk of change. Take that $6 million and apply it to another number “465,” as in the highway number of the Highroad and the net result is that at least $6 million more is going into a road that over $50 million has been spent on thus far.

“Seagull, what were the safety issues that lead to the building of the Highroad, on a priority basis, at the expense of improving the areas main north south route, U.S. 65?”

“That’s another number, 0, nada, or zilch.”

The number “1” is a low number and generally considered insignificant, unless of course it is applied to a human life. This week’s Taney County Times contained the headline, “One killed, two injured in crash.” The article went on to report that the person “was killed in a head-on collision Saturday morning, March 12 on U.S. 65, 10 miles south of Hollister.”

“Seagull, how many have died on that portion of Highway 65?”

“Don’t know for sure but, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to say a lot more than would have died had the same money and priority given to the Highroad been given to the improvement of the areas main north south highway, U.S. 65.”

On a lighter note, the number “7” has significance in a game of Craps and when the city of Branson is trying to go back “7” years to collect taxes allegedly owed to them by Taney County. According to another article in the Taney County Times this week, the city of Branson has sent “Taney County a bill for $42,221.68 in back TIF taxes.” The bill goes back to 1998. Interestingly enough, according to Branson Director of Finance Deanna Schlegel, the problem wasn’t discovered until an internal audit of her department in 2004.

“But Seagull, surely there were audits conducted between 1998 and 2004 on the city’s finance department. Why did it take so long to find it?”

“According to the article Schlegel said, ‘Our staff is small and this problem was not known to us or to the state until that audit.’”

From an Ole Seagulls perspective, with the hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars at stake, he would consider three more numbers. The number of personnel that would have to be added to the city staff to catch and resolve problems of this nature in a more timely manner, the number “3,” representing the maximum number of years in back taxes that the city should be paid for by the county, and, most importantly of all, the telephone number of another auditing firm.

At a time when other tourism destination cities, particularly coastal destinations, are recovering from the effects of 9/11 Branson appears to be, at best, level with its percentage of first time visitors continuing in a downward trend to critical levels. In an Ole Seagulls opinion, every person living in Branson and Taney County has a vested interest in reversing that trend because if it continues, and the sales tax revenues received from tourism drop enough, the residents of the City of Branson and Taney County will, one way or another “pay” to make up the difference.

“Whoa there a minute Seagull, is that a threat or scare tactic?”

“No, it’s the reality of the situation.”

Recently, the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce issued a report on the “branding study” that was conducted at their request and funded by the City of Branson. It pointed out that those who actually come to Branson are impressed with what Branson has to offer “great shows, beautiful outdoor environment, a wide range of attractions for young and old and all at a great price.”

“Ok, that’s the good news, what’s the bad news?”

“There are a lot of people that will not come to Branson because they have the perception that Branson is “out-of-date country and western shows and nothing else.”

The study refers to these people as “Resistors.” The scary thing is that not only are these people a large part of the “first time” visitors that Branson needs but they are so sure they are right that they don’t know they are wrong. The challenge is to show them why they should come to Branson and when they get here show them why they made the right decision to come.

“Did the study say that Branson must change its image, shows, entertainment, or culture to attract them?”

“Absolutely not, what it said was that the perception of the Resisters, as to what they believe Branson is, has to be changed to accurately reflect the reality of what Branson has to offer.”

In fact it indicates that Branson’s tourism product, as it has evolved and is continuing to evolve, has the right combination of factors to satisfy the needs of both the loyal visitors, who have been coming to Branson for years, as well the Resisters. The challenge is to show the Resisters enough about what Branson actually has to offer so that their perceptions will change.

Although, the study said, “it’s never easy to change perceptions through marketing,” it is clear that Branson will not attract the Resisters without showing them that Branson is “more than they expect.” To reach the “critical mass” required to change their erroneous perceptions in a given market will require increased marketing costs. The study recommends that this be done on a market by market basis as funding permits.

Interestingly enough the study showed that the number one thing that people identified with Branson was “values.” It’s a term that means different things to different people but we all know it when we see it. In an attempt to capture the unique character and values of Branson, the study developed the “Branson Promise.

Although, the study states that “values” and the Branson Promise alone are unlikely to change a Resisters perception, it is obvious that they will play an important part in not only that change but in the experience that both loyal visitors and Resisters will have while in Branson.

“But Seagull it’s only a bunch or words.”

“No, it’s a promise, the creation of an expectation, which if fulfilled in the Branson experience of each visitor can ensure the future success of Branson.”

To an Ole Seagull, the Branson Promise and the commitment of every person who interfaces with our visitors to ensure its fulfillment is what will make Branson unique from all other tourist destinations. It is that “something” that they will want to experience again, that very “something” that a lot of us experienced when we first visited Branson and the reason why Branson is now our home.

IIma Loyal was on her way back to Columbia from a trip to Tunica, Ms. As she drove north out of Tunica she decided that she would make an impromptu stop at one of her favorite getaway locations for the night, Branson, to relax and see a show. Having been to Branson a number of times before, she made her lodging and show reservation directly with the motel and show and did not use a “reseller,” such as a ticket agency.

Her room rate was $100 and her show ticket was $25. The total $125 is subject to, among other taxes, the four percent Branson Tourism Tax. Ima paid $5 in Branson Tourism Tax.

On exactly the same day, Ira Resister, a salesman was driving south out of Springfield on highway 65, saw a barrage of billboards that reminded him of the great Branson ads he had seen on cable TV the night before and decided that he would spend the night in Branson and see a show. Not having been to Branson before he went into the store of one of the many “resellers” authorized by the various shows and lodging establishments in Branson to resell their tickets and lodgings.

Ira ended up staying in exactly the same hotel and going to exactly the same show as Ima did. His room rate was $100 and his show ticket was $25. The total $125 is subject to, among other taxes, the four percent Branson Tourism Tax. Ira paid $4.25 in Branson Tourism Tax.

“Now hold on Seagull, are you saying that Ima paid $.75 more in tourism tax than Ira did for the same thing?

“That’s exactly right.”

“That doesn’t make any sense at all, same lodging price, same ticket price, same Branson, the amount of tourism tax paid by each should be the same. Why isn’t it?

“If an Ole Seagull were going to hazard an opinion it would be because the resellers don’t collect it and pay it and the city lets them get away with it.”

“Resellers” buy tickets and lodging at, what most people could consider, whole sale prices, add their markup, and then retail them to the public. In the vast majority of cases, the four percent Branson Tourism Tax is only collected on the wholesale price that the reseller pays for the product. The rationale appears to be that the difference between the whole sale price paid by the reseller and what they sell it for at retail is a “service charge” and is not subject to the tax.

“But Seagull, what’s the difference between the local “Walkmarget Store” buying widgets at wholesale, adding their markup, and then retailing them to the public? Isn’t the amount of tax due based on the retail price charged? “In order, the answers appear to be ‘none’ and ‘of course it is.’”

As written, the state law regarding this tax says that it applies to the price “paid or charged” to any “transient person” for, among other things, hotel, motel, and condo rooms in Branson and to the price paid or charged for any admission ticket to or participation in any private tourist attraction. The net result of the way this law is currently being enforced by the city is that, potentially, millions of dollars in tax revenues, that would be available to the city for infrastructure and marketing, are not currently being collected by the city and have not been for years.

"Do I have this right Seagull, the tax applies to the price that is charged not to who is charging it?”“That’s the way it appears to read.”

“Is a reseller a ‘transient’ person?” “Not normally.”

“Then why doesn’t the city require the tax to be collected on the full price that the resellers charge?” “That’s the million dollar question!”

In a recent television commercial for a major credit card company, a band of marauding Vikings pillage and plunder until they are stopped by a consumer with the right credit card in their wallet. Every time he sees the commercial the Ole Seagull is reminded of the “pillaging and plundering” of Branson’s school district by the “Bikings.”

“Bikings” is a term the Ole Seagull uses to describe the Branson Board of Aldermen, City Administrator Terry Dody, and what he believes are the disrespectful, irresponsible, and uncooperative actions they have taken that place the quality of our children’s education at risk. Oh, they dress better and clean up nicer than the Vikings but let there be no doubt about it, their pillaging and plundering of the tax revenues available to the Branson School District could adversely effect the quality of our children’s education if something doesn’t change!

What is the apparent rationale for these Biking actions? Is it their apparent paranoia about having to have a “new” Branson or their almost psychotic preoccupation with preventing big box stores from going anywhere else but in Branson? “You know Seagull some could say that it is you that has the paranoia and psychotic preoccupation regarding the Branson Board of Aldermen and Dody.”

That’s fair enough and just like an Ole Seagull they are entitled to their opinion. To the best of his ability, the vast majority of the columns he has written are about actions taken, or not taken, not about people and personalities. “But Seagull, isn’t it people who either act or don’t act?” That’s true but, in the final analysis, whether it’s a President, an Ole Seagull, alderman, or city administrator, it is the action taken, or not, that creates accountability and reaction.

From teachers to programs and facilities, just about everything involved with the Branson School District provides a quality education for our children. It is that way because the school district has been blessed with school boards and people in administrative positions who have had the vision, commitment, administrative ability, leadership skills, community trust, and financing to make it so.

That said however, unless an Ole Seagull misses his guess, the foundational element upon which the educational experience of our children depends is adequate financing. It is financing that enables the school district to hire and retain quality teachers, provide programs, maintain facilities etc. Each year, from local revenue sources, the school district must raise about $5,000 per student.

Unlike the City of Branson, who receives a lot of revenue from the retail sales tax, the majority of the local funding for the school district comes from residential and commercial real estate tax, with the lions share coming from the commercial side. The Bikings, in spite of repeated warnings and requests by the Branson School District not to do so, legally confiscated the vast majority of the school district’s commercial real estate tax revenue generated by Branson Landing and the Branson Hills redevelopment project for the next ten years and beyond. But wait, it gets worse.

Even as the Bikings are confiscating revenues needed to run the school district, the projects they are building, and the thousands of “Branson average” paying jobs they will offer, will bring hundreds of new children into the Branson School District, virtually at one time. The school district doesn’t have ten years to wait; it must provide and pay for the education of these new children from day one, at an average of $5,000 per student per year. Yet the Bikings have confiscated, and appropriated for their own use, a substantial portion of the school districts revenues that could be used to meet this increased challenge.

Does it take a Solomon to see that the short fall for the school district will add up quickly and could, without additional funding, result in a deterioration of the quality of the educational experience that the Branson School District provides? It will be a gradual insidious thing, larger class sizes, cutting of programs, reducing preventive maintenance on facilities, gradually losing quality teachers and administrators etc. but, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, it will happen unless additional funding is provided.

From an Ole Seagulls perspective, the Bikings, the Branson Board of Aldermen and City Administrator Terry Dody, have created the problem through their one sided actions and are accountable for its solution. Would it be inappropriate to ask them, “What’s in your wallet, and what are you going to do to correct or mitigate the problem that you created?”

Better yet, why not do it in an open and public meeting including representatives from the Branson School District and the Bikings? Unfortunately, the Bikings solutions for the kids and taxpayers of the Branson School District will more than likely be the equivalent of saying, “We know what’s best for everyone and besides, we got what we wanted, what’s in your wallet?”

A recent column entitled “Australians did not get $5 million and other Branson Landing Info” contained, without editing or comment, four specific questions that the Ole Seagull had sent to Branson City Administrator Terry Dody and his response. Click here to view that column.

In his answer to the question relative to how much the city had spent on the project as of Nov. 30, 2004, Dody replied “the total spent by the City as of November 30, 2004, is $52,527,101. This number includes everything: land, financing costs, permits, feasibility studies, legal fees, professional services, demolition, capitalized interest, lobbying, etc., etc., etc.” The next question asked “Of that amount how much is the city of Branson and its citizens not legally obligated to pay?”

Dody responded, “The city of Branson and its citizens are not legally obligated to pay any of the above stated amount.” In substantiation he quoted the standard legal “boiler plate” language appearing on the approximately $77.3 million in bonds authorized thus far for the project by the Missouri Development Finance Board. The language quoted said that the issuance of the bonds is “not an indebtedness of the State of Missouri” or “the City” and “shall not obligate the State, the City or any other political subdivision to levy any form of taxation therefore or to make any appropriation for their payment.”

“But Seagull, doesn’t that substantiate that the city of Branson is not legally obligated to pay on the bonds?”

“Well, not really, but even if one took that position the ‘devil is in the details’ and, as Paul Harvey might say, ‘Now, here’s the rest of the story.”‘

When the issuance of the bonds for the project was being discussed back in 2001, at a public meeting, Dody said words to the effect that with the type of bonds being used to finance the project that the city of Branson and its citizens would be under no legal obligation to pay them because the investors assumed all the risk. Those words had scarcely been spoken when David Queen, an attorney from Gilmore and Bell, the city’s bonding attorney, very quickly pointed out the practical reality of the bond market.

Queen said that, although not legally obligated to do so, from a practical point of view, the city might very well want or have to assume some liability, such as an appropriation pledging payment on the bonds. As the Ole Seagull recollects, his rationale for such action was, among other things, to get a lower interest rate on the bonds, to make the bonds more marketable, etc.

“OK Seagull, let’s see if I have this straight, although the language of the bonds themselves doesn’t ‘obligate’ the city to make any appropriation for the payment of the bonds the city could do so if they wanted to for whatever reason, a lower interest rate, to make the bonds more attractive to investors, etc.?”

“That is exactly right.”

Although there was no legal requirement to do so, at a meeting held in conjunction with the initial bonding for the project, the Branson Board of Aldermen, for what the Ole Seagull believes was good reason, agreed to use appropriations to guarantee the payment of the bonds. Said another way, if the project doesn’t generate enough revenues to pay off the bonds the city will pay them from other revenue sources.

A Feb. 28 memo from Gilmore & Bell, presented as part of the public record for a meeting of the Tax Increment Financing Commission of the City of Branson held on Feb. 28, confirmed the fact that the City has assumed “debt obligations for the project based on the bonds that have been issued and will be issued.” The bonds that have “been issued” are the approximately $77.4 million in Series 2003A and 2004A bonds referred to by Dody in his response. Among the bonds yet to be issued is approximately $76.7 million dollars of Series 2005A bonds for which the same city obligations will more than likely apply.

“Wow Seagull, how can anyone say that the city of Branson is not legally obligated to pay any of the $52,527,101 spent on the project as of Nov. 30, 2005? If it looks like an obligation and has to be paid like an obligation isn’t it an obligation?”

“An Ole Seagull would think so. It reminds him of the old adage attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

One of the primary reasons given for building the convention center downtown, rather than at a location more friendly to Branson’s primary stake holders, was that its closeness to the Branson Landing’s waterfront retail and entertainment district would provide a synergy that would increase the chances of the success of both. As one listened to the consultants and experts expound they could almost hear a virtual symphony of synergism that would attract new visitors and revenues to Branson.

Yet, as the downtown redevelopment project proceeds, it is apparent that it is divided into two distinctly different components. One is the upscale retail, residential condominium, and entertainment district called “Branson Landing” located on the Lake Taneycomo lakefront. The other is the, as yet unnamed, convention center complex that is physically separated from Branson Landing by a four lane road, a set of rail road tracks, and an occasional train with its accompanying whistle.

What kind of symphonic experience would one have if the orchestra was split down the middle and separated by a large space that is being actively used by, people, vehicles, and trains?

“Come on Seagull, get real. This is business not a symphony.”

“True enough but there is a parallel.”

As in a symphony, it would appear that, at the very least, the amount of synergy would be substantially reduced if the elements required to produce that synergy were separated. That separation takes on even more importance, perhaps critical importance, if the reduced synergy can impact adversely on the desired results. Under those circumstances, to an Ole Seagull, it just seems to make good sense to try to mitigate the effects of the separation.

During, a meeting on the convention center design, one of the concepts presented was a pedestrian walk way from the convention center complex, over the train tracks and road, to the Branson Landing waterfront retail and entertainment district. Such a walk way would provide convenient environmentally controlled access between the two in much the same way that the pedestrian walkway across International Drive, near Orlando Florida, connects the two major complexes making up the Orange County Convention Center..

Such a walkway could also help link historic downtown Branson to the Branson Landing. Easy street level access from Commercial Street through the convention center garage and its connection with the convention center would provide relatively convenient access to the walkway and Branson Landing.

From a synergy prospective, such a pedestrian walkway would provide a very visible physical connection between the project’s two main elements that would serve to unite them into a more cohesive whole. With all the money that is being invested in the project and its anticipated revenues to both the city and state if it is successful, doesn’t it make sense to invest, comparatively speaking, a little more, to tie the whole project together in a manner that could help insure the very synergy that is so critical to its success?

According to the “Seagull Journal of Ozark Mountain History,” in the fall of 1796, a bull owned by one of the Ozarks early settlers had just finished drinking from the river. As he turned and walked away he felt an urge and, unbeknownst to him, provided the protection and nourishment for the birth of what was to become Branson’s Liberty Tree, as his “deposit” landed on top of an acorn that had fallen from a nearby Bur oak a few days earlier.

Thus blessed, the Liberty Tree sprouted, grew into maturity and reached old age. This transition however, was not without price as nature and man alike attacked. In addition to the normal incidents of nature, the Liberty Tree endured “progress” as the city of Branson was founded, developed, and redeveloped around it. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion that progress, particularly the asphalt roads being built over its roots, the cutting of its roots on more than one occasion, and the confinement of its root system by a sea wall turned, over the last 50 years or so, the once mighty oak into a sickly imitation of its former self.

In 1996 it was struck by lightning, splitting a large limb from its top, cracking its main trunk, and ripping out a 12-foot high section of bark near its base. Two weeks after the lightning strike Justine Gartner, the forestry field program supervisor for the Missouri Department of Conservation, inspected the tree. She determined that the “tree already in decline” was, “combined with internal rot in the branches,”…. “a serious, unpredictable, threat to any person or personal property left near the tree.”

At a well attended public meeting of the board of aldermen held, shortly after Gartner’s inspection, to determine what should be done with the tree, the aldermen tied three to three on whether to cut it down or to spend thousands of dollars to monitor and preserve it for as long as possible. The mayor’s vote broke the tie and the Liberty Tree lived to die another day.

It was small town America at its best; those who govern recognizing and respecting the concerns of the governed, sharing information with and seeking input from them, and having the integrity and courage to make their decisions in an open public session. Although the Ole Seagull would have voted to cut the tree down he sincerely appreciated the process and respected the results.

For the next eight years the Liberty Tree survived on the oak genus equivalent of being on “life support” but, in the end, even the mighty Liberty Tree could not survive both the normal incidents of nature, a bit of progress called Branson Landing, and the “deposit” made on it by Branson’s elected officials and some of its senior staff.

The death sentence for the Liberty Tree was announced when, along with the announcement of the Branson Landing project, Branson’s elected officials and the projects developers, from the very earliest stages, said words to the effect that they would try to keep the Liberty Tree. Could any reasonable person not recognize where the priority was and that the days of the Liberty Tree were numbered?

A weakened and continually weakening Liberty Tree was on “life support.” In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, the building of the Branson Landing project around the Liberty Tree and the priority that the project would receive over keeping it alive for as long as possible was the oak genus equivalent of pulling the plug on its life support system. It was just a matter of when the plug would be pulled.

Unfortunately, it was the manner in which the plug was pulled that showed small town America at its worst. Those who govern Branson, while recognizing the concerns of the governed did not respect those concerns enough to share information with them or have the integrity and courage to make their decisions in an open public session, even though they had the opportunity to do so at a public board of aldermen meeting on Feb. 14.

Instead, the actions of Branson elected officials and some senior staff members resulted in two “deposits.” One on the demise of the Liberty Tree, when, on Feb. 15, without public warning or announcement, its feeble shadow of its former mighty self was summarily bulldozed over and hauled away. The other was on the trust and faith of those that they are pledged to serve.

Branson voters will go to the polls in April to elect a mayor and three aldermen. The competition for these positions should be intense and offer Branson’s voters an opportunity to have the candidates discuss issues that concern them.

“Ah, Seagull, you do know that they are running unopposed, don’t you?”

“Whoops, a Freudian slip but the word ‘should’ was used.”

Obviously, with the candidates for municipal office in Branson running unopposed there will be no competition, intense or otherwise. One can only marvel at the fact that with all the rhetoric going on about how dissatisfied people are that no one is being challenged for office. That is of course, assuming that people are actually dissatisfied.

“Oh come on Seagull, of course they are!

“Name some things that people say they are dissatisfied with.”

“How about Branson Landing, the new convention center down town, the preservation and growth of our existing downtown, the new recreation center, the city’s use of TIFs to compete against exisiting businesses, regulations that are burdensome to small business development, the rising rate of city debt, to name a few.”

As the Ole Seagull travels around town, drinks coffee or chats here and there, and attends various meetings he constantly hears about how upset people are with “this and that.” And, more than likely, depending on the circumstances, one of the above topics will be mentioned yet, as the filing period for running for office came and went, where were those who are allegedly dissatisfied?

“Maybe they didn’t sign up because they feel that the deck is stacked against them and they wouldn’t be able to change anything even if they got elected.”

“Ah yes, proof positive that people truly do get the kind of government they deserve.”

Thank God for people like Bob Warlick, Dave Edie, Mayor Lou, Ron Huff, Larry Milton, Ray Wilson, Walt Stone, Jeannie Hendricks, Larry Taylor, Dick Gass, Jim Thomas, Stan Barker, and others who, regardless of their position on the issues facing our community, had the fortitude, commitment, and conviction to run for office. Their efforts at least gave the voters a choice.

And chose they did. For instance, the fate of Branson Landing and the downtown convention center was decided during the previous two elections. Voters had the clear opportunity to elect both aldermen and a mayor who were against both. They chose to elect the candidates favoring both. How does that indicate dissatisfaction?

Quite frankly, apathy, laziness, or whatever other excuses one wants to conjure up aside, the Ole Seagull believes that the real reason that there is no opposition to the incumbents in the up coming Branson election is that the voters are basically satisfied and no one likes to lose. As an example, the only thing that could compare with the experience of running against “Mayor Lou,” as he cruises to an unprecedented and well deserved sixth term as Mayor, would be getting a root canal performed with a teaspoon. In either case only a masochist would try it.

The old adage that people get the kind of government they deserve is true and in Branson, if the opposition to the incumbents is any indication, they are getting the kind of government that they want. What a happy Valentine’s Day it is for Branson as its citizens ask Mayor Lou and the incumbent aldermen to be their Valentine for another term.

In February of 2002 the voters defeated a measure to impose a one percent retail sales tax to be used for the marketing of Branson and other non related community enhancement purposes. The tax failed for a lot of reasons but, in an Ole Seagulls mind, the main reason was that the legislation authorizing the tax was deficient in terms of accountability, efficiency, and, most of all fairness. It was unfair enough as to what organization could receive the tax proceeds to market Branson that a lot of folks, including the Ole Seagull, dubbed it the “Chamber Tax.”

Recently, at a series of public meetings held by the board of directors of the Tourism Community Enhancement District, the community worked together to come up with recommended changes to the legislation that would correct most of its deficiencies. What’s notable is that the lead organization and driving force behind modifying the legislation was the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce & CVB.

“Whoa now Seagull, are you saying that the same chamber that was instrumental in getting the original Chamber Tax, legislation passed, is now working to get it changed?”

“No, there’s no same to it.”

The Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce that exists today is a much different organization in terms of senior staff, accountability, receptiveness to new ideas, access, etc. than it was three years ago. Back then, within a day after the tax failed at the polls, the arrogant defiant response of a high ranking senior staff member of the chamber was words to the effect that “we’ll have the tax back on the ballot as early as August.” In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, that would not happen today.

It was the chamber staff, most visibly, Ross Summers and Wylie Barnes, and the chamber’s board of directors that provided the impetus and assistance so that the necessary changes to the legislation could be developed and submitted to the legislature. Without that impetus and assistance, if past history is any indication, the Tourism Community Enhancement District’s board of directors would be no closer to getting the necessary legislative changes developed and to the legislature than it has been over the last three years.

The neat thing is that the chamber did this knowing full well that they would lose the advantages that the current legislation gave them. These advantages include but are not limited to the appointment of board members and being just about the only organization that could be selected to receive the tax proceeds to market Branson. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, they have taken action, against their own self interest, in an attempt to right a wrong, with the hopes that the resultant legislation will, someday in the not too distant future, enable the tax to be resubmitted to the voters for their consideration based strictly on the merits of the tax itself and its potential benefits to our community.

In a May 2003 column, written in conjunction with the departure of some senior chamber staff members, the Ole Seagull asked the question as to whether or not the chamber’s board was “going to take the necessary steps to regain the trust of their members and the community they serve or will there just be a repeat of the past?” Included was a set of indicators such as faithfulness to process, openness, and a commitment by the Board to “dechamberize” the Chamber Tax.

For what it matters, an Ole Seagull truly believes that the chambers leadership in working to change things by making it more open and responsive, as illustrated in its active and constructive participation in the “dechamberizing” of the “Chamber Tax,” indicates just how much things have changed over the past three years. That is good for the chamber, its members, and the community that we serve.

Editors Note: Branson is trying to involuntarily annex land to its north. This cartoon represents the cartoonists opinion on the topic.

In the not too distant past the words “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year” was the greeting of the Christmas season. It seems that everywhere one went, between Thanksgiving and Christmas, they were surrounded by the “reason for the season.” From storefronts, to interior store advertising, greetings coming from store clerks, and the playing of traditional Christmas carols, the words “Merry Christmas” and the spirit of “Christmas” just seemed to permeate the air.

As did generations of Americans before him, the Ole Seagull actually learned the words to Christmas Carols like “Silent Night,” “Little Town of Bethlehem” and most of the old carols from a public school song book as he and his class mates prepared for the annual school Christmas Program.

Isn’t it interesting that the first 180 years of our nation’s history illustrates exactly the opposite of what the federal courts, over the last 50 years or so, are telling us the First Amendment actually means.

Even with that however, the Ole Seagull is not aware of any law or federal judicial decision prohibiting the use of the words “Merry Christmas.” Yet, in just a comparatively few years of our nation’s history, the very word “Christmas” is disappearing, not only from our nations schools but the very celebration of Christmas itself.

“But Seagull, how can schools teach the meaning of a holiday named Christmas without teaching its history, origin, and traditions? Wouldn’t they have to mention the ‘C’ word?”

“They can’t and they would have to.”

In recent years, those who would take Christmas out of Christmas, for whatever reason, have developed a strategy of “political correctness” and “let’s not mention Christmas because it might offend someone.” The word they would substitute for Christmas is “holiday” and the phrase they would substitute for “Merry Christmas” is “Happy Holidays.”

A recent column appearing in the Dec. 24, 2004 Wall Street Journal contains an illustration of just how far the pendulum has swung. It pointed out that “the mayor of Somerville, Mass., apologized for mistakenly calling his December celebration a ‘Christmas party.’ He should have called it, he said, a ‘holiday party.’”

“Boy Seagull, it’s a good thing that something like that can’t happen here in the land of “Ozark Mountain Christmas,” “Old Time Christmas,” and the “Adoration Parade.”

“That might be the way we wish it were but is it the way it is?”

The Dec. 24, 2004 edition of this paper contained a letter from a lady who, while eating in a local restaurant with her husband, received the greeting of “Happy Holidays,” from their server. It’s the same greeting that a lot of us, and, probably tens of thousands of visitors to Branson, received during Ozark Mountain Christmas. When her husband said, “I think you mean ‘Merry Christmas’” she quickly responded, “Oh, we can’t say that unless the customer does.” The Ole Seagull would echo the words that the writer of the letter used to describe the incident, “How sad.”

“Now Seagull, you are not actually going to suggest that the Branson community, make a concerted effort to use the term ‘Merry Christmas’ rather than ‘Happy Holidays’ are you?”

“Why not, isn’t ‘Merry Christmas’ more consistent with the promise of an Ozark Mountain Christmas, and our areas traditions and values?”

Shouldn’t our community be committed enough to its values and its advertised promise of an Ozark Mountain Christmas to make a concerted effort to provide those who respond and come with more than the politically correct, “Happy Holidays?” At a minimum, if employees – particularly those involved with the marketing of our area and the meeting of the public- are going to be encouraged to give a greeting, why not encourage them to say “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays?”

“What’s next Seagull putting up banners across Highways 76 and 65 saying “Merry Christmas,” putting verbiage in our “Ozark Mountain Christmas” advertising saying, “Visit Branson, Missouri, where Christmas is still Christmas, or a big banner across the front of City Hall saying “Merry Christmas?’”

“Why not, is it Ozark Mountain Kwanzaa, Ozark Mountain Hanukah, or Ozark Mountain Holidays that we advertise and promise or is it an Ozark Mountain Christmas? Besides, isn’t Christmas the official government name of the holiday being celebrated?”

Can anyone reasonably take offense if a community simply stands up and says, “We celebrate the holiday of Christmas, its promise and spirit and would love to have you come and share them with us?” If not in Branson, Missouri now, where and when?

During a political debate for national office, the Republican candidate said, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably for ever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

Indeed, as the press digs back into the candidates past they find another “skeleton,” his views on interracial marriage.In a speech given about a year earlier, the candidate had said, “There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women; and so let them be married.”

He went on to say that “separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation.”The candidate further expounded on his method of separating the races, “colonization” and was quoted as saying, “Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”

In today’s environment, the media, particularly the material starved 24 hour news channels, would go into a “feeding frenzy” and bombard the public with their version of this story on a 24/7 basis.It doesn’t take a Solomon to figure out what would happen to this candidate.The candidate would be branded a “racist,” or worse, and would soon be an “ex candidate.”

But, at that time, God blessed this Nation with the freedom from a media that could permeate the vast majority of America’s homes within hours with their carefully chosen 30 second “sound bites.” Sound bites designed to seemingly control public opinion rather than report the news. In that day and time, the media had to write a convincing story, one convincing enough so that enough of the American people read it, believed it, and cared enough about it “to pass it on.”

The Ole Seagull wasn’t there.But, evidently a lot of Americans that were there believed that the country was facing bigger issues such as a possible civil war, and the growth of slavery because, in 1860, the candidate that uttered those words, Abraham Lincoln, went on to be elected the 16^th President of the United States.

History solemnly testifies as to how Lincoln, in spite of his personal views on interracial marriage, colonization, or the “political and social equality between the white and black races,” performed as to the major issues of succession, the war to preserve the Union, and slavery.In a letter to Horace Greely, in 1862, Lincoln said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”Even his personal abhorrence of slavery did not take precedence over the bigger issue of saving the Union.While solving the bigger issue however, slavery was abolished and our nation paid a “bloody penance” for permitting the expansion of the slavery of blacks, from its origin and rampant practice by the black tribes in Africa, to our new nation.

In selecting our nations leaders today would it not be wise to select leaders like Lincoln, who, on the whole, have the ability to handle the bigger issues facing our nation such as the economy, potential wars with Korea and Iraq, home land security, illegal immigration, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all Americans rather than just the few?Lincoln’s warning, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” still resonates through the eons of time as does his blessing, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom–and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

On Jan. 2, as part of ongoing research on the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center, the Ole Seagull sent a list of four questions to City Administrator Terry Dody. On Jan. 10 Dody’s response was received. The questions and their responses, without comment, are set forth below.

Question 1: Including the $5 million to the Australians, all legal, administration, land acquisition, consulting construction, lobbying, interest costs and any other cost directly related to the Branson Landing Project and
Convention Center, how much has the city of Branson either spent or
obligated itself for as of November 30, 2004?

Response: It has been explained many times that the Australians were never paid $5 million. The Australians received $1.9 million for fees and expenses resulting from work they performed for the City at the City’s request.

Additionally, when negotiations broke down with the Jacobsen Group, the Board of Aldermen elected to go ahead and purchase the lakefront property, even if nothing was ever going to be developed there.Consequently, the Board of Aldermen made a decision to expend $24,177,839 to purchase the land, demolish the buildings and site prep the ground knowing that they might not move forward with any development of the land.They felt it was in Branson’s best interest to own the lakefront into the future – even if it remained only as a park.

The above is important because the cost to purchase and site prep the original land can arguably be excluded from the total cost of the current Branson Landing project.

However, including the purchase and site prep of the original land, the total spent by the City as of November 30, 2004, is $52,527,101.This number includes everything: land, financing costs, permits, feasibility studies, legal fees, professional services, demolition, capitalized interest, lobbying, etc., etc., etc.

Question 2: Of that amount how much is the city of Branson and its citizens not legally obligated to pay?

Response: The city of Branson and its citizens are not legally obligated to pay any of the above stated amount.

The following is the language from the Series 2003A and 2004A bond indentures.

“The Series 2003A and 2004A bonds are not an indebtedness of the State of Missouri, the City nor any other political subdivision thereof within the meaning of any provision of the constitution or laws of the State of Missouri. The Bonds shall not constitute and indebtedness within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation or restriction and are not payable in any manner by taxation.The issuance of the bonds shall not obligate the State, the City nor any other political subdivision to levy any form of taxation therefore or to make any appropriation for their payment in any year subsequent to a year in which the Financing Agreement is in effect.”

Question 3: What is the distance from the retaining wall to the lakeside edge of the “Board walk?” What I am trying to determine is exactly how wide the “boardwalk” will be?

Response: The distance from the retaining wall to the lakeside edge of the boardwalk averages 50′ through the length of the project. At one point the closest distance is 30′ and the greatest is 120′. The boardwalk is generally 12′ wide with occasional widening to 16′.

Question 4: Am I correct in my belief that for a substantial portion of the Board Walk, there will be, in one form or another, a cement retaining wall rising to heights of 10 feet or more, separating those on the “Boardwalk” from the businesses located above?

Response: The concrete retaining wall is generally 10′ in height and will be faced (on the lake side) with material similar to what will be on the exterior of the retail buildings which will include awnings and other additions that will make the wall blend with the other exterior portions of the buildings. Stairs and elevators will be amply provided for access to and from the boardwalk and retail.

Now here’s an amazing factoid and a big surprise. First the amazing factoid, traffic on Business Highway 65, directly north of the Roark Creek Bridge, is going to be increased drastically and quickly when Branson Landing, Branson’s new $420 million plus master-planned shopping entertainment development, opens. This has the distinct potential to create traffic congestion in the area of the Skaggs Hospital, particularly near the access to its emergency room. Some might say that is not amazing it’s obvious. Let’s compromise and say that it is amazingly obvious.

Now for the big surprise, in spite of being so amazingly obvious, as Branson Landing gets ever closer and closer to opening, it appears that there has been minimal effective action taken to insure that the increased traffic on Business Highway 65 does not adversely impact on the efficient access to the Skaggs Hospital Emergency Room, the areas only hospital emergency room. For those wondering how something that is so amazingly obvious could result in such a surprise an Ole Seagull would simply say, “Welcome to the new Branson, where everybody has a chance to be amazed and surprised by the amazingly obvious.”

Let’s just hope that chance doesn’t come as either you or someone you love is trying to get to the emergency room at Skaggs and is delayed because the access to the road leading to it is blocked by Branson Landing traffic. Can anyone picture a situation where time could be of the essence in getting to the emergency room?

Can any reasonable person envision a situation where those making a decision to place a huge concentration of traffic directly in a position that could impede the only access road to the areas only available emergency room could even think of doing so without having a suitable alternate in place prior to doing so? Well, welcome to the new Branson, where everybody has a chance to be amazed and surprised by the amazingly obvious.”

The minutes of the regular meeting of the Taney County Commission, held on Dec. 12, 2005, state that “Bob Simmons addressed the Commission regarding a new Hospital road on behalf of Skaggs Hospital.” Simmons pointed out that the new road was needed “due to the estimated increase in traffic when Branson Landing is finished” and that “they should be seeing more concentrated traffic in the area, which could potentially cause difficulty getting emergency vehicles to Skaggs Hospital.”

Now let’s see, how many years ago was it when the city’s traffic consultants made their determination relative to the widening of Business Highway 65 and the location of the roundabout impacting on the access to the Skaggs Emergency Room? Weren’t the people present assured that access to the hospital and particularly access to the emergency room had been addressed? Who was it from the hospital that spoke at the public meetings about the hospitals concerns regarding the potential impact of Branson Landing traffic on the access to the hospitals emergency room?

What priority has the City of Branson given to solving the problem that they are creating for the advancement of the new Branson? Out of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on the Branson Landing Project, how much has the City of Branson allocated to ensure that its citizens, visitors, and others needing access to the areas only emergency room have safe and efficient access to that emergency room?

Evidently not too much according to the comments made by Branson City Administrator Terry Dody, as reflected on the official minutes of the Dec. 12 meeting mentioned above. When asked by Taney County Commissioner Ron Herschend when the county could expect reimbursement for the approximately $2.3 million dollars that the city and hospital are trying to get the county to pay for the new road, Dody responded, “There is a list of prioritized projects including a master transportation plan and since this is not yet on the list, it would be 10 to 15 years before the city could reimburse the county.”

Is it possible that more planning, funding, and priority has been given to Branson Landing’s fountain by those governing the City of Branson than to insuring that access to the areas only emergency room is maintained? Just how much is the City of Branson paying for the construction of the fountain at Branson Landing? How much will the city be paying each year for fountain maintenance?

Especially, considering that the City of Branson has created the situation, is it unreasonable to expect it to give at least the same priority and funding as the fountain is getting from the city to help ensure that access to the areas only emergency room is maintained? To an Ole Seagull the answer is amazingly obvious.

On Nov. 24, 2004, the Missouri Ethics Commission filed a “Consent Order” in the case of the “Missouri Ethics Commission v. Rick Huffman.” In the order Huffman stipulated that there was probable cause to determine that he had violated subsection 130.031.8 of the Missouri Revised Statutes during the “2003 municipal election cycle.”

The “2003 municipal election cycle referred to, was the Branson municipal election for mayor and the board of aldermen. Specifically, the consent order states that he “published, circulated, or distributed printed matter relative to a candidate for public office but did not identify on the printed matter in a clear and conspicuous manner who paid for the printed matter with the words ‘Paid for by’ following the proper identification of who paid for the printed matter.”

“Seagull, was that the cartoon that was anonymously mailed out to everyone just before the election that a lot of people believed would determine the fate of Branson Landing and the convention center?”

“That’s the one.”

The consent order states that “Rick Huffman agrees that he will comply with all relevant sections of” Missouri’s election laws. It further states that Huffman “agrees to pay a fee of one thousand dollars…..to the Missouri Ethics Commission.”

“Hey Seagull isn’t Huffman one of the principals in the company that was hired by the city to develop Branson Landing

and build the convention center?”

“He sure is.”

“How much money is involved in the Branson Landing project?”

“The project is estimated to cost in excess of $300 million.”

“Wow, then there’s a pretty good chance that he will get his one thousand dollars back and then some.”

“Like, duh!”

In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, the actions of the Missouri Ethics Commission, in this case, serve as the poster child for the impotency of Missouri’s election laws. If this is the extent of the deterrent value of Missouri’s laws to ensure fair elections why bother? From a pure business expense point of view and potential reward risk ratio etc., who wouldn’t risk a thousand to save or gain millions?

Someone much wiser than an Ole Seagull once said, “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.” The sad thing is that, in terms of affecting the outcome of the election and the totality of the Branson Landing and the convention center, the printed matter that was distributed is “a very little thing” but the potential it bodes represents “much.”

Could this case, and what it represents, cause a reasonable person to wonder if there were other laws that were stretched or broken to get the Branson Landing project off the ground? Does it give pause to wonder if there is the possibility that other laws, building codes, etc. could be compromised or violated as the project is being built?

“Come on Seagull, we got the city enforcing their codes and ordinances, don’t we?”

“Sure and we had the Missouri Ethics Commission enforcing the states election laws.

“But, what they did was too little too late.”

“Bingo!”

A November 5, Washington Post article, entitled “It’s a Victory for People Like Us,” was about why Carey and Tara Leslie, the mother and father of three children, voted for George W. Bush as president. The article used the Leslies to illustrate the 77 percent of, “the millions of voters, who describe themselves as ‘white evangelicals,’” who voted for Bush and who “said that moral values was the single issue that mattered most to them.”

The article pointed out that, “They are precisely the people that the Bush campaign built its reelection strategy on.” The type of people “who would put faith-based moral values above every other consideration when it came time to vote, including the war in Iraq, terrorism, the economy and, in the Leslies’ case, a life that has been in financial peril since Sept. 11, 2001.”

“But Seagull why would millions of people vote for a President based on faith and moral values?”

“Fear of the moral direction that their nation is headed and the persistent and increasing pressures to remove all vestiges of their God and His spirit from public life and government.”

It was the one of the few opportunities, where the average citizen felt that they could be heard and do something to help reverse the downward moral spiral that our nation is in today. From the removal of prayer from our schools to the taking of “Christmas” out of Christmas they are frustrated with being offended in the name of offending someone else all under the banner of “constitutional rights” and being “politically correct.”

“Well, that’s all well and good but what does that have to do with Branson?”

“Branson’s future depends on the support of the same type of people who reelected George W. Bush as president.”

“Do you mean those ‘white evangelicals’ to whom moral values are the single issue that mattered most?”

“No, any Christian who gives moral values a high priority.”

The recent branding study conducted under the auspices of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and paid for by the City of Branson indicated that the strongest “identifier” people had with the “Branson brand” was values. Predicated in large part on “the character, personality and values of the Branson community” the study developed a marketing tool called “The Branson Promise.”

Although not the sole marketing tool that will attract the new visitors “The Branson Promise” is certainly a tool that will be used in that endeavor and one that the study says “Is the glue that holds the Branson experience together” for the “Loyals” who return to Branson.

Upon what is “the character, personality and values of the Branson community,” the “faith” referred to in “The Branson Promise,” and the “glue” that will make the visitors return to Branson based? An Ole Seagull would respectfully suggest that it is based on the same values that got George W. Bush reelected, the values of those who believe that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

“Isn’t that a little radical Seagull?”

“No, its Branson’s blessing.”

Interestingly enough, the article closed with Cary Leslie saying, “Jobs will come and go. But your character — you have to hang on to that, it’s what you’re defined by.” As Branson heads into 2005, an Ole Seagull would pray that it would hang on to its unique character and profess it to the world because it is what we are defined by, what makes Branson the unique place that it is.

“Now Seagull, you need to be careful. If we have gospel songs or hold the name of Christ up as part of our shows, say “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays” or take a stand against shows that have off color jokes, etc. we might offend someone.”

“No, they will offend themselves.”

The “Grinch” never came any closer to stealing the true meaning of Christmas than has being “politically correct.” In recent years the traditional Christmas greeting of “Merry Christmas” has been changed to the “politically correct” terminology of “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings.”

“But Seagull, you wouldn’t want to offend those who are celebrating Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, or something else would you?”

“What’s to offend unless someone is looking for a reason to be offended?”

To an Ole Seagull, it appears that if anyone should be offended it is the vast majority of Americans to whom the celebration of Christmas is so significant and special. Those who want to preserve the history and tradition of the “Christmas” that the U.S. Congress designated as a legal holiday on June 26, 1870.

What do “Happy Holidays,” and “Seasons Greetings,” have in common with “_ _ _ _ _ _ mas?” They leave “Christ” out. So what? What does Christ have to do with the celebration of Kwanza, Hanukkah, Santa Claus, presents, office parties, red nosed reindeer, decorating trees, wreaths, holly, sleigh bells, retail sales, booze, and feasting? Not much.

What does Christ have to do with CHRISTmas? Everything! Without Christ there can be no CHRISTmas. There can be a holiday, a season, festivals, and religious observations of every persuasion but, without Christ there can be no CHRISTmas, in either fact or spirit. One cannot even say or spell the word “CHRISTmas,” let alone explain its actual history, meaning or origins, as it is celebrated in the United States, without Christ.

The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia states that Christmas is “Christ’s Mass in the Christian calendar, the feast of the nativity of Jesus.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “Christmas” as “A Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus.” Jesus who? Jesus, the Christ Child, the only begotten Son of God, born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem over 2000 years ago.

First there was Jesus Christ and because of Christ there is the celebration of His birth, CHRISTmas. Secular customs and traditions have developed since; but, first there was Christ.

Even the greatest current secular symbol, the “Ho, Ho, Ho” jolly old Santa Claus seen everywhere during the Christmas season, was first made popular in New York during the 19^th century. And before that the European traditions of “Sinterklaas,” and Saint Nicholas can be traced back hundreds of years; but, first there was Christ.

Why, there are even some who would try to replace the bright guiding light of the Star of Bethlehem with the red glow of the nose of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” Rudolph’s nose has been guiding Santa’s sleigh since 1939 when Robert May wrote a verse for a Montgomery Ward promotional comic book. In the late 1940’s his brother-in-law adapted the verse and used it in the song “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer;” and the cowboy crooner, Gene Autry, made Rudolph famous but, first there was Christ.

When someone says “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings,” rather than “Merry Christmas,” those wanting to share the gift of CHRISTmas could ask, “What Holiday?” or “What Season?” What better way to create or reinforce an awareness of the “reason for the season,” that very first CHRISTmas when “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life?”

If we keep the spirit of the Christ Child and His love in our hearts and share it with others, CHRISTmas, in its truest sense, will be with us everyday of the year, Merry CHRISTmas folks, Merry CHRISTmas.

The Ole Seagull and the Groman Family would take this opportunity to wish you and yours a blessed Merry CHRISTmas.

In the perfect illustration of what could be too little too late, the Downtown Branson Main Street Association, DBMA, recently held “visioning meetings” to discuss what one newspaper reported as the desire of the downtown merchants “to keep up with the Joneses.” In this case the “Joneses” happen to be the Branson Landing project currently being constructed on the Lake Taneycomo Lakefront just the other side of the tracks from historic down town Branson.

“But Seagull isn’t Branson Landing part of historic downtown Branson?”

“How historic is “500,000 square feet of retail space (over 100 shops) and several marinas,” multi-story buildings, condominiums, and hotels being built on top of the 12 to 16 feet of fill that has been placed on top of the historic buildings and structures which were bulldozed to make way for their construction?”

Newspaper reports of the meeting reported that one of the reasons that “the members of the Downtown Branson Main Street Association are creating a new vision to revive the old sector” is “to ensure that those customers [Branson Landing’s] migrate uphill to the 311 businesses in the historic district.” The reality of the situation is that there is a Branson Landing project and an historic downtown Branson. Even as each business in town competes with each other for customers and the dollars they spend so too will historic downtown Branson be competing with Branson Landing in a similar manner.

If you were operating a shop or restaurant in Branson Landing, just how much effort would you put into encouraging your potential customers to “migrate uphill to the 311 businesses in the historic district?” How much sense does it make for a restaurant in Branson Landing to actively participate in anything that will have their potential customers leave the vicinity of their business and migrate up the hill to other restaurants to eat? An Ole Seagull would suggest that the answer to both of these questions is “Not much.”

And besides, on the typical Sunday or after 7 p.m. in the evening, what is there for visitors to historic downtown Branson to do? Outside of Dicks 5 and 10, what is it that would make someone want to either visit historic downtown Branson or “migrate uphill” from Branson Landing?

“Well got you there Seagull. Isn’t one of things they are ‘visioning’ about, the fact that “businesses need to stay open in the evening to attract younger visitors?”

“Visioning and doing are two different things.”

When the Ole Seagull was on the board of DBMA a few years ago Steve Hartley, of Dick’s 5 and 10, easily the biggest attraction in historic downtown Branson, encouraged downtown businesses to stay open later in the evenings and on Sundays like Dick’s did. Despite his excellent rational what was the response? Minimal at best and six years later the downtown businesses are still talking about the need to remain open past 7 p.m. because there is so little for people to do in the downtown in the evenings.

“But Seagull didn’t DBMA and its members actively support the Branson Landing Project including a large newspaper ad?”

“Yes, even to the extent of its Executive Director proclaiming ‘Yea! Yea!… It’s a “Wow!’ when the Branson Landing ground breaking was announced.”

“Are they masochists; what did the members of DBMA get for all their support?”

“Well the developers did announce that one of the themed districts within Branson landing will be called ‘Downtown.’”

An Ole Seagull would suggest that historic downtown Branson is a “dead man walking” if its vision is based on getting Branson Landing’s customers to migrate up the hill. Rather, it should be focused on having the customers of historic downtown Branson “migrating down the hill” and the financing, support, commitment, and dedication that it will take to make that happen.

“Do you see that happening?”

“If history is any indication, not really but in the words of Alexander Pope “Hope springs eternal in the human breast.

The Branson that has been attracting visitors and tourists for over a century is not the City of Branson. It is the “Branson” that created visitor expectations, enticed visitors to come to the Branson area for the fulfillment of those expectations, and then fulfilled them. Silver Dollar City pretty well sums it up when they say, “We create memories worth repeating.”

If history is any judge, a lot of those visitor expectations involve Branson’s unique history, traditions, folklore, and culture. Indeed, from before there was a City of Branson; these expectations have provided the very economic foundation upon which the City of Branson’s tourism based economy was built.

Most historical accounts attribute the major start of tourism in Branson with the publishing of Harold Bell Wright’s novel, “The Shepherd of the Hills,” in 1907. Thousands of tourists came to Branson with the expectation of walking where the book said the Shepherd walked, in an area located miles away from what was to become the City of Branson on April 1, 1912. Ironically enough, the very book that is credited with starting Branson’s tourism industry doesn’t even mention Branson.

Harold Bell Wright chronicled Ozarks history, legend, folklore, and tradition in his book. It was however, the vision, dedication, effort, and investment of those such as Pearl Spurlock, Lizzie McDaniel, the Trimble family, Gary Snadon, and Keith Furman in promoting and preserving the legacy of “The Shepherd of the Hills,” that it has so influenced tourism in the Branson area.

One of the area’s earliest tourist attractions, Marbel Cave, dates back to 1894. Located miles away from what was to become the City of Branson, the cave’s name was later changed to Marvel Cave. In 1949, Hugo Herschend leased Marvel Cave and some surrounding land, from its owners, the Lynch sisters, for 99 years. “But for” the efforts of the Lynch family and their recognition of the tourist potential of Marvel Cave would Branson’s biggest attraction, Silver Dollar City have come into existence?

Certainly not without the efforts of Hugo, Mary, Jack, and Peter Herschend who developed Silver Dollar City around Marvel Cave. “But for”, their vision, commitment to the area, marketing management skills, and investment there would have been no Silver Dollar City and the millions of visitors that it has attracted to Branson with the expectation that they would have experiences and memories worth remembering and repeating. Where would the City of Branson be today without Silver Dollar City and the millions of visitors that it has brought, and continues to bring, to “Branson?”

Branson’s first country music theatre on the now famous “Branson Strip,” was “Presleys’ Country Jubilee,” built in 1967, outside of the City of Branson on State Highway 76, by the Presley family. In 1968, the first show in the City of Branson, the “Baldknobber Jamboree,” with the Mabe family, decided to move out of the city to a location on the strip. Ever since, both shows have been meeting the expectations of Branson visitors for entertainment reflecting the Ozark areas values, culture, and traditions ever since.

“Seagull, are you saying that the one of the primary things that has made Branson what it is today is the history, traditions, folklore, and culture of our area?”

“Yes, what else was it that brought the millions of visitors to Branson that attracted the additional theatres, attractions, and developers, etc that subsequently came to Branson?”

Edward Gibbon, an 18th century British historian and the author of “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” said “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging of the future but by the past.” Branson never has been “everything to all people.” It has thrived on meeting or exceeding the expectations of its visitors for an Ozarks experience worth remembering and repeating.

Ere Branson “declines,” an Ole Seagull’s prayer would be that the lamp of past experience would light the way as Branson moves into the promise of its future.

Gary Groman, aka The Ole Seagull, is an independent columnist living in Hollister, MO. He may be contacted by selecting “Ole Seagull” from the drop down menu reached through the “Contact Us” hyperlink at “BransonCourrier.com” Click here to go to the Ole Seagull’s Blog at Ole Seagull.Com.

In a July column, entitled “One casino in Rockaway Beach does not a Las Vegas or Atlantic City make,” the Ole Seagull “bet that within a relatively short time after the August 3 vote on Amendment 1, whether it passes or not, that the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, the Branafia^*, and a lot of the others who are fighting Amendment 1 will try to get a one percent retail sales tax, that some call ‘The Chamber Tax,’ imposed on all those who shop in Branson. What will be the justification for this tax? Branson needs more money for marketing to bring more people to the Branson area.”

The term “Branafia” is a term that the Ole Seagull has semi affectionately concocted. He uses it to describe those families, businesses, and individuals who appear to exert a disproportionate amount of influence and control over the affairs of the Branson area and the quality of life of its citizens all the while maintaining an innate ability and desire to have others “pay” for the benefits that it receives.

“But Seagull, wasn’t it estimated that Amendment 1 and the casino it would have permitted in Rockaway Beach would have brought hundreds of thousands of new visitors to the Branson area?”

“That depends on whose estimates were used. Although the estimates ran from 500,000 to 1 million new visitor’s one thing is a good bet, more new visitors would have come to the Branson area if it had been approved than will come because it was defeated.”

If it wasn’t so ludicrous it would be funny. With one hand the Branafia actively worked against an attraction that would have brought hundreds of thousands of new visitors into the area even while they were getting ready to present the Branson community with the Christmas gift that just keeps on giving, a regurgitation of the one percent retail sales tax that some call the “Chamber Tax.” What’s the purpose of this tax? Its purpose is to provide funding for more marketing to bring more visitors to the Branson area.

“Whoa now Seagull, why would anyone want to bring more visitors to Branson?”

“What do you mean?”

“Didn’t the opponents to gambling in Rockaway Beach bring in experts that said that more visitors meant increased crime?”

“Hum, come to think of it they did but they must have been referring to another kind of visitor.”

“What kind of visitor is that, one who spends their money where they want them to?”

“That would be the percentage bet.”

Sometimes it seems as if the Branafia has eaten one Burger King too many. They appear to have a dominant belief that they can have what ever they want, their way, whenever they want it. For instance, the very law that authorizes the new tax provides relief from the tax, and perhaps even a windfall, to the very theatres, attractions and lodging establishments who will benefit most from the tax.

“Surely you jest Seagull. Are you saying that the Branafia developed a law that would impose up to a one percent retail sales tax on locals and visitors alike for things like clothes, school supplies, toys, diapers, and “Pampers” etc. while putting in a provision reducing their own liability for the same tax?”

“Not really, that’s what Section 67.1971 of the Missouri Revised Statues authorizing the tax says.”

If it stopped there it would be sad enough but it doesn’t. The Branafia designed the legislation for the tax so that the millions of dollars in tax proceeds it generates is administered and controlled by a board of other than elected officials. Even that wasn’t enough however because they designed the legislation to require that the tax proceeds for marketing be awarded, not to the entity and in a manner that can most effectively market Branson, but to a one “not-for-profit organization” described in the legislation.

“Seagull, does the reason some people call it the ‘Chamber Tax’ have anything to do with the organization described in the legislation that must get the tax proceeds or that has the authority to appoint more people to the board that will make the actual decision on who will get the tax proceeds than any other?”

“That was a rhetorical question, right?”

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, common sense dictates that something celebrated as “Thanksgiving Day” should be a “day” of “giving” “thanks.” How many times have you ever said “thanks” for something to “no one?” Generally, when we say “thanks” it is for something and the thanks is given to the person or entity believed to have provided that something.

Yet, even as some would take “Christ” out of Christmas so too would they take “giving” out of Thanksgiving. To whom are we giving thanks and for what? From Coronado’s 1541 Thanksgiving in Palo Duro Canyon, in what is now West Texas, through the 1600 Puritan Thanksgivings in New England, history testifies to the fact that our modern day Thanksgiving is based on giving thanks to God for blessings bestowed. One of the “First Thanksgiving Proclamations,” issued in 1676, by the Governing Council of Charlestown, Massachusetts proclaimed, “a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favor.”

On November 16, 1789, the First President of the United States, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation stating, “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.’”

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln, in his 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation said it best. “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things.They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

“It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”

Particularly at this time in our Nations history, it would seem appropriate, during our Thanksgiving celebrations, to stop and give “thanks” to Almighty God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon this Nation and its people. As Lincoln so beautifully said, “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things.They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God.”

Some say that Branson does not have enough money to market effectively and still others say that it is a matter of using the funds that are available in a more effective manner. For what it matters, an Ole Seagull would suggest that the amount of marketing money available for a unified coordinated marketing and promotional campaign to market Branson is totally insufficient to do so effectively. And, that’s the good news; the bad news is that even if there was enough money, based on past performance, there is a reasonable doubt that it would be used effectively.

“Whoa now Seagull, what do you base that on?” Well, as an example, let’s look at one of the most dynamic marketing tools to come along in the last one hundred years, the World Wide Web (WWW) of the internet. There were commercial Branson web sites promoting tourism in Branson on the internet by February of 1995. When did the agency receiving millions of dollars from the City of Branson for tourism marketing and promotional purposes finally have a web site up on the internet promoting tourism in Branson? Was it 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, or later?

Was it before or after, the majority of those providing the marketing expertise and advice to that organization had web sites on the internet and were using them to promote the businesses that they owned, worked for, or represented? If it was “after” does that say anything about either the priorities of those giving the marketing advice or that organizations ability to adapt and change in a timely manner?

“But Seagull, what about the much vaunted marketing expertise of those giving the marketing advice to that organization?” In his 63 plus years of life an Ole Seagull has learned that a person’s title, knowledge, ability, and the organization they work for is one thing and the results achieved in a given situation involving that person is another.

On October 26, Austin McGhie, representing the Sterling Group, the firm hired to conduct a branding study for the Branson Tri-Lakes Area made a presentation to the Branson Board of Aldermen. The study was commissioned by the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and CVB, the chamber, and paid for by the City of Branson. A chamber press release on the presentation quoted McGhie as having said, “Our research discovered that there is a Resistor group of people, who look like Branson’s current Loyal customers in ways such as lifestyle and demographics, but they are under the misguided perception that they know what Branson offers and that it’s just NOT for them.”

Some might wonder exactly what “misguided perceptions” people might have about Branson in the summer of 2004. A news article on the meeting, published in the October 29 edition of this paper reported, “Marketers say the tourist driven town of Branson must shake its image of out of date country music shows and overall-clad hillbillies to increase tourism in the city.”

“But Seagull, the need for Branson to change that very image has been common knowledge and discussed publicly for at least a decade. Hasn’t tens of millions of marketing dollars been spent over the last few years trying to change that image and bring more first time visitors to Branson?” Exactly the point and, regardless of who did it, what their expertise was, or how much has been spent, the chambers own study testifies as to the effectiveness of that marketing.

Isn’t the answer more money? Eventually, but for now an Ole Seagull would heartily endorse the recommendation of McGhie at the meeting when he said words to the effect that “If it cost ten dollars a person to get the message across spend ten dollars per person at one destination, get it right at that location, and then move on. Don’t spend two dollars at five different destinations and never get the message across because you are just wasting your money.”

What a refreshing concept, make sure your marketing strategy will accomplish what it is you want it to accomplish before you spend millions of dollars on advertising. In an Ole Seagulls opinion, Branson is running out of time to get it right. Those potential misguided first time visitors that Branson so vitally needs are saying to various destinations vying for their business, “Can you hear me now?” The destinations that hear them best and let them know it will get their business. Said another way, it all depends on whether or not, Branson, the town with “entertainment you can touch, entertainment that touches you” can “reach out and touch” them.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor and publisher of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Historian Lord Acton’s warned that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It applies to individuals, institutions, and governments and is as applicable today as it was when he said it in 1887. In terms of the United States of America, a government, “by the people and for the people,” that has stood as a bastion of freedom to the world, and is allegedly a democracy, one would not expect to find absolute power and the corruption it brings but, never the less, it is there.

Not only is it there but it is enabled by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This article establishes the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. It states, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

When most think of the words “power” and “corruption” in connection with government they immediately think of the type of corruption that involves those in power being paid money in exchange for political and other favors. Although that could happen within the federal judiciary it would probably be discovered and prosecuted. Unfortunately, the type of corruption that the federal judiciary is involved in, although it affects the very moral fabric and value system of our Nation, is so subtle and shrouded in the shadow of “Lady Justice” and the authority of the U.S. Constitution that it is hard to recognize and even harder to do anything about.

At its basic level the word “corrupt” can be defined as, “to ruin morally, to destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of,” or “to change the original form of” something. Interestingly enough, with the country divided on the issue of the war in Iraq and the economy, most are attributing Presidents Bush’s reelection on November 2 to his stands on conservative social values related to God, abortion, guns, and gays. It is a stand that appears to transcend geographic, social, and economic divisions while, at the same time, flying in the face of the corruption of some of those values by the federal judiciary, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court.

As an example, is it the legislative or executive branches of our government that is trying to remove any mention of God from government? Removed prayer from our schools? Prohibits nativity scenes or the mention of Christ or the story of His birth even as it pertains to the teaching of the meaning of Christmas? The answer is, “No,” it is the unelected and unaccountable federal judiciary. What is their basis for such actions? In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, a judicially invented doctrine called the “separation of church and state” based on the corruption of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by the federal judiciary.

Left uncorrupted, the language of the First Amendment, as is the case with the rest of the Bill of Rights is relatively simple and straightforward. It reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Does it take a legal Solomon to read and understand that the “Congress” referred to is the Congress of the United States not the legislature of a state, a school board, or a sports team that wants to have a prayer before a game?

Is it hard to understand the specific act that Congress may not do? Make a certain type of law. Is anyone aware of a law that congress has passed saying there must be prayer in school or that a high school cross country team must say a prayer before it competes or establishing a national religion? The Ole Seagull isn’t.

Do not most people understand what it means to “establish” something? How can any reasonable person make the transition from the actual wording of the First Amendment to the doctrine of the separation of church and state without changing the original wording of the amendment?

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective it simply can’t be done. The reason the Supreme Court, and its federal judiciary, gets away with what they do has nothing to do with reason or logic. It is because they are not elected, serve for life, and are without accountability to those they serve or anyone else on this earth. To an Ole Seagull it is it is the perfect example of what Lord Acton meant when he said, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor and publisher of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

One of the definitions of war is “an active struggle between competing entities.” One would be hard pressed to deny the reality of the active struggle going on between Branson and Hollister to attract “big box” stores like Target, Lowes, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, etc. to anchor retail developments in their respective areas. How about the struggle between Branson and the taxing entities that it wants to divert revenues from without their consent?

Branson Alderman Ron Huff has said that if the big boxes went to Hollister it would result in the loss of tax revenues and jobs to Branson, adversely affect Branson businesses in a manner similar to what happened when Lowes opened up in Hollister, and that there would be an impact of new families on the Branson school district regardless of where the big boxes went. From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, Huff is describing the reality of the situation and the reason why Branson declared war on Hollister by attacking it with a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) missile.

In terms of weapons Branson had two missiles developed and ready to use, the less powerful, Branson Single Tax Increment Financing Missile (BSTIF) and the more powerful Taney County Tax Increment Financing (TCTIF) missile. The less powerful BSTIF only had the destructive power of the taxes that the City of Branson imposed and derived no power from other taxing entities within the Taney County. The more powerful TCTIF had not only the destructive power of the taxes that the City of Branson imposed but the additional taxes diverted from other taxing entities within the county without their consent such as Taney County, the Branson school district, and others.

Branson realized that time was running out and that Hollister was about to get the big box stores because of, among other things, the combined efforts and investments of local developers in site preparation, improvements to Highway 65, and the fact that Lowes was already there. It appears that the tactical decision was made to declare war on Hollister through a preemptory strike using their most powerful missile, the Taney County Tax Increment Financing (TCTIF) missile.

And so far it appears that it has worked. If appearances and documents presented at recent public meetings recently accurately reflect the effect of the war so far, Branson has Target, Home Depot and possibly Wal-Mart surrounded and is about to capture them. In fact from an outsider’s perspective it appears that Hollister is ignoring the fact that it is involved in a war with Branson that could affect its very economic stability.

If the big boxes went to Branson wouldn’t it result in the loss of tax revenues and jobs to Hollister, adversely affect Hollister businesses, and impact on the Hollister School District as families who couldn’t afford housing in Branson located within the district? An Ole Seagull thinks so.

Aren’t Taney County, the Branson school district, and other Taney County taxing entities involved in an active struggle with Branson to protect their future tax revenues from Branson’s use in TIFs without their consent? To an Ole Seagull the answer seems obvious. Yet, it seems like Branson is going through Hollister, Taney County, the Branson school district and other taxing entities within Taney County quicker than Israel went through the Egyptian army during the Six Day War in 1967.

Although there might be moments of honor among warriors there is very seldom honor in war itself. In the final analysis, when the battles are over and the war decided, what was honorable and right is determined by the victors. Even on Halloween that’s a scary thought!

Historically, a lot of destination areas get a substantial part of the money used to market their destination from a room tax or surcharge on hotels and motels. It is commonly referred to as a “tourism tax” because the vast majority of it is paid by tourists, as opposed to local residents, and it is used to promote tourism. Although there are always exceptions to the general rule, typically, if this tax is expanded to other areas they are generally tourist specific such as tickets for attractions, shows, etc.

This acknowledges the reality of getting a tourism tax passed by the voters. It’s much easier to get voter approval if they are not paying the tax. A tourism tax on the lodging in hotels and motels is much easier to get approved than other tax proposals because most of those voting on it don’t use hotels and motels locally and won’t pay the tax.

There are some in Branson who would say, “Hold on Seagull, we have a tourism tax on meals purchased in restaurants.” Exactly the point, but it’s an exception to the general rule. That’s also why its rate is considerably less than the rate charged on lodging, shows, and attractions. Anyone want to take a bet on whether or not Branson’s tourism tax would have passed if it had contained a four percent tax on restaurant meals?

Unfortunately, 75 percent of the taxes collected from Branson’s current “tourism tax” must be used for infrastructure improvements, roads, water, sewers etc. Only 25 percent of the tax, on average, a little over $2 million per year, is available for marketing. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, no matter how efficiently it is spent, that is not nearly enough in today extremely competitive tourist environment.

A current Taco Bell ad to “think outside the box” is good advice, not only for eating but for coming up with innovative ideas to raise needed marketing funds. Branson’s idea of charging a tourism tax on restaurant meals is certainly innovative from a tourism tax point. In addition to sleeping, and all the other typical tourist activities that tourists do, they eat. That’s the good news. The bad news is that residents also eat out and have to pay the tax too. Where’s the good news for the residents? There’s a lot more tourists than there are residents.

Tomorrow morning two people, one a resident of Branson and one a tourist, each spend $5 for breakfast. If the tourism tax on food in restaurants was one percent, each would pay five cents for a total tax collected of ten cents. Insignificant by itself but, what if instead of just two people, 25 percent of the approximately six thousand residents living in Branson, decided to eat breakfast out and spend $5 each. That’s a little more significant because the total tourism tax collected would be $75 for the day.

How much more significant do things get if about 60 percent of the average daily visitors to Branson paid $5 each to eat breakfast? About 6.5 times more significant because it would result in a total tourism tax collection of $493 for the day. In this example, on this day, for every dollar of tourism tax that a resident of Branson pays “tourists” will invest 6.5 times as much.

Don’t most tourists shop? Isn’t shopping one of the big draws to Branson? What if there was a one percent tourism tax on the retail sales of most items except cars, boats, food and medicines? If each of Branson’s approximately six thousand residents spends $3 thousand per year on taxable items, the total tourism tax collected would be $180 thousand. On the other hand, if the average tourist spent $150 each, over $9 million in tourism taxes would be raised or about 50 times as much.

“Come on Seagull, statistics can be used to justify anything.” That’s true, but the reality is that there are many more tourists than residents and, exponentially, they are going to pay much more in sales taxes than the locals. It’s a reality that can be used to get the Branson area the marketing funds that it needs to effectively market all that Branson has to offer.

In that context, what is needed is a vehicle to insure that the proceeds of any such tax are used to market Branson, in the most efficient manner possible, for the good of all, by an entity that is directly appointed by and accountable to the voters through one or more elected government entities. To an Ole Seagull’s everlasting disappointment and continuing amazement, in spite of the long standing need for increased marketing funds, he has yet to see such a vehicle.

“Wallomet,” is a fictional name that the Ole Seagull has made up to avoid trade mark and other potential legal problems with four of the nation’s largest retailers. It is a composite of their names and for purposes of this column represents the “big box” type of retail store that America loves to shop in and the nations number two retailer.

Like most big boxes, Wallomet has a professional staff that determines the areas in which they would like to place stores. Wallomet has determined that they want to build a store in the Hollister/Branson area and, in this case, working with a developer, starts the process to make the store a reality.

Obviously, there are a myriad of facts and details that will impact on the process. However, there are two things that Wallomet is primarily concerned about. They want a location on a main traffic route that provides convenient access to their facility and to spend as little of their money as possible in building the store and getting it operational.

In the case of their Branson/Hollister location they are working with a developer who wants to locate them within a “power center” that will contain not only Wallomet but other big boxes that will complement them and provide a synergy that will draw other commercial retail development to the center. The developer comes back to Wallomet and says, “We have a choice of two locations, one in Branson Hills at the north end of Branson or one in the Southtown area in Hollister.”

The Branson location is located right off the areas main north south route, U.S. Highway 65, which, at that point, is a four lane highway with a multimillion dollar interchange and virtually no traffic congestion. The Hollister location is currently located on a congested two lane bottleneck of that highway with no interchange. That is about to change however because of a construction project has just started in Hollister that will extend the four lanes portion of the highway through Hollister and provide a modern multi million dollar interchange at the Hollister location. The project should be completed within two to three years.

As the process continues and comparisons are made between the potential Branson and Hollister locations it becomes obvious that the total site preparation costs for the development will be much cheaper in Hollister than in Branson. Indeed the difference is so great that it appears that the Wallomet is going to be built in Hollister. But wait; there’s another tool that both have available to them, Tax Increment Financing (TIF).

It’s kind of like driving a nail. Both a rock and a hammer will get the job done but it’s hard to ignore the efficiency of a hammer if one is available. Hollister, for what ever reason does not use a TIF. Branson, rather than just concede the Wallomet, its hundreds of jobs and millions in sales tax and other revenues to Hollister elected to use a TIF. The use of the TIF to reduce the site preparation costs tipped the balance in favor of Branson and the developer with which Wallomet was associated entered into negotiations with Branson to locate their store in the Branson Hills location.

From strictly a city of Branson point of view, what else where they supposed to do? The job of the city staff and the board of aldermen is to run the city of Branson, not the school board, county government, ambulance districts, other cities, etc.

If, in their opinion, the location of the Wallomet store in Hollister could have an adverse impact on the revenues necessary to operate the city, an impact that could grow exponentially as other big boxes and retail clustered around the Wallomet in Hollister, wouldn’t they be negligent if they didn’t use every tool available to get the Wallomet in Branson? In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, how they use that tool to craft something that best serves all involved is one thing but the use of the tool itself, in the case of the big box TIF at Branson Hills, is a no brainer.

Sometimes it seems that there’s nothing that the current city administration of Branson likes more than a good TIF (Tax Increment Financing). Branson currently has TIFs involved with Branson Meadows, Branson Landing, and Branson Hills with the distinct possibility of more in the future. It seems reasonable to believe that their use will continue to grow as investors and developers alike decide it is more prudent to risk someone else’s money rather than their own.

In its most idealistic sense, TIFs are supposed to be used to redevelop “blighted” areas where “but for” the use of the TIF such redevelopment wouldn’t take place. In practical application however, greedy developers, politicians, professional bureaucrats, and locally elected officials with “economic eyes” bigger than their stomachs have, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, prostituted the definition of “blighted” and the “but for” aspects of the TIF process to the point where they mean whatever those who want a TIF want them to mean. What’s the net result?

Vacant land and a vibrant busy downtown are declared “blighted.” Vacant land that has never been developed is “redeveloped.” As an example, is it reasonable to conclude, that with the new high school, recreation complex, Branson Landing, and the steady expansion of the city of Branson northward along the Highway 65 corridor, that development of that area will not take place “but for” the use of a TIF?

In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, in Branson Hills, as was the case on the Lake Taneycomo Lakefront, development was, is, and will take place without a TIF. Oh it won’t be as quick and grandiose as some would like but it will happen. And, when it does, it will happen without the potential loss in tax revenues it could bring to other taxing entities such as the Branson R-4 school district, county government, the ambulance district, and other entities that rely on real estate or sales tax for huge portions of their operating budgets.

One interesting aspect about a TIF is that it can be done without the approval or consent of other taxing entities affected by the TIF. As an example, the city of Branson can impose a TIF that could cost the Branson R-4 School District millions of dollars in real estate tax revenues without their consent. Of course, the developers, who will benefit from the TIF and others supporting it, will present their optimistic estimates but, what does the actuality of the Branson Meadows TIF indicate about relying on those estimates?

In an Ole Seagulls opinion, there is an excellent chance they will be wrong. Why? The whole TIF system is set up to neuter effective general public participation in favor of those seeking the TIF. The composition of the TIF commission, economic estimates predicting what will happen twenty years in the future, the legal fiction used to define a “blighted area,” the “but for” test, etc. are but a legalistic and bureaucratic “smoke and mirrors” TIF show.

The TIF show is designed, controlled, and manipulated to insure that those wanting a particular TIF get it. It creates the illusion that the public actually participated in the process in an effective manner while at the same time insuring that there is no current test or bench mark that they can use to easily and conveniently evaluate whether or not a TIF should be authorized for any given project.

How about using the Ole Seagull’s “but for” test as a starting point. “But for” the willingness of the city of Branson, or any other city or government entity seeking to authorize a TIF, to exempt all school districts, county governments, and other taxing entities from the TIF, a TIF will not be authorized. It doesn’t get much simpler, no exemption for other taxing entities, no TIF.

Will that stop TIFs? No, that’s not what is intended. It will however, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, mitigate the number of TIFs, the size of their indebtedness, and place the entire risk where it belongs, on the backs of those who seek, control, and authorize TIFs. At the same time it will provide the public with a simple initial bench mark for use in determining the appropriateness of a TIF for a particular project.

Nixon and “Watergate” – is this Branson’s “Treegate?”

As the Ole Seagull read the letter of Branson City Administrator Terry Dody, appearing in the September 29 edition of the Branson Daily Independent, he was reminded of what Abraham Lincoln once said, “If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.” An Ole Seagull would paraphrase Mr. Lincoln, in terms of Dody’s letter and public comments, by saying “If hundreds of public columns don’t testify as to the integrity of the opinions they contain, responding to Dody’s personal attacks on that integrity would make no difference.”

It appears that Dody takes issue with two recent “columns regarding the cutting down of a tree in front of a restaurant in downtown Branson.” The first was entitled, “Score: Birds and Trees, 10 – City of Branson, DBMA, and Downtown Restaurants, 0” and the second, “In Cold Sap – a story of better government through communications?” Both can be found, on the internet, at https://bransoncourier.com/ under “Editorials.”

The Ole Seagull believes that a review of those columns will indicate that the first column was written before the tree was cut down and that the core issue, of both columns, wasn’t the “cutting down of a tree.” Rather, it was the unresponsive, dismissive, and unprofessional response of Don D. Stephens, director of planning and development, for the City of Branson, in his August 24 letter of response to the letter of Jo Anne Lund of Jimmy Jet’s Grill, dated August 11. Unfortunately, for all of us, Stephens’ letter was, in the Ole Seagulls opinion, the primary causal factor of the trees demise and all the “sap” flowing from it.

Dody, as only he can do, graciously shares his opinion that “Mr. Groman unfortunately tries to sensationalize the issue and to state his opinion and one-sided knowledge of the issue as fact.” To the “charge” of stating his “opinion” an Ole Seagull would simply say, “Isn’t that exactly what columnists are supposed to do?” One could not help but notice that, although his letter “spins” on and on, Dody doesn’t cite one occurrence of where he alleges that any of the factual information presented, one sided or otherwise, was inaccurate, unfair, or failed to substantiate the conclusions contained in the columns.

Instead, he appears to use the standard bureaucratic tactics of spin and diversion in an apparent effort to shift the focus to a peripheral issue, “the cutting down of a tree.” This appears to be an attempt to cover up the real issue which caused the trees demise, the documented unresponsive, dismissive, and unprofessional manner in which the City’s director of planning and development, responded to a legitimate request for assistance and guidance from a Branson business. Dody delivers a paragraph long apologetic in an attempt to explain what Stephens was conveying in his August 24 response to Ms. Lund’s letter. If it takes the City Administrator to explain what Stephens meant in his letter, 30 days after he sent it, imagine how confused Ms. Lund was when she got it on August 25.

After receipt of Stephens’ letter, in light of the continued confusion it caused, and prior to the tree being cut down, Ms. Lund contacted the city forester on August 25. According to Dody’s letter, during that conversation, “She was again informed that the tree belonged to the city.” Put in its kindest light, and to paraphrase Dody’s letter, “readers should be aware of the distinct possibility that not all information provided by Dody is correct.”

The following excerpt, from a transcript of a tape of the August 25 conversation between Lund and the city forester, indicates that Dody appears to “be a fountain bubbling over with misinformation” regarding what Ms. Lund was told by the city forester on that date. Does the excerpt indicate that Ms. Lund was “again informed that the tree belonged to the city,” as Dody said, or just the opposite?

Excerpt:

Lund: Well how can it if I don’t own the tree? That’s what I’m trying to get to-

City Forester: DBBA [Downtown Branson Main Street Association] does. And since they own the tree, you’re not allowed at, anybody, I mean, just because you don’t own the tree, doesn’t mean – that’s the ordinance that it falls under -and you’re asking to cut it down yet you don’t own it. Um-

Could it have been a Freudian slip when Dody wrote about taking “potshots with incorrect or incomplete information and presenting them as facts to an unsuspecting readership?” It’s becoming very clear who “may want to minimize this issue by distorting and obscuring the real issue,” the city’s unprofessional handling of this matter, even as “the fact remains that someone knowingly, willfully,” and unprofessionally is attempting to cover it up. Anyone want to guess who? All together now, can we say “Treegate?”

What set of circumstances could cause three mild mannered sisters, trying to make a success of the restaurant they purchased late last fall, to stand accused of having murdered, with chainsaw buzzing and chips a flying, the now famous “Jimmy Jet’s Tree,” in violation of Section 295.100 of the Branson City Code? Their alleged dastardly deed has caused some to dub them the “Olson Sisters Chainsaw Gang” and there is even a rumor that a book entitled, “In Cold Sap” will be published soon. Can a movie be far behind?

If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny but the thing to remember is that although it is the Olson sisters and Jimmy Jet’s Grill today, it could be you or your business tomorrow. How could you end up in this same situation? The same way the Olson sisters did, by simply relying on what the city communicated to you.

The Olson sisters purchased Jimmy Jet’s Grill, in historic downtown Branson, in the late fall of 2003. Although the tree had been there when they purchased the business they had failed to realize just how important signage is to those businesses located south of downtown Branson’s, “great divide,” Pacific Street, and the potential health hazards posed by the tree being so close to their front door. As these problems began to manifest themselves the sisters decided to see what could be done to get the tree removed.

An obvious first step was to go to City for assistance and information upon which to base a course of action. After at least three trips to City Hall and the expenditure of “an enormous amount of time and energy” with the city’s planning and development department, on August 11, the sisters sent a letter, via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, to Don D. Stephens, director of planning and development for the City of Branson.

It very professionally communicated their concerns and asked Stephens to confirm four specific items, “1) That your office intends to resolve the matter within a reasonable amount of time and what that timeframe is; 2) That we will be notified in a timely manner when a resolution is reached; 3) Your assurances that there are no administrative steps or procedures required by us to facilitate the removal of the tree ) i.e. appeals, variance requests, hearings, etc.); and 4) Which ordinance specifically prevents the removal of the tree.”

Stephens responded in his letter dated August 24. The letter said, “Because the landscaping in downtown Branson was an area project, your concerns should be directed to the Downtown Branson Main Street Association (DBMA).” It specifically told the Olson sisters that “The ultimate solution to your concerns falls under the immediate discretion of DBMA.”

Further, the city’s letter contained no mention of Section 295.100 of the Branson City Code or any other ordinance prohibiting the removal of trees. Most telling however is the way the letter ended with the communication that “If you have any further questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact Gayla Roten, DBMA, at (417) 334-1548” and absolutely no indication that the city had any further concern or involvement in the matter.

Among other communications with DBMA, after the letter was received from the city, a DBMA spokesperson, on or about August 26, is alleged to have said, in front of at least two witnesses, at a local downtown business, words to the effect that they would be inclined to look the other way if the tree was cut down. According to the citation issued by the Branson Police Department, charging the Olson sisters with a violation of Section 295.100 of the Branson City Code, the tree was “cut down and removed” on or about August 29.

In the lobby of Branson’s Planning & Development office is a series of three posters describing how the city should serve its customers. “A firm commitment to honesty, integrity, and fairness,” says one; another says “Noted for serving customers with excellence and professionalism.” A third rounds out the theme by saying, “Better government through communications.”

How much excellence, professionalism, honesty, integrity, fairness, would it have taken the city, in their August 24 letter, to have answered the questions the Olson sisters asked in their letter, particularly the one relative to which ordinance specifically prevented the removal of the tree? Instead the city referred them to a non governmental entity for “the ultimate solution to your [their] concerns.” With all the effort the Olson sisters had made to resolve this issue with the city prior to the receipt of the city’s letter can any reasonable person really believe that “but for” the city’s letter of August 24 that the Jimmy Jet’s Tree would still be standing?

If the city’s handling of this situation illustrates what they mean by “Better government through communications” it does not bode well for the small businesses of Branson. The good news is that they still have the chance to do what is fair, professional, and honest in this case. The only question remaining is, “Will they?”

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Each day the students and staff traveling to the Branson High School are exposed to a “time bomb” that is ticking down. When, not if, it finally goes off we will all grieve and mourn our loss, wring our hands, and, incredulously, knowingly shake our heads and say, “Well it finally happened, maybe now someone will do something about it.” The sad thing is that those having the power to either diffuse the time bomb or mitigate the effects of its explosion are well aware of its existence and are simply, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, failing to take the appropriate actions to eliminate or control the threat.

What is the “time bomb?” It is the unsafe conditions that exist on Buchanan Road and in, what the Ole Seagull refers to as, the “Corridor.” The corridor is the area running west from the southeast frontage road, located immediately east of the northbound exit ramp from Highway 65 at Highway F, west to the southwest frontage road located immediately to the west of the south bound Highway F entrance ramp to Highway 65.

How does one know they are unsafe? Just drive them! Drive Buchanan Road from the high school to Highway 248 as the Ole Seagull did this week.Observe first hand the narrowness of the road, its sharp curves, steep drop offs, virtually non existent shoulders, lack of guard rails, and the danger posed by its intersection with Highway 248. In an Ole Seagulls opinion, from a safety perspective it’s just a matter of when the next accident is going to occur, how serious the injury will be, and when one of them will be fatal.

Drive up the northbound exit ramp from Highway 65 to Highway F at the height of the morning “school rush.” Or, more appropriately, creep up the ramp because there will be a large traffic backup waiting to enter the corridor which, at times, extends down the ramp and back out onto the lanes of Highway 65 itself. To enter the corridor each driver must make a left hand turn to the west as they cross three lanes of traffic, with two of the lanes containing traffic approaching from opposite directions at a posted limit of 45 miles per hour. Like Buchanan Road, it too is just a matter of when the next accident is going to occur, how serious the injury will be, and when one of them will be fatal.

Even as this is being written the time bomb is ticking and time is crucial. Who can do the most, in the quickest way, to buy time while an effective solution is found? From an Ole Seagulls perspective, in order, it is the parents, the students and staff members that drive to and from the high school, and the Taney County Commission.

Some might say, “What about the school board and school administration?” It’s an Ole Seagulls opinion that their primary mission and authority is to educate our children not build or maintain public highways and roads or control the traffic traveling on them. At the very least, they are not the ones that can do the most the quickest.

That responsibility falls first squarely on the parents who must take whatever steps are necessary to insure that their teenage driver(s) do not use Buchanan Road, between Highway 248 and the high school. Obviously the next step is for those driving to and from the high school, be it students, faculty or parents to avoid Buchanan Road, between Highway 248 and the high school. Next would be the commitment of those driving to school, from the south on Highway 65, to patiently wait to turn west off the Highway 65 Highway F exit ramp and, once the turn has been made, their further commitment to drive, from that point, cautiously and in compliance with all posted speed limits and other traffic regulations.

The County Commissioners have control over F Highway and Buchanan Road. Outside of the parents and drivers themselves, they are in the best position to provide a temporary quick fix to mitigate the situation until a more effective solution is found and take the lead in coming up with such a solution.

In an Ole Seagulls opinion, at a minimum, this temporary quick fix should include the immediate assignment of a traffic control officer at the junction of the northbound exit ramp from Highway 65 at Highway F during the morning school rush hour, the installation of appropriate guard rails on Buchanan Road, particularly at its intersection with Highway 248, and the establishment of a “blue ribbon” committee, appointed by the commission, consisting of all the parties necessary to reach a permanent solution of the problem with a 30 day deadline to recommend its solution.

The Ole Seagull realizes full well that there are those who will say that this proposal is too simplistic and that much more study must be done before any action can be taken. From an Ole Seagull’s perspective he must handle the complex, if at all, in simple, understandable, manageable, and prioritized parts. He will leave it to others more qualified to add the complexity and excuses but meanwhile the time bomb is ticking, tick, tick, tick….

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

On August 23 the Springfield News Leader published an “Our View” piece entitled, “Rockaway citizens deserve better than silly, half-baked ideas.” Sadly however, while ridiculing the specific ideas presented at a recent meeting between the Taney County Commission and Rockaway Beach, the unnamed editorial gurus who wrote the piece didn’t suggest any ideas, let alone one, that in their opinion, was a better idea or met what they allege is the “key” to what Rockaway needs.

The last paragraph of the piece said that the “ideas all missed the need for full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal. And that’s unfortunate because Rockaway citizens are still enamored with the idea of a casino, a bad fit for the Ozarks. There are better answers. The key is to help Rockaway find them, not to draw laughs with outlandish proposals.”

Well golly gee whiz, so the key is to help Rockaway Beach find “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal.” An Ole Seagull would suggest one additional criterion, the “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal” should also be “good paying.” Let’s go up the road, about 18 minutes and 11, miles to our area’s economic epicenter, the city of Branson. Surely its economy is based on a foundation of good paying “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal.” Isn’t it?

Not really. Doesn’t history testify to the fact that the economic engine driving Branson is a cyclic tourism based engine? Are the majority of the jobs that are vital and necessary to drive and service that engine good paying “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal?” Isn’t the basic cycle the same today, as it has been for decades, people work during the “tourist season,” for relatively low wages, minimal or no benefits, and, when the season is over, collect unemployment during the off season?

Now hold on Seagull, there are lots of people making big money in Branson, and many more who have good paying “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal. True enough but how much of that “good money” and how many of those jobs are not dependent on Branson’s tourism driven economic engine? An economic engine fueled by the labors of those who do not have good paying “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal.”

Are there not seemingly daily reports of the increasing national trend of employers to “outsource” and otherwise take advantage of the cheaper labor outside of the United States? Is it any different in Missouri and particularly in southwest Missouri? In an Ole Seagulls opinion, that in conjunction with our areas topography, weather, and tourism based economy create an environment where the opportunities for good paying, “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal” will be few and far between.

Absent one of those “few and far between” opportunities “the Lord and the twelve apostles” could have walked into that meeting with ideas and ended up with the same result. Why? Because, according to the piece, “Rockaway citizens are still enamored with the idea of a casino, a bad fit for the Ozarks.”

And why shouldn’t they be “enamored?” Given the economic base and the job market in the Ozarks can anyone realistically name another idea that has near the same potential of providing good paying “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal” as that provided by casino entertainment in Rockaway Beach?

An added advantage with casino entertainment is that Branson doesn’t want it. Does anyone really think that if an opportunity presented itself that provided 500 to 1,000 good paying, “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal,” particularly one that could generate between 300,000 to 800,000 new tourists a year, that Branson, the economic “pac man” of our area, wouldn’t do everything in its power to “gobble it up.” Need one look any farther than the Branson TIF for Branson Hills to see what happens when Branson wants the same thing that its neighbors want?

It’s enough to cause an Ole Seagull to wonder if maybe the piece wasn’t right when it said, that “the idea of a casino” is “a bad fit for the Ozarks.” After all, a casino would provide good paying, “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal.” Wouldn’t that be “a bad fit for the Ozarks” because it would increase the cost of the “fuel” that drives Branson’s economic engine?

But Seagull, does everything have to revolve around what Branson’ wants? With that type of rationale what hopes are there for good paying, full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal? To quote the old song, “The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind.” Just don’t be standing “downwind” when it blows in.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

The other day as the Ole Seagull was sipping his coffee in a local restaurant, located in beautiful historic downtown Branson, he noticed one of the owners picking something up off the floor that looked like a bird feather. When asked about it, the owner said that they are constantly sweeping the restaurant and picking up feathers blowing in the door because of bird activity in the Bradford Pear tree located not ten feet from their front door. She also pointed out that when “bird droppings” from downtown trees are bad that people walk through them and then track them, not only into their restaurant but into other businesses and restaurants in the downtown area.

As one makes their choice of where to eat, how appetizing is it to think of a feather from a “birds tail section” or bird dung dust either drifting across your table before or as you are eating? Flitting across serving and other food preparation surfaces within the restaurant? Think of how ones culinary experience would be enhanced as a bird feather gently drifts down and settles in the middle of the yolk of your sunny side up eggs.

The Ole Seagull asked why they couldn’t do something to get the tree taken down. One of the owners said, “We have been trying but we are getting the runaround from the City and DBMA (Downtown Branson Main Street Association).” As a way of explanation she gave the Ole Seagull two letters to read. The first was dated August 11 and sent Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Don. D. Stephens, director of planning and development for the City of Branson.

It very concisely and politely asked Stephens to confirm, within seven days, four specific items, “1) That your office intends to resolve the matter within a reasonable amount of time and what that timeframe is; 2) That we will be notified in a timely manner when a resolution is reached; 3) Your assurances that there are no administrative steps or procedures required by us to facilitate the removal of the tree ) i.e. appeals, variance requests, hearings, etc.); and 4) Which ordinance specifically prevents the removal of the tree.” Stephens responded on August 24.

As the Ole Seagull read Stephen’s reply he was astounded to read “Because the landscaping in downtown Branson was an area project, your concerns should be directed to the Downtown Branson Main Street Association (DBMA)” and the verbiage “The ultimate solution to your concerns falls under the immediate discretion of DBMA.” Since when has DBMA been a part of city government? Health issues aside, why would the director of Branson planning and development and the City of Branson not take the trouble to immediately consider the concerns of one of their newest businesses, purchased in the fall of 2003, and help them resolve the issue?

The Ole Seagull talked with Gayla Roten, the director of DBMA, who said words to the effect that “DBMA did work with the City on a downtown improvement project years ago and is seeking to work with them currently on a new ‘Cityscape Project’ to tie the downtown in with the Branson Landing but that DBMA has no direct control over the trees. They are city owned, maintained, and located on city property controlled by the city.” She also pointed out that DBMA was fined by the city once because they trimmed them.

So now the circle is completed, the city to DBMA and DBMA back to the city with a local business, having a business and potential health problem in the middle. Do we all sit around, hold hands, and sing “kumbaya” or is someone going to step up and address the problem?

To an Ole Seagull the answer is as simple as the city permitting those businesses desiring the removal of the trees, that the city mistakenly planted about 12 years ago, to request their immediate removal by the City. Hopefully before any potential health problem manifests itself in a downtown restaurant. It might also be appropriate to incorporate the lessons that should have been learned from the previous project into the planning for the new Cityscape Project currently under consideration. Hum, another thought just came to mind. With Stephen’s letter in hand, why not just let the wood chips fly where they may?

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000. (Sap)

Seagull Musings Column for August 22, 2004

The August 18 edition of the Taney County Times reported that “Taney County Commissioners voted Monday to ask the Tourism Community Enhancement District Board of Directors to dissolve itself.” The article went on to quote Western District Commissioner, Ron Herschend as saying, “We can’t force them but we can ask them to dissolve. This hasn’t been very productive and I believe we need a different vehicle to address the issue.” The “issue,” in the Ole Seagull’s opinion, is the generation of more marketing funds to competitively market Branson.

Unfortunately, the “vehicle,” the legislation establishing the authority for the Tourism Community Enhancement District (the District) and it’s up to one percent retail sales tax to be used for the marketing of Branson, has, from “day one,” been so flawed that it has become as much of an “issue” as the tax itself. So much so that the very Commissioner who cast one of the two votes setting up the District now asks them to dissolve themselves because he believes “we need a different vehicle to address the issue.” Why?

An email received from, Kent Turner, the current Chairman of the allegedly independent Tourism Community Enhancement District Board of Directors (the Board) on August 19 can help illustrate “why.” It starts out by stating “I [Turner]called Chip today to see if his group is in a position to attend a commission meeting with us on Aug. 30 and give a report on their activities over the last several months.”

Now the Ole Seagull just has to believe that the “Chip” being referred to is the same “Chip Mason,” who works with Peter F. Herschend at an office in Corporate Place just north of Branson. “Seagull, do you think that he is being paid by someone for his work?” “Sure.” “Is there just the slightest chance that Peter F. Herschend is involved with that payment?” “Surely that’s a rhetorical question, right?”

The Ole Seagull serves as a member of the Tourism Community Enhancement District Marketing Advisory Committee and has attended the vast majority of the Boards meetings. The Boards rhetoric and posturing of independence aside, its actions, or rather, failure to act, over the last three years speak volumes about its actual independence. Why is the Chairman of the Board going to “Chip” and “his group?” Has “Chip” and “his group” made any public presentations to the Board or otherwise been authorized or empowered by the Board or its chairman? If they have, the Ole Seagull hasn’t witnessed it.

In any event, Turner continues, “He [Chip] said they have [had] a meeting about this the previous week and he should have up-to-date info for us and the commission. I then called the commission to see if they have room for us on their agenda on Monday, August 30.” Now that boggles an Ole Seagulls mind.

How can the Chairman of the allegedly independent Tourism Community Enhancement District Board of Directors base the scheduling of a Board meeting with the County Commissioners on whether or not “Chip” and “his group” can “give a report on their activities over the last several months?” Shouldn’t such a meeting be based on the “public record” of what the Board has, or has not, done over the last few months rather than what “Chip” and “his group” did?

Should not such participation on the part of “Chip” and “his group,” or any other group, be based on information that they had presented to the full Board on the public record, so that the entire Board could have evaluated it and participated in the decision? Why the apparently unilateral decision on the part of the Boards chairman to contact “Chip” now?” Unfortunately, it appears to represent the type of “independence” that was built into the “vehicle” by those that participated in its dubious origin and why a “new vehicle” is needed.

Sadly, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, it is telling that for over two and one half years after the “Chamber Tax was defeated at the polls, the power and political clout of this community was not used to get legislation through the legislature to specifically fix the obvious defects in the “Chamber Tax” vehicle. It’s sad because it appears that the “Secret Handshake Clique,” Branafia, “Chip and his group” or whatever one chooses to call them would, ironically, be willing to “gamble” the marketing funds that Branson needs on getting “their tax their way.”

“Seagull, are you saying that it’s either “My way or the highway?” “No, of course not, what the situation appears to represent is a situation where some one in the background is saying ‘It’s my way or the Highway, I own the Highway, and Chip and his group will take it from here!’” “But the Board is independent.” “Yeah sure, and Branson Landing is going to be a ‘world class attraction.’”

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for August 15, 2004

Can anyone reasonably deny that, from a “family “friendly” perspective,” alcohol, exponentially, causes more problems within families and kills more people than casino entertainment? Yet, “family friendly” Branson, although it railed against the alleged problems that casino entertainment in Rockaway Beach would cause families, has virtually ignored the expansion of the serving of intoxicating liquors into its traditional family friendly and alcohol free theatres and attractions.

The Ole Seagull has received email and other communications saying that the regulation of alcohol by the city of Branson is a moot point because only the state can regulate the sale of alcohol. Abraham Lincoln was once said to have been asked the question, “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?”He answered, “Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

Can the city of Branson “make and enforce ordinances for the regulation and control of the sale of all intoxicating liquors within its limits” if the City Attorney says that “alcohol is regulated exclusively by the state?” The answer is “Yes.” The City Attorney saying that “alcohol is regulated exclusively by the state” doesn’t make it the law.

The issue isn’t whether or not there should be expanded regulation. That is something between the community and those elected to represent it. Rather, it is an issue of whether or not the community even gets to discuss such expansion in a meaningful way with their elected representatives. How can that happen if both the people and their elected representatives are operating under an erroneous assumption?

As an example, at the August 25, 2003, “Regular Meeting” of the Branson Board of Aldermen, there was a discussion of a pending “resolution” on family values. A citizen inquired as to how the City could issue a resolution against gambling, controlled by the State, but not against the serving of alcohol in theaters. City Attorney Dan Wichmer said words to the effect of, “Since it’s not taking place in Branson [the gambling] the Board of Aldermen stated its opposition. On this resolution, because alcohol is regulated exclusively by the state there is nothing you could do about that topic in the resolution.”

A “resolution” is not an “ordinance” and could be used by the Branson Board of Aldermen to express their concerns about the expansion of the serving of intoxicating liquors into Branson’s traditionally family friendly alcohol free theatres and attractions even if intoxicating liquors were regulated exclusively by the state. That aside however, Section 311.220 of Missouri’s Liquor Control Law specifically authorizes cities to “make and enforce ordinances for the regulation and control of the sale of all intoxicating liquors within their limits.”

The very first time the Ole Seagull called the state Liquor Control Board, the person he talked with, Steve Shimmers, referred him to a 2001, Missouri Supreme Court case, “State of Missouri, Respondent v. Entertainment Ventures I, Inc.” In this case the Missouri’s Supreme Court specifically stated, “The state’s authority to issue a resort license does not deprive an incorporated city of the authority to license the sale of liquor.” The opinion went on to say, “Put simply, the two sections are not contrary to or inconsistent with each other. Indeed, the two sections are entirely compatible and are part of a complementary system of state and local regulation of businesses that sell intoxicating liquor.”

Whether or not Branson chooses to exercise the authority given to it by statute and acknowledged by Missouri’s Supreme Court is one thing but having that authority is a matter of law. That said, an Ole Seagull questions whether one hundredth of the effort will be put into stopping the expansion of the serving of intoxicating liquors into Branson’s traditionally family friendly alcohol free theatres and attractions over the next few months as was put into keeping casino entertainment out of Rockaway Beach? The effort that will soon be made to foist a one percent retail sales tax, that some call the “chamber tax,” on the majority of the taxpayers of Branson and Taney County to be used to market Branson? Sadly, if history is any guide, probably not.

For those interested the Ole Seagull has posted the applicable Liquor Control Laws and Supreme Court decision cited above on the Branson Courier web site at www.bransoncourier.com. Just click on “Research” from the menu choices on the left then on “Missouri Law & Supreme Court Case- ability of cities to regulate the sale of alcohol.”

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

The Ole Seagull has the pleasure of attending a men’s prayer meeting every Tuesday morning. Among other things, the group has been praying that “Gods perfect will be done” as regards the Rockaway Beach casino and the sanctity of marriage issues that were on the August 3 ballot. “Wait a minute Seagull, with your views on the casino in Rockaway Beach, they still let you in?” “Sure, all who want to pray, even an Ole Seagull, are welcome.”

With this group of men, it’s not the one being right over another, where they go to church or don’t, how they might individually feel about an issue, political or social standing within the community, or the political/economic aspects of an issue that matters. What matters is that they care enough about their God, each other, and their community to humbly gather together each week and ask His blessing on each other, their families, their community, and the issues that they face together.

In any event, on the night of August 3, although perhaps not in the manner that some had hoped, prayers were answered. “Come on Seagull, prayers “schmayers,” wasn’t it Peter Herschend who defeated it!” “Not really. He provided the clout, funding, and brilliant leadership without which an effective campaign against Amendment 1 could not have been waged.” But, an Ole Seagull would suggest that, in the final analysis, without two things happening, one of which was not only beyond the control of the opponents to Amendment 1 but controlled entirely by its proponents, the results, in all likelihood, would have been radically different.

The first was the choice of the ballot language that the proponents of Amendment 1 chose. In October of 2003 and again June of 2004, the Ole Seagull wrote, “Unfortunately for Rockaway Beach’s casino gambling hopes, the petition itself provides the very ammunition that those opposing a casino in Rockaway Beach could use to attempt to shoot their casino down. Is it much?No, but it could be enough to make a ‘decent bet’ into a bet that is ‘at best, even money.’” In the June 2004 column he added, “the ‘at best’ scenario might be overly optimistic.”

The Ole Seagull will never forget his amazement the first time he “read” the Initiative Petition for Amendment 1 in October of 2003. As he read the provision providing for “gambling facilities,” plural instead of singular as in “One,” multiple issues in the Petition, and its verbiage relating to “priority school” funding he thought, “Wow, does this give the opposition ammunition that they shouldn’t have.” Although the opposition never zeroed in on the fact that the very Amendment itself authorized more than one gambling facility, the multiple issues on the Initiative was raised in the judicial challenge, and the priority schools issue, which finally surfaced in the final weeks of the campaign, was, in the Ole Seagulls opinion, a major factor in the defeat of Amendment 1.

How major? In an article in the August 4 edition of the Springfield News Leader it was reported that both Robert Low, a partner in the proposed Rockaway Beach Casino, and casino opponent, Peter Herschend, said, that “the education component of the initiative may have been the weak point.” In what could be the understatement of the year, Low is reported to have said, “I think the school issue hurt us.”

The second element was when Amendment 2, defining “marriage,” was placed on the same ballot as Amendment 1. In an Ole Seagulls opinion, when the extraneous verbiage of the Amendment 1 was combined with Amendment 2 being on the same ballot all the elements of a “perfect defeat” were in place.

How differently might this election had turned out if the Petition had simply read, “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to authorize a floating gambling facility on or adjacent to the White River in Rockaway Beach Missouri” or if Amendment 2 had not been on the same ballot. Why did the proponents include the extra language? How did Amendment 2 end up on the same ballot? Is it totally inappropriate to suggest that God works His perfect will according to his timing for His purposes?

“Hold on there Seagull, I thought that you supported a single casino in Rockaway Beach?” “Sure did and do, but, if it is to come, it will come in God’s way and time or, not at all.” “Do you think that a casino in Rockaway Beach is dead?” Not if Robert Low really meant what he said, that the fight’s not over and that “If you are right, you fight.” “But is it a fight that is right and one that can be won?” For a lot of reasons an Ole Seagull believes that it is a fight that is right and can be won.” After all, isn’t it a good bet that God works His perfect will according to His timing for His purposes.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Mussings Column for August 4, 2004

Recently, as the Ole Seagull entered a local church he was handed a church bulletin for the service. One of the items stuffed in the bulletin was a “muck sheet” announcing, in bold type, that “The word of God is clear about gambling violating many scriptural themes.” As the Ole Seagull read the “muck sheet” he thought to himself, “The people that wrote this are either intentionally trying to deceive people or are reading a different ‘word of God’ than he was reading.”

In the Ole Seagull’s research regarding the scriptures and gambling he didn’t find anything specifically declaring gambling a sin, prohibiting it or warning against it. Not so with adultery (Matt: 5:27), lusting (Matt: 5:28), immorality, impurity, and sensuality (1Gala: 5:19), enmities, jealousy, anger, disputes, dissentions, and factions (1Gala: 5:20) envyings and drunkenness (1Gala: 5:21), sodomy (Gene:19:1-26), greed (Luke 12:15), judging others (Matt: 7:1), and, hypocrisy (Matt: 23:25).

“Hey Seagull, did you list hypocrisy last because you wanted to save the best for last?” “No because it is consistent with 1 Corinthians 13:13 and I wanted to save the ‘greatest’ for last.” “But Seagull, doesn’t 1 Corinthians 13:13 read ‘But now abide faith, hope, love, but the greatest of these is love?’” “Sure it does.” “Well what does that have to do with ‘hypocrisy’?” “Oh, about as much as the scriptures cited in the “muck sheet” have to do with casino entertainment ‘violating many scriptural themes.’”

The “muck sheet” asks three “like duh” questions about “your neighbors.” Questions designed so that 99.99 percent of a sane population would have to answer “No.” Each was followed by a baseless conclusionary statement allegedly supported the scriptural reference that immediately followed. Not one of them, in the Ole Seagulls opinion, “clearly,” logically, or honestly supported the baseless conclusionary statement it followed.

As an example, the first of the three questions on the “muck sheet” asked, “Do you want your neighbors to destroy their families?” What other answer is there except “No.” That was immediately followed by the statement “Gambling breaks marriages and homes of many families due to deceit, addiction, alcoholism, and violence.” Coherency aside, exponentially what has broken up more marriages, homes, and families “adultery,” or “casino entertainment?

How much would one bet on the proposition that “alcoholism” is caused by “gambling” rather than the abuse of alcohol? That “deceit” is caused by casino entertainment rather than lack of character and dishonesty or that “addiction” or “violence” is caused by casino entertainment rather than by the lack of self control?

The scripture listed as supporting the statement is “And the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together let man not separate. (Mark: 8:9)” Can any responsible person, Christian or otherwise, honestly look anyone in the face, let alone those whom they go to church with or those who have come to their church seeking the love, comfort, and salvation of Jesus, and say that the passage “is clear about gambling violating its scriptural theme?”

The “muck sheet” further states that scripture “guides us to not walk with the wicked nor stand with sinners.” Unless Romans: 3:23 is wrong when it says “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” wouldn’t our churches be “mired” in loneliness without us sinners? Did Jesus come to call the righteous or the sinners?

Sadly, although the “muck sheet” quotes Matthew 22:39, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” it is devoid of any attempt to show that love and ignores the admonition contained in Matthew 7:5 which says, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” It appears hypocritically “mired” in the muck of ignoring the “logs” of adultery, greed, drunkenness, hypocrisy etc. and the havoc they reap while, comparatively speaking, condemning the “speck” of casino entertainment.

How is the love of Christ shown in the “muck sheet?” How does it further the work of God’s kingdom? “For Pete sake Seagull, get real, do you think that the people who wrote the “muck sheet” cared one iota about anything except not having the people who read it vote ‘YES’ for Amendment 1 on August 3?” “Well, if they did they hid it well, very well indeed.”

“But Seagull, your headline says that ‘the word of God is clear- He loves those that will vote YES on Amendment 1.’ Won’t He also love those that don’t vote YES on Amendment 1?” “Of course He will, ‘For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life.’ (John: 3:16) It’s an unconditional gift that applies to all who will accept it, those that vote YES on Amendment 1 as well as those that don’t vote YES.” “But now abide faith, hope, love, but the greatest of these is love.”

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Editorial By Kurt Lewis, Publisher Branson Daily Independent and Taney County Times

Republished from Editorial Page of the Branson Daily Indpependent with Permission

Whether you are for or against Amendment 1 you have to admit the residents of Rockaway Beach have proven that nothing is impossible if you pull together as a community and work toward a common goal. Three years ago when two Rockaway Beach businessmen said they would like to revitalize their town with riverboat gaming, most people laughed, thought it was a pipe dream and said it would never happen. Like most of you I never thought the idea would go very far and certainly never expected it to achieve a statewide vote.

During my 25-year tenure in the newspaper industry I have never endorsed any type of gambling issue. Editorializing against riverboat casinos and the lottery. (The worst form of gambling in my opinion. I have bought two lottery tickets, both on the first day of sales and absolutely can not stand getting behind people purchasing and scratching tickets at a convenience store.) Those issues were approved by voters and on my four or five visits to St. Louis area boats I have not been impressed.

However after traveling to a handful of tourist destinations with gaming, I now have a much different opinion. And that’s what this is, my opinion which is worth the same as your opinion. I have taught classes at my home church on gambling, heard all of the horror stories and have a close friend who is addicted to gambling. After taking the time to see just how tourist based gaming operates in various parts of the country, I believe Amendment 1 would not only revitalize Rockaway Beach, but would benefit Taney County and the surrounding area in general.

What I was unable to find in tourist destinations with gaming is the huge increase in crime, drugs and other illegal activities those opposing Amendment 1 claim. I asked people from various walks of life in each community, including law enforcement officials. Like one police chief said, if you had two burglaries before gaming and had four after gaming, then those opposing gaming will claim crime doubled. What they fail to consider is that after gaming a million more people came to town and obviously if a million more people come to any town there will be an increase in common crimes that occur with or without gaming.

Amendment 1 would create 1,000 full time year round jobs with benefits in Taney County. That fact is hard to deny or destroy by tossing misleading figures into the air. Unemployment in Taney County averaged 7.7 percent in 2003 and 8.2 percent in 2002, but the monthly rates ranged from highs of 22.5 percent to lows of 3 percent. Amendment 1 means jobs for area residents. It means jobs with benefits and above average starting wages. The average casino industry wage nationwide is $26,000 per year, plus benefits.

Amendment 1 would allow private businesses to invest over $100 million in Rockaway Beach, without a TIF or any government funds. Rockaway Beach would be improved and that improvement would spill over into other parts of Taney County. The main investor-owner in the Rockaway Beach riverboat casino will be Robert Low of Springfield. Low owns Prime, Inc. in Springfield (the largest refrigerated trucking company in America) and the Palace Casino Resort in Biloxi, Miss. Low is a top notch individual who operates his businesses in a way that I only wish all businesses could operate. He is the real deal, a self-made Missourian, who from all accounts I have heard and from talking with many of his employees in Springfield and Biloxi, that does what he says and keeps his word regardless of the cost. Rockaway Beach could not have found a better combination than Southwest Casino & Hotel Corp, and Robert Low to develop and revitalize their community.

Gaming in Rockaway Beach will not damage Branson or its family friendly image. You have to want to go to Rockaway Beach to get there. Gaming would not be rubbed in the noses of our visitors, but it would give them another entertainment choice close to Branson, yet far enough away that they clearly have to want to gamble in order to visit Rockaway Beach. Remember there are a number of Branson visitors who enjoy gambling as a form of entertainment. Many of the bus tours stop at casinos on their way to and from Branson. If they stop at Rockaway Beach in the future, it could add a day to their stay locally, increasing hotel revenues and taxes.

We believe a "yes" vote on Amendment 1 will be good for Taney County and Missouri.

Regardless of your position, and I respect everyone who shares a different opinion on Amendment 1, exercise your right and privilege to vote by casting your ballot Tuesday, August 3.

It were not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion that makes horse races. — Mark Twain

Courtesy of Branson Daily Independent

Seagull Mussings Column for July 25, 2004

On July 18, an excellent article by Rick Alm, entitled, “Branson, Rockaway at odds on casino,” appeared on the front page of the Kansas City Star. In that article it was reported that “Gary J. Groman, a columnist for the Branson Daily Independent, recently portrayed Herschend [Peter F. Herschend] as the godfather of what he termed the ‘Branafia’ — influential local businessmen with ‘disproportionate’ influence over civic affairs.” The article went on to report, “‘I hate that,’ Herschend said of being cast as a self-serving villain in local coffee shop chatter and newspaper articles.”

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, Herschend might very well be right about what is being said “in local coffee shop chatter and newspaper articles,” particularly as to his involvement in the Highroad, but he should get over it. He, and to a much lesser extent, in terms of influence, clout, finances, and community support, an Ole Seagull, has elected to put himself into the public arena. While in that arena, the publics perception about our actions, whether justified or not, “comes with the territory.”

In a recent column entitled, “Look, up in the sky, it’s the ‘secret handshake clique’ – no wait, it’s the ‘Branafia!’” the “Branafia” was defined as “those families, businesses, and individuals who appear to exert a disproportionate amount of influence and control over the affairs of the Branson area and the quality of life of its citizens all the while maintaining an innate ability and desire to have others pay for the benefits that the Branafia receives.” It is obvious that the term “Branafia,” as originally coined by the Ole Seagull, is much broader in scope than indicated in the Kansas City Star article.

Over the years, the Ole Seagull has differed with Herschend on very few issues, among them the High Road, the tax that some call the “Chamber Tax,” and the methodology and hypocrisy allegedly used by “our community” against Rockaway Beach’s attempt at economic development. The “Branafia” column, alluded to in the Kansas City Star article, used quotes from an article relating to Herschends involvement with the High Road, entitled “Did Ashcroft Take the Lowroad on the Highroad?” which was published in the January 15, 2001 edition of “The Nation” magazine.

With all due respect to the reporter who wrote the Kansas City Star article stating that “Gary J. Groman, a columnist for the Branson Daily Independent, recently portrayed Herschend as the godfather of what he termed the ‘Branafia…,’” there was no mention of, or inference to, any “godfather” in the column nor was any intended. Although it could have been a Freudian slip on the part of the reporter, if a reasonable person gave it any serious thought at all, who would they pick as the “godfather” of the Highroad, of the tax that some call the “Chamber Tax,” the opposition against Rockaway Beach’s attempt at economic development, or the Branafia?

To an Ole Seagull the choice in the first three would be very clear. The Branafia on the other hand, because of the size of the egos involved, is too close to call. One thing for sure though, the Highroad, and the price in lives, increased safety risks, and daily inconvenience that those traveling on Highway 65 have paid and will continue to pay, speaks volumes about the Branafia’s innate ability and desire to have others pay for the benefits that it receives.

An Ole Seagull would be remiss if he did not point out that he believes, to the very depths of his heart, that Peter F. Herschend is morally opposed to gambling and that no one will ever see casino gambling as part of Silver Dollar City, Celebration City, the Show Boat Branson Belle or any other Herschend family owned enterprise as long as Peter and the Herschends control them. Does that mean that economics do not enter into the picture and might even be a primary motivating force? Absolutely not, but, so what, doesn’t economics play an important part in a lot of decisions that families, businesses, Communities, and individuals make?

The Ole Seagull must also acknowledge the obvious, in terms of the total “good” done for our area. Peter’s total would be a “mountain” as compared to a Seagulls “mole hill.” However, as he has said before, Peter’s “personal accomplishments and community involvement are the things that legends are made of but, like Ole Seagulls, even legends aren’t right all of the time.”

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Mussings Column July 18, 2004

The lies listed in a “world’s greatest lies list” obviously depends on whose list it is and the current environment in which it is being complied. The first two on the Ole Seagull’s current list would be, “If gambling comes to Rockaway Beach abortions will increase” and “The check’s in the mail.”

This week, a local paper published a piece by a person espousing reasons for not voting “Yes” on Amendment 1.As the Ole Seagull read one of the reasons, to “give Branson and Rockaway Beach a chance to accomplish a better solution together,” he suppressed a chuckle because it caused him to recall the third “greatest lie” on his list, “Hi, we’re the City of Branson and we’d like a chance to work with you for the mutual success of our areas economic development.”

In light of the way Branson has been helping Hollister, the YMCA, and some its own businesses lately, just the thought of Branson offering to help should strike fear into the hearts those involved with Rockaway Beach’s redevelopment effort. How much help did Branson give Hollister with the improvement of Highway 65 south from Branson toward the Arkansas line? One can only wonder what Hollister and probably, some of Branson’s own businesses, think of Branson’s timing and use of a TIF in the Branson Hills area as “a chance to accomplish a better solution together.”

“Hey Seagull, I have one that I want to nominate for the “world’s greatest lies list.” “What is it?” “Amendment 1 provides fairness for southwest Missouri and benefits us all.” “Actually, although a close call, that statement might be less a lie than calling Branson, a town that permits the expansion of alcohol, into its theaters and attractions, ‘family friendly.’”

“Fair” can be defined in more than one way but two seem particularly appropriate in this situation, “equitable” and “superficially true or appealing.” It’s ironic isn’t it, one term that has two opposite meanings? It’s similar to the way Branson uses the term “family friendly.” The expansion of alcohol into the theatres and attractions within Branson is “family friendly” but casino entertainment in Rockaway Beach, miles away from Branson, is not.

It would be hard for anyone to say that Rockaway Beach’s redevelopment story is not, at a minimum, at least “superficially true or appealing.” On the other hand, is it “equitable” for Rockaway Beach to base its redevelopment plan on the possible diversion of up to $135.8 million dollars in potential Branson revenues and the interception of millions of Branson’s visitors?

From an Ole Seagulls perspective “but for” Branson a casino in Rockaway Beach would be too big a “gamble” for investors and there would be no Amendment 1. That aside however, in the same spirit that words like “family friendly,” “blighted”, and “world class” are interpreted within our community, and although not in the context of the way that most people would interpret it, one would be hard pressed not to admit that, technically, it meets the definition of “fair.”

“All right, so that one doesn’t make the list but wait, I have another one, how about, ‘I’m being totally unbiased.’” “Maybe but let me think about it and ‘I will call you right back.’”

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Mussings Column July 11, 2004

Last week the Ole Seagull received a fax sent out by the Anti-Gambling Task Force through the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce. As one would expect it contained the standard regurgitation of the “gloom and doom statistics,” allegedly from Las Vegas , Nevada and Atlantic City, New Jersey, in an attempt to show that it will be the end of “family friendly” Branson if a casino is built in Rockaway Beach.

Can any person honestly look an Ole Seagull, or for that matter, any one else, in the eye and say, with a straight face, that comparing ONE casino in Rockaway Beach, Missouri, with either the problems or successes of Las Vegas or Atlantic City is a valid comparison? To an Ole Seagull such comparisons make about as much sense as comparing the actions of a wild lion on Africa’s Serengeti to the actions of the typical pet house cat playing in the living room.

“Hold on Seagull, the governing word here is ‘one.’ The fax said, ‘To pass a law allowing riverboat gambling on Lake Taneycomo/White River in Rockaway Beach paves the way for ALL of Lake Taneycomo, including Branson, to become open to casino gambling’. Is that true?” “No.”

In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, there’s a greater chance of the Highroad “paving” the way to solving the non existent “economic emergency” used to justify its building than there is for Amendment 1 to be used to pave the way for casinos anywhere except in Rockaway Beach. Amendment 1’s language very specifically limits the location of the casino to “the White River in Rockaway Beach, Missouri.”

That fact was attested to by the very people who filed the recent lawsuit trying to deny the voters of Missouri an opportunity to vote on Amendment 1. One of their contentions was that if enough people voted “Yes” for Amendment 1 and it passed that it “necessarily prohibits all other cities … along the White River, from having the same opportunity under the law to choose gambling as a revenue source.” “Wow, isn’t that the exact opposite of what the fax that the Chamber sent out said?” “Of course it is but then that was a rhetorical question, right?”

Here’s another “chamber opposite” you can take to the bank. The Ole Seagull will bet that within a relatively short time after the August 3 vote on Amendment 1 that the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, the “Branafia,” and a lot of the others who are fighting Amendment 1 will try to get a one percent retail sales tax, that some call “The Chamber Tax,” imposed on all those who shop in Branson. What will be the justification for this tax? Branson needs more money for marketing to bring more people to the Branson area.

“Surely you jest Seagull. Are you saying that a lot of the same people who will be pushing, what some people call the Chamber Tax, are the same ones fighting Rockaway Beaches attempt to provide an “attraction” for the Branson area could attract up to three million people a year?” “That’s absolutely right.” “But how can ‘they’ turn their backs on an attraction that an estimated three million visitors a year to the Branson area would use while at the same time saying that they need to tax the public for additional marketing money to be used to bring more people to the “same” area?”

In an Ole Seagulls opinion, in the same arbitrary, hypocritical and arrogant manner that “they” use the mantle of morality, Christianity and family values to fight casino entertainment in Rockaway Beach. It is raised, on one hand, to fight casino entertainment as a tool for Rockaway Beach’s economic redevelopment and ignored, on the other hand, as to the expansion of the serving of alcohol into Branson’s traditionally alcohol free family friendly venues such as theatres and attractions.

Branson’s apparent hypocritical and, at best, “lukewarm” action in this regard reminds one of “the church in Laodicea.” Of what value is Branson’s vaunted environment of morality, Christianity, and family values, either to itself or in the furtherance of Gods Kingdom, if it is not morally deep enough to “absorb” one casino in a small place called Rockaway Beach, Missouri?

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Mussings Column July 4, 2004

The June 30 edition of this newspaper reported that on June 28, “The Branson Board of Aldermen overruled a tax increment finance (TIF) commission’s findings and gave initial approval” to a “979,000 square-foot retail facility in Branson Hills.” Although things could change as the city and the developer negotiate the Redevelopment Agreement, as it currently stands, it appears that the developer will be reimbursed for the majority of the development costs except the cost of the actual buildings themselves through the use of taxpayer dollars.

“Now wait a minute Seagull, are you saying that if the developer spends money on land acquisition, landscaping, parking lots etc. that the TIF will reimburse them for it with government tax money?” That’s exactly right. “Wow, how can I get a piece of that action?” Well, for starters you would have to be redeveloping a “blighted” area.” “What is a ‘blighted area’?” It’s whatever the Branson Board of Aldermen want it to be.

“Come on Seagull, is it that flexible?” Will Rogers said, “I never met a man I didn’t like.” If recent history is any guide it appears that the Branson Board of Aldermen can say, “We never met a TIF we didn’t like.”

In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, their “blight determination creativity” could serve as the “poster child” for TIF reform. Such creativity, at one time or another, over recent years, has “blighted” most of the commercial property in Branson, the entire downtown area including the Lake Taneycomo Lakefront, and now, in Branson Hills, undeveloped land. Now that’s pretty “flexible.”

“OK Seagull, but still, aren’t TIFs a good thing because they bring development and opportunities into our area that might not otherwise have come?” That’s the assumption but is it a good assumption?

“Lowes” is what most developers consider a “big box” store. Was a TIF used to get Lowes to Hollister? If not why did they come? Is there just the possibility that they came to this area and built a store because they thought that it was a good business investment?

“Hey, wait a minute Seagull, isn’t that the way Branson was developed until recent years, people invested and risked their own money in their enterprise because they believed it was a good investment?” Sure was! What kind of TIF help did the Herschends, Gerards, Glenn Robinson, the Halls, Meyers, Jim Thomas, the Tabuchis, and countless others get as they risked millions in Branson to make it what it is today?

How much TIF help did the Tanger Factory Outlet Center or the Factory Merchants Branson get when they were built? Could it be said that it was “Knot” a “Berry” good idea to rely on some of the assumptions that were made when a TIF was used for the Factory Shoppes atBranson Meadows? On average, of the three, from the first day of their operation, which has contributed the least amount of total net revenues to the City, County, and related taxing districts?

An Ole Seagull has a big problem believing that the way the City of Branson uses TIFs is fair to Branson’s existing businesses. Those who had buy and develop their own land, without TIF reimbursement, and whose efforts, over the years, have created the very traffic that the new developers will need to intercept to make their developments profitable.

Just as onerous, to an Ole Seagull, is that the public record established in connection with the Branson Hills TIF, is replete with verbiage saying essentially, “If we don’t do this then Hollister will get the ‘big box’ store, and we don’t want to lose that revenue to them.” Is that the type of thing that TIFs were intended to do, enable a “big box store” to pit two adjoining communities, with sites not five minutes apart, against each other to see which will give it more to locate within their corporate limits?” Evidently so in the crazed greedy mind of an overly creative 800 pound TIF gorilla named “Branson.”

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for June 13, 2004

The Sunday June 20 edition of this paper contained a letter to the editor from local Santa Claus impersonator and Highway 265 resort owner Greg (Santa) Winters, containing comments and questions about the June 13 Seagull Musings column entitled “Look, up in the sky, it’s the ‘secret handshake clique’ – no wait, it’s the ‘Branafia!‘” For those readers who might have missed the column and to provide a perspective for this column, that column, and a hyperlink from it to the article “Did Ashcroft Take the Lowroad on the Highroad?,” published in the January 15, 2001 edition of “The Nation” magazine, can be found on line at “www.bransoncourier.com” under “Editorials.”

For whatever reason, a lot of Winters’ statements and questions appear to indicate a fixation on the Herschends and relate to the reality of what the column actually said about as much as “Santa Claus” relates to reality or the true meaning of Christmas. Interestingly enough, although he uses the words “crap,” “sewers,” “rat” and “droppings” in his letter to create the illusion that he wants to create not once did he cite an instance in the column where the information was not true but then “truth” is “truth,” “droppings” are “droppings,” and the public is wise enough to know the difference.

As Winters advises the Ole Seagull to “crawl back into the sewer where a rat belongs” he also advises him to “look at the bright side, all the riff-raff that follows the arrival of any casino would be in there to welcome you.” To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “Riffraff happens.”

Why, in addition to casinos, “riffraff happens” in connection with other local things such as the Highroad, Branson Landing, TIFs, what some call the “Chamber Tax, and the “Branafia” to mention a few. The Ole Seagull would bet that as one’s eyes adjusted to the darkness, after crawling into the sewer from the sunlight, and they met their fellow inhabitants that they would recognize more than a few “local faces. Why they might even hear a hearty “Ho! Ho! Ho!” coming from out of the depths of the darkness.

Winters asks, “What did the Herschend’s do to you to deserve these attacks, kick you off the pony ride??” The term “attack” is relative but the column did not refer to the “Herschends” just a “Herschend,” Peter Herschend. One such reference was necessary because he was “the agenda” for the June 1, meeting of the Hollister City Council cited in the column. Two other references were contained in quotes from the article “Did Ashcroft Take the Lowroad on the Highroad?” published in the January 15, 2001 edition of “The Nation” magazine.

Those quotes were used by the Ole Seagull because, in his opinion, they provided an outsider’s perspective, that illustrated what he meant by the term “Branafia.” The term was defined in the column as “those families, businesses, and individuals who appear to exert a disproportionate amount of influence and control over the affairs of the Branson area and the quality of life of its citizens all the while maintaining an innate ability and desire to have others ‘pay’ for the benefits that the Branafia receives.” As to the context and manner in which Peter F. Herschend was mentioned in the column, “truth” is “truth,” “droppings” are “droppings,” and the public is wise enough to know the difference.

Winters states “Mr. Seagull Dropping seems to think it’s OK to hurt my business as long as it hurts the Herschends!!!” ” Even the Ole Seagulls most ardent detractors would have to admit that it is highly unlikely that anyone, including Winters, with all his “Santa like powers,” could “seemingly” or otherwise knows what either the Ole Seagull or anyone else is “thinking.” Because there is nothing in the column that discusses hurting any business, Winters’, Herschend’s, or otherwise, one can only wonder whether or not his comment in that regard was a “Freudian Slip.”

Winters use of the word “dropping(s)” is kind of ironic because the “Ole Seagull” developed his brand from a speech given by Jim King, past National Transportation Board Chairman, when he described his position in the political hierarchy of the day as that of, “a lowly seagull walking along after the horse in the parade picking at the droppings.” Even as it gave Jim perspective at that time so too does it keep the Ole Seagull’s roll in perspective today although, it appears, he’ll be picking at “reindeer droppings” for a while.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for June 20, 2004

This week the Ole Seagull received a slick multi colored mailing piece ostensibly “From the Desk of Virginia Ferguson.” The front contains pictures of “Rockaway Beach Then …and Now.” The back contains text and the picture of a lovely lady that almost anyone would just love to reach out and hug and say, “I’ll do whatever you want me to do if it will keep that beautiful smile on your face.”

Virginia tells us that she remembers “Rockaway Beach the way it used to be” and asks for our “YES vote on Amendment 1” so that they will have the opportunity to revive their community. She then shares some of her memories about the way it used to be with “little shops and restaurants.We had an arcade and go carts for kids. At night, a band would play.Some people would dance; others would just enjoy the music as they sat by the camp fire.”

She then tells us how the government changed it all by building Table Rock Dam which turned their “warm water beach into an icy cold lake” and that “eventually tourists stopped coming, our businesses had to close down, and now, part-time seasonal work is all that people can find. It’s just not fair.” Virginia closes by saying, “We can’t bring back the past, but I hope you will do the neighborly thing and vote YES on Amendment 1 so that we will have the opportunity to revive our community.”

As the Ole Seagull read it and looked at Virginia’s smiling face he sadly thought, “Virginia, you’re right, ‘It’s just not fair’” but what “isn’t fair” is the very piece itself. Is it “fair” that the piece did not point out that the dam was built over 40 years ago or that seasonal work is not unique to Rockaway Beach and is, in fact, a way of life for a lot of families living in Taney County?

An Ole Seagull thinks that “It’s just not fair” that the piece didn’t even contain the word “casino” or “gambling.” Particularly telling is the “fairness” involved with the statements “We take care of our neighbors. We don’t want to ask for handouts or government giveaways.” Most people would have a tough time reconciling those statements with a plan to revive their community that relies, to a large extent, on intercepting the traffic that their Branson “neighbors” have developed over the last 40 years or so and spend millions of dollars a year to market.

It is estimated that about 3 million people a year will go to Rockaway for casino entertainment if Amendment 1 is approved. Although no one has said, unless an Ole Seagull misses his guess, about 500,000 to 800,000 of those people will be first time visitors coming to Branson because of casino entertainment being available in Rockaway Beach. The rest of the three million estimated visitors a year to the “revived” Rockaway Beach and its casino will be at the potential expense of their “neighbors.” It sure seems like a funny way to take care of ones neighbors and, at the very least, some in Branson could also say “It’s just not fair.”

From an Ole Seagulls perspective it really doesn’t make a lot of difference. Whether you’re from Branson or Rockaway Beach, “fairness” has about as much to do with the financing, power, and clout being used both for and against casino entertainment coming to Rockaway Beach as “family friendly” does. Why an Ole Seagull might actually bet that their primary motivation has more to do with economics than “fairness,” “neighbors” or being “family friendly” combined.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for June 13, 2004

On June 1, the Hollister City Council held a meeting to entertain Peter F. Herschend’s plea for them to involve the City of Hollister in a lawsuit to try to stop the voters of the state of Missouri from voting on whether or not casino entertainment should be permitted in Rockaway Beach. At that meeting, Mr. Ross Summers, the Executive Vice President of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce made a presentation.

Among other things Summers said, “We don’t use the words family friendly and safe and patriotic lightly.” He stressed that “We can’t allow an activity to enter our area that doesn’t conform to what we’ve built over the past few decades.”

“Boy Seagull that’s like mom’s apple pie, motherhood, and waving the flag but, who was the ‘we’ he referred to three times?” Who really knows for sure, but were an Ole Seagull a betting Seagull he would bet that the “we” referred to is the “Branafia.”

“What is the ‘Branafia?” It’s a term that the Ole Seagull has semi affectionately concocted based on the control and influence characteristics of a lesser used definition of the term “family.” The “Branafia” is those families, businesses, and individuals who appear to exert a disproportionate amount of influence and control over the affairs of the Branson area and the quality of life of its citizens all the while maintaining an innate ability and desire to have others “pay” for the benefits that the Branafia receives.

As an example, the January 15, 2001 edition of “The Nation” magazine contained an article entitled, “Did Ashcroft Take the Lowroad on the Highroad?” The article stated, “But there is no question that the new highway was beneficial to several key political contributors to Ashcroft, most notably Peter Herschend, an owner of the Silver Dollar City amusement center. The road–US Highway 465–would skirt Branson and swing by Herschend’s Silver Dollar City.”

In describing the land that the state purchased from Herschend for $2.2 million the article said that the land “was to be used for building an interchange that would handle traffic to Herschend’s Silver Dollar City.””Wow Seagull, it would be hard to get much more ‘family friendly’ than that.”

From an economic perspective, particularly labor costs, what, if any, Branson area family, or families, would consider it “family friendly,” as to their family’s economic interests, if casino entertainment, with its estimated 1000 year round, good paying jobs with health care coverage, paid vacation time, and 401k plans did not come to Rockaway Beach?

“Well it certainly wouldn’t be those families who are struggling from pay check to pay check trying to make ends meet. Those who need health care coverage and would appreciate the relief that paid vacation time and a basic retirement plan could provide.” Who does that leave? “The Branafia, those who would have to pay millions of dollars more in wages, health care coverage, paid vacation time, and 401k and other retirement plans to compete with Rockaway Beach for labor.

Here in “family friendly” Branson, the Branafia continues to add new meaning to the term “family friendly” as it serves its own interests. Most recently it has “decreed” that the expansion of the serving of alcoholic beverages into Branson’s family friendly shows is with maintaining Branson’s “family friendly” image but that casino entertainment coming to Rockaway Beach does not.

“Whoa now Seagull, for decades neither of those activities conformed to the ‘family friendly’ image upon which Branson was built. Isn’t ‘family friendly,’ kind of like being pregnant, you either are or you aren’t?” To an Ole Seagull it is. “How do we allow one ‘activity to enter our area that doesn’t conform to what we’ve built over the past few decades’ while denying another that an estimated three million visitors a year to Branson want?” Apathy, hypocrisy, greed, or look, up in the sky, it’s the “secret handshake clique” – no wait, it’s the “Branafia!”

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for June 6, 2004

On Tuesday, June 1, Hollister held a special council meeting at the request of Peter F. Herschend, one of the founders of Silver Dollar City. The only item on the agenda was a presentation by Herschend entitled “Municipalities for Gambling Choice.” The major thrust of his presentation was to request a resolution from the council making the City of Hollister a party in a lawsuit “to enjoin the Missouri Secretary of State from including the White River Gaming Petition on the August 3, 2004 election ballot.”

“Hold on there Seagull, isn’t this the same Peter F. Herschend, who supported SB 787, which would have required a vote of all the people in the county before casino gaming could take place?” It appears so. “Isn’t there something just a little inconsistent in supporting SB 787, which would let someone vote on an issue, and using a lawsuit to prevent someone from voting on an issue?”

Although it is inconsistent with SB 787, the lawsuit suit is actually very consistent with the philosophy of those who really control what goes on in Branson. To the maximum extent practicable “they” want to control what the voters get to vote on and how and when they get to do it. Was there any public vote on the “Highroad,” Branson Landing, or the formation of a non-elected “chamber controlled tax district” or the legislation that spawned its grotesque birth?

“Isn’t Herschend’s statement at the meeting and in the written material submitted to the council, that Rockaway Beach’s White River Gaming petition excludes all other cities and villages that are also on the White river from choosing to adopt gambling inconsistent with the way the petition actually reads?” In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, if the official “Official Ballot Title,” as certified by the Secretary of State’s office on July 11, 2003, means anything, absolutely!

The “Official Ballot Title” states “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to authorize floating gambling facilities on or adjacent to the White River in Rockaway Beach, Missouri, to be licensed and regulated consistent with all other floating facilities in the State of Missouri.” The original constitutional amendment permitting gaming in Missouri included only those locations on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Obviously it did not exclude Rockaway Beach, or any other location, from petitioning for gaming even as the Rockaway Beach petition does not exclude any other location, on the White River or otherwise, from petitioning for a similar amendment.

“Isn’t the filing of a lawsuit based on the supposition that it keeps casino gambling from other cities and villages on the White River inconsistent with Herschend’s stated opposition to the expansion of casino gambling?” Although, to an Ole Seagull, the position might be ludicrous, the methodology is very consistent and should bring fear into the hearts of those who believe that government shouldn’t be controlled by those with money, power, political clout and influence.

“Isn’t it inconsistent that Herschend made the presentation to the Hollister council requesting their participation in the lawsuit suit yet the KSPR TV report of the meeting reported that Herschend said that his ‘name is not going to be on the lawsuit?’” No, actually it’s pretty consistent. His name isn’t on the Highroad either but local folks are smart enough to know whose “road” it is.

“What do you think the chances are that casino entertainment will come to Rockaway Beach?” In October of 2003 the Ole Seagull wrote, “Unfortunately for Rockaway Beach’s casino gambling hopes, the petition itself provides the very ammunition that those opposing a casino in Rockaway Beach could use to attempt to shoot their casino down.Is it much?No, but it could be enough to make a ‘decent bet’ into a bet that is ‘at best, even money.’”

After reviewing the lawsuit that was filed, in detail, an Ole Seagull would have to say that the “at best” scenario might be overly optimistic. Regardless of the way this lawsuit ultimately ends up, the heart of an Ole Seagull is saddened. Saddened both for the citizens of Rockaway Beach because of the economic revival of their community that might be further delayed and for the citizens of Branson because of the price they were willing to pay to deny their neighbors that opportunity.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for May 30, 2004

Ah yes, the age old question, “Will crime and Viagra sales increase if casino entertainment comes to Rockaway Beach? If what the Ole Seagull heard at a recent meeting is true, “that casino gambling is controlled by the ‘mafia,’” one could reasonably expect an increase in crime.

“But Seagull, who would believe something like that?” How about some of the same people who believed that the Branson Board of Aldermen was going to seriously address the issue of the expansion of the drinking of alcoholic beverages into theatres and attractions at their May 24, meeting?

The first casinos authorized by Missouri’s voters started operation in May of 1994. In the ten years they have been providing entertainment to Missouri residents and visitors, has there been any credible evidence presented by anyone that either the “mafia” or “organized crime” is controlling that entertainment? Indeed, the credible evidence would seem to suggest that Missouri’s casino entertainment industry is controlled very closely by the Missouri Gaming Commission, not the “mafia” or “organized crime.”

“Now hold on there Seagull, are you saying that there would be no increase in crime if casino entertainment came to Rockaway Beach?” No, not at all, but if there was any, he’d bet that, proportionately speaking, it would be about the same as the rate of increase in the sales of Viagra.

“Are you seriously comparing an increase in crime to increased sales of Viagra?” Why not, doesn’t it make as much sense as the Branson Board of Aldermen and the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce condemning the expansion of casino entertainment on family value grounds with one hand while supporting the expansion of the serving of alcoholic beverages into Branson’s family friendly theatres and attractions with the other?

“Not really.” Well let’s try it this way. If there is an increase of hundreds of thousands of visitors coming into the Branson Area and an increase in our areas permanent population for any reason, a casino in Rockaway Beach, Branson Landing etc., wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect a proportional increase in crime, church enrollment, traffic accidents, meals served at restaurants, heart attacks, sales of tickets to shows and attractions, rental of hotel rooms, increased retail sales including Viagra, etc?

“Well it sounds logical but wouldn’t the increase in crime be greater because of the type of people that casino entertainment brings in?” Not really. Send a survey team from the Chamber of Commerce to Tunica, Mississippi, to look at the average person being entertained in their casinos. An Ole Seagull would bet that they are the very types of people that Branson is spending millions of marketing dollars trying to attract.

In July of 2001, the Mark Twain Casino opened in LaGrange, Missouri. In a letter dated October 2, 2003, the Mayor of LaGrange, said, “There has been no increase in crime what so ever.”He went on to point out that “There are residential houses within one half block of the Casino and there has been no complaints filed against or about the casino” and that “we could not ask for better neighbors.”

Recently, in citing the justification for the expansion of the serving of alcohol into Branson’s theatres and attractions, one of the owners of a theatre serving alcohol said words to the effect that “we are just giving our customer what they want.” It is estimated that a casino in Rockaway Beach would provide an “additional attraction” that an estimated 3 million visitors a year would visit because it provides a form of entertainment that they want.

What’s more likely to cause someone to travel three to four hours to come to Branson, the serving of alcoholic beverages in theatres and attractions or the desire for casino entertainment? To an Ole Seagull the only “crime” he sees in this situation is Branson’s willingness to compromise its “family values,” in the alcohol situation while blithely ignoring the entertainment desires of an estimated three million visitors a year to our area. Now that we know what we are, can’t we at least renegotiate the price?

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for May 23, 2004

It has been said that “An army travels on its stomach.” Ten years in the United States Marine Corps convinced an Ole Seagull that an “army’s” stomach travels best when that “army” is traveling on good roads. Is it any different for a destination city like Branson? It’s at its best when residents and visitors alike travel on good roads.

Many can remember how it was trying to get around Branson back in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Basically there was Highway 76, a poor imitation of what the Shepherd of the Hills Expressway is today, and some “secret back routes.” On most days during the season, it was difficult and frustrating for residents and visitors alike to get from point A to point B within Branson.

Think of the traffic and congestion problems we would have today without the expansion of Highway 248 to four lanes from Highway 65 to its junction with Shepherd of the Hills Expressway, the extension and improvement of Gretna Road, improvement of Shepherd of the Hills expressway, Epps Road, Roark Valley Road, Green Mountain Drive, etc. Thanks to the planning, coordination, and efforts of the City of Branson, MODOT, and Taney County, citizens and visitors alike travel on a road system that relieves traffic congestion, provides for the public safety, and enables Branson to service the large influx of visitors that are its economic life blood.

“But Seagull, there are days and weekends during the season when traffic is horrendous?” That’s true, but the good news is that, because of Branson’s transportation planning and infrastructure improvements, it happens so infrequently and that, on average, Branson’s citizens and visitors can get anywhere they want to go within Branson safely and conveniently.

The transportation infrastructure to put Branson in this enviable position is not without cost however and has cost the city tens of millions of dollars. The major source of these funds has been a one half percent retail sales Transportation Tax which has been collected over at least the last ten years. One obvious benefit of a retail sales tax, in a tourist destination city like Branson, is that it shifts the tax burden for the transportation infrastructure needed to service Branson tourists from the shoulders of local residents onto the shoulders of the tourists that infrastructure is designed to service.

Branson’s current Transportation Tax is set to expire in November of 2005 unless the voters of Branson extend the tax.The vote on that extension is set for August. “Why vote so far in advance?” Were an Ole Seagull to hazard a guess it would be a combination of timing the election so that it had the best chance of passage, provide time for resubmission to the voters if the tax fails, and, most important of all, to provide a continuous source of financing so that vital transportation infrastructure construction, maintenance, and planning continues unabated.

“So it won’t be a new tax, just the extension of an old one?” That’s right. “With all the roads etc. that Branson has built over the last ten years why do they need more money?” Does anyone really believe that as Branson expands to the west and the north that new roads, bridges and related infrastructure will not be required? What about the maintenance and improvement of the current transportation infrastructure? How much longer can Branson go without some form of effective public mass transportation?

“I’ve heard a rumor that they want to pass this tax extension for infrastructure improvements for Branson Landing?” Give an Ole Seagull a break, won’t the vast majority, if not all, of the public transportation infrastructure for Branson Landing be paid for by the bonds being issued to finance the public portion of Branson Landing?

It’s not a Branson Landing issue! It’s an issue of continuing to meet Branson’s expanding transportation needs during the coming decades.The good news is that in determining whether or not to extend the Transportation Tax, the community can actually look back over the last ten years and evaluate how their investment of the Transportation Tax has affected our community. Indeed, the chances are excellent, that this very day they will be driving over a road or bridge that was built because of it.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for May 16, 2004

At the outset the Ole Seagull would point out his basic belief that the “created” have no power or authority to change the laws of the “Creator.” The created either follow the laws of the Creator or live with the consequences of not doing so, not the least of which is being left to their own devices.

In this scenario, it is apparent that who or what the “Creator” is plays a critical role. To an Ole Seagull, even one in the winter of his years and with all his glaring faults, the obvious answer is contained within the words, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” That “Creator” is God.

“Come on Seagull, do you really believe that God created everything?” Absolutely! Through the spring, summer, fall, and into the winter of his years, from the sun coming up every morning to its setting every evening, and all that naturally transpires in between, he has observed an orderliness to the universe that continually testifies of the certainty of God’s creation and His blessing.

“Next you’re going to tell us that you believe that “the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” From an Ole Seagull’s perspective it sure beats the alternative of a Godless “inbreeding evolution” left to itself without God’s hand to direct it.

“Well, God didn’t create this country?” Actually He did. Relatively speaking, it just took a “few years” for Columbus, to “discover” that which God had created and which, at the time of his discovery, was occupied by “Native Americans” who had discovered it centuries before.

“Come on Seagull, what I meant is that God didn’t fight the Revolutionary War which established us as an independent nation or write the U.S. Constitution upon which its government is based.” As an Ole Seagull understands it, that war like all others before it and since, was fought by beings that God created as they exercised their option of free choice. In like manner the U.S. Constitution was written.

“If the U.S. Constitution, the document upon which our government is based, says there should be no prayer in schools, no nativity scenes on public property, that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public buildings, Christmas should be called “Winter Solstice,” etc., shouldn’t that be the law of the land?” Absolutely, and if a frog had wings it should be able to fly but a frog doesn’t have wings and the Constitution contains no such language!

“Gotcha there Seagull, how about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says, among other things, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ ” Are we talking about the same First Amendment that Congress proposed, as part of the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789? “That’s the one.” Was that same Congress still in session, not two months later, on November 16, 1789? “Sure it was.Why?”

On November 16, 1789, the First President of the United States, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation.In that proclamation he stated, “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.’ “

Can any reasonably thinking person really believe that the same Congress that encouraged the “people of the United States” to acknowledge “with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God,” intended that the First Amendment they had proposed, not two months prior, be used as a tool to take prayer out of schools, remove the ten commandments from the walls of all public buildings etc.? It flies in the face of logic.

“Well, the Supreme Court of the United States says it does!” Is that the same “Supreme Court” that issued the Dred Scott Decision? “Ah, yeah I guess so. What was that decision about?” The fallibility of mans law and those who interpret it and a testimony to what can happen when the created change the laws of the Creator.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for May 9, 2004

At the close of a public meeting on April 29, 2004 Terry Dody, Branson’s City Administrator, was reported to have said words to the effect that “Senator Childers and Representative Wood didn’t ask the council their opinion regarding the legislation [SB 787] on countywide voting for gambling.” According to the report, he went on to point out that “Instead they worked with the Chamber and a few other businesses.”

In addition, the report indicates that Dody made it very clear in the meeting that “the city council and the city administrator are against this legislation.” It continued, “One hotel owner suggested that the city should have contacted those state leaders when they learned of the legislation that was being drafted. Terry said it was too late by then because the legislation had already been introduced for consideration to the House and Senate.”

“Hey Seagull, didn’t something like this happen in the past?” It sure did. It seems that the more things change the more they remain the same.

Back in 2001, the “Chamber” and “a few other businesses,” which the Ole Seagull called the “Secret Handshake Clique,” drafted a piece of legislation to impose a one percent general retail sales tax to be used for the marketing of Branson. ” The legislation was developed, snuck out of our community, and slipped through the legislature by the Secret Handshake Clique and selected chamber allies before most chamber or community members knew what was happening. That coupled with the obvious chamber bias of the legislation is why, to this day, some people within our community refer to the tax as “The Chamber Tax.”

“Doesn’t Branson need more marketing funds? In an Ole Seagulls opinion, it did then and it does now. “Then what’s the problem?” To paraphrase what Clara used to say in an old Wendy’s Ad, “Where’s the additional marketing funds?” Here it is over two and a half years after the “Chamber Tax” legislation was passed and not one additional dollar of marketing funds has been raised by that legislation to market our community.

The sad thing is that because of the Chamber Tax legislation itself, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, the voters have not really been given the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want to authorize the marketing tax. “Whoa now Seagull, didn’t the voters vote on the issue in February of 2002?” They sure did and it was turned down but the question is why was it turned down?

Was it turned down because the community did not support increased marketing funds to market Branson or because of other “chamber” related problems, perceptions, and issues caused in large part by the legislation itself? Is it possible that many of the voters couldn’t get past the obvious “chamber bias” of the legislation? Or, for whatever reason, lacked faith in the chamber and or its ability to effectively market Branson? Could some have had a problem with a non elected chamber controlled board of directors, managing upwards of ten million dollars of tax payer money with no accountability to any elected government entity, etc.

“Well, when it failed in February of 2002 why didn’t the community work together to develop new legislation correcting the problems and work to get it through the legislature. In an Ole Seagulls opinion the answer is pretty simple.It didn’t happen because the “Secret Handshake Clique,” “They,” “Them,” those who really wield the power in Branson, didn’t want it to.

“Why wouldn’t they want to?” Could it be because those who built the “chamber bias” into the legislation, were unwilling to give up the control that it provided and were willing, as ironic as it sounds, to “gamble” on a “shock and awe” campaign, at their time and choosing, to get both the tax passed and the control of its proceeds?

“Couldn’t something be done to force the issue?” Sure, if the County Commission rescinded their order establishing the Tourism Enhancement District things would get interesting very quickly. “Couldn’t the districts board of directors initiate action to dissolve the district?” They could but they won’t.

“Why?” They appear to be content to sit in their “little chamber controlled cocoon” playing with their bylaws, RFPs, contracts etc. while they wait for some “mystical omnipotent entity” to give them resources and direction. “Does that ‘mystical omnipotent entity’ have a name?” Surely that’s a rhetorical question? Isn’t it?

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for May 2, 2004

As the Ole seagull was driving into Branson on the morning of Saturday, April 24, he tuned in Springfield talk Radio on KWTO, 560 AM.He caught the end of a phone conversation between the shows host and a caller identified as “Fred from Branson.” He was surprised on two counts.

First, he was surprised to hear the lilting melodious sound of one of his favorite radio personalities, Bonnie Bell, who does not normally host on Saturday mornings. Secondly, he was surprised because he thought he recognized the voice of the caller she was talking to and it wasn’t much of a “feat” to realize that the name he associated with the voice didn’t have a first name of Fred.

It was obvious that they were talking about Senator Doyle Childer’s legislation, SB 787. The “Current Bill Summary” for SB 787, as posted on the states official website for “House and Senate Joint Bill Tracing,” states that “if the voters of a city adjacent to a river other than the Missouri River or the Mississippi River approve the licensing of gambling boats within the city, then the voters of the county in which the city is located must subsequently approve the licensing of gambling boats within such city.”

One can therefore understand the surprise and confusion of the Ole Seagull when the Fred said words to the effect that the bill was about much more than gambling, “It was about the right of local people to vote about the major issues that affected them.”

As he heard those words the first thing that came to the Ole Seagulls mind was “How intentionally misleading could a statement be?” Saying that the very narrow scope of SB 787 is about the right of the people to vote on anything except the licensing of gambling boats is about as accurate as saying that the building of the Highroad solved Branson’s alleged ‘economic emergency’ and eliminated traffic congestion in Branson.”

“Come on Seagull, what’s the Highroad have to do with gambling in Rockaway Beach?” Do you mean besides the fact that if they do get gambling in Rockaway Beach everyone will be slapping themselves on their foreheads with the palm of their hands saying “why didn’t we build it east instead of west?”

“Get serious Seagull.” All right, because it appears that the same elitist, arrogant, political and deceitful, clout used to get the highroad and the legislation authorizing the one percent retail sales tax, that some call the “Chambers Tax” pushed through state government is being used in the Rockaway Beach situation.

“But Seagull, doesn’t SB 787 enjoy more popular support than the Highroad or the Chamber Tax legislation?” Like duh, what wouldn’t? “Well then, doesn’t that make it right?” No, it just makes it popular. “Well, doesn’t the majority rule?” Not really, “They” that determine what and who the majority is and, more importantly, when it should be heard, “rule.”

In the case of gambling in Rockaway Beach, “they” are confident that the vote will turn out their way so a county vote is all right, even desirable. In the case of the high road and the tax that some call the “Chambers Tax,” “they” were confident that a vote of all county residents wouldn’t go their way so a county vote was to be avoided at all costs. Does anyone seriously believe that “they” want everyone living in Taney County to vote about the major issues that affect them?

Well Fred, as misleading as the Ole Seagull believes your show boating statement was, whoever you are, may you always celebrate in cities of silver and may the roads that you travel be as traffic free as the highroad currently is. “Oh Fred, while we’re talking,” the Ole Seagull just has to ask, “Do you know a waitress named Mabel?”

Seagull Musings Column for April 25, 2004

In terms of pure economic benefit, what would bring more revenue to Branson, the expansion of drinking into theatres, attractions, and other venues where alcohol has traditionally not been served or having one of the largest casinos in Missouri, located as either an anchor in the Branson Landing Project or in a location about midway down the 76 strip? Which would provide better paying jobs and benefits? Which would make a better “anchor” for Branson Landing, the casino, a Belk department store, or a miniature Bass Pro Shop? Bring more new visitors to Branson?

Interestingly enough, in a March 29 email to State Representative Maynard Wallace, Mr. Rick Huffman, in his role of Chief Executive Officer, of Grandvista LLC said, “I would like to encourage all of you to not let a bill that was submitted to you requiring a countrywide vote to approve gaming in our State get out of committee.” He went on to say, “The current proposed casino in Rockaway Beach, Missouri, if passed in November, will add an additional attraction to southwest Missouri which will bring in much needed revenue to the State…along with an attraction that our current visitors would like to have.”

“Is that the same Rick Huffman that is a principal in HCW, the company that is the City’s developer for the Branson Landing project? A current Board Member of the same Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce that is trying to stop the very casino Huffman supports from coming to Rockaway Beach?” You can “bet” it is!

Huffman goes on to say, “I know many of you have heard from Mr. Ross Summers of the Branson Chamber of Commerce saying that our Chamber is in support of this, although there has been no polling of our membership indicating this.” “Hold on there Seagull. Isn’t that the same Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce that was instrumental in getting legislation passed permitting the imposition of a one percent retail sales tax that some call ‘The Chambers Tax?’” Isn’t it a tax that would be imposed, on certain Taney County residents without a vote of all the residents of Taney County?” As “taxing” as the answer is, you are absolutely right.

Peter F. Herschend, as the Vice Chairman/Co-Owner of Silver Dollar City, Inc., responded to Huffman’s email in a letter saying, “Rest assured Mr. Huffman does not represent the view of the Board of Directors of the Branson Chamber of Commerce, the City of Branson nor any other significant segment of the business community.” He went on to say, “Residents of any Missouri County should be given voice to vote up or down on whether casino gambling should be licensed in their home county.”

“Is that the same Peter Herschend that is not a member of the Board of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce? The person who endorsed the imposition of, what some call, ‘The Chamber’s Tax’ without giving a voice to vote it up or down to all Taney County who would have to pay it?” It sure is. “Seagull, did Herschend even hint that the residents of Taney County be given a “voice to vote [the High Road] up or down?” Are you kidding!

It’s an interesting concept, this letting people “vote up or down on” the issues affecting “their home county.” Wonder how the vote would have worked out for the jail in Forsyth, the building of Branson Landing, the High Road, improvement of Highway 65 south to the Arkansas line, who gets Branson marketing funds, the City of Branson working with the YMCA to avoid duplication of facilities, the expansion of drinking into theatres, attractions, and other venues where alcohol has traditionally not been served, etc.?

Of course that’s not the way the system works so we’ll never know but, it sure would have been interesting. “But Seagull, why are they changing the system for gambling in Rockaway Beach?” In an Ole Seagulls opinion, because “they” feel a need to do so and “they” can!

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for April 11, 2004

In the Seagull Musings column for March 21, the Ole Seagull confessed that he did not know how much in incentives Bass Pro Shops had been paid to come to Branson Landing. The column said, “According to information received from City Administrator Terry Dody and HCW’s Rick Huffman on March 15, the details of the incentives are now part of a confidential agreement between HCW and Bass Pro that is not available to the public or the Branson Board of Aldermen. When the Ole Seagull asked Huffman if the details of the agreement will be released to the public he said, ‘No.’”

One could therefore understand how shocked he was to walk into a business in downtown Branson early on Wednesday morning and hear a customer say, “Bass Pro is not getting an incentive to come to Branson.” When asked where he’d heard that the customer replied, “My wife read it in the Springfield paper this morning.”

Well, what’s an Ole Seagull to do but plop $.50 into the paper dispenser to see exactly what was said. The article entitled, “Shovels set to dig May 15 at Branson Landing” by Kathryn Buckstaff, appearing in the April 7 Springfield News-Leader, started out on a bouncy note by reporting that when Gayla Roten, the Director of the Downtown Main Street Association, learned of the ground breaking date she shouted “Yea! Yea!” and “It’s a “Wow!” On a less bouncy note, the article also reported that Branson City Administrator Terry Dody said that “City tax revenues will not pay for the retail project nor has the city offered incentives to the retail tenants.”

“Well there you have it Seagull, straight from the horses mouth, Bass Pro is a tenant and Dody says that the city has not offered incentives to the retail tenants. Therefore Bass Pro is not getting an incentive.” Well, not really. Gleaning the “truth” from what the city says is somewhat like an Easter Egg hunt for those plastic eggs that contain prizes. That one has an “egg” is obvious but it has to be opened up and examined to see if it contains a “prize.”

May an Ole Seagull suggest that Dody’s statement, “nor has the city offered incentives to the retail tenants” was the “egg” calculated to get just the response that it did by giving the impression that Bass Pro was not getting an incentive for coming to the Branson Landing. But to see if it contains the prize, in this case the “practical truth” as to whether or not Bass Pro is in fact getting an incentive for coming to the Branson Landing, the egg has to be opened and examined.

Not too many weeks ago in a public meeting, it was pointed out that the developer of Branson Landing would form a Transportation Development District (TDD) that would impose a one percent TDD tax on retail sales within the Branson Landing project. It was further pointed out that because TDD taxes could not be used to pay incentives that the city of Branson, would exchange, on a dollar for dollar basis, other city funds that could be used to pay incentives.

If the Ole Seagull were a betting Seagull he’d bet that the “practical truth” in the Bass Pro “Incentive Egg” is that Bass Pro is getting $15-18 million in incentives. Those incentives will be paid by the developer with TDD tax revenues that can’t be used to pay incentives.The TDD funds will be “laundered” through the city of Branson for funds that can be used to pay the incentives.

“But Seagull, you’ve got to give it to them, the city of Branson hasn’t been involved in the offering of any incentives for retail tenants to come to Branson Landing.” Yeah sure, and Yea! Yea! It’s a “Wow!”

On a more important note: On this Easter Sunday, let us reflect on the One who loved us so much that He came to earth, lived as a man, suffered and died for our sins. One so blessed of God that He arose from the dead, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.Praise God, He has risen.He lives and because He does we have the promise of eternity.He “is the light of the world, he who follows Him shall not walk in the darkness but shall have the light of life.”The Ole Seagull, the Groman family, and our entire BDI family wish you and yours a blessed Easter and a special relationship with the One whose resurrection we celebrate this day.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for April 4, 2004

Seventh District Congressman Roy Blunt recently announced that $65 million in federal funds had been approved for 10 southwest Missouri highway projects. In announcing his rationale for the funding Blunt said, “These projects will create jobs and make improvements to some of the heaviest traveled roads in southwest Missouri. The aim is to make these thoroughfares safer and more efficient.”

One can therefore understand the Ole Seagulls confusion as he read that one of those projects, the only one directly affecting those who travel in the immediate Branson area, is a $6.8 million extension of the Ozark Mountain Highroad. As he read Blunts rationale the Ole Seagull thought to himself, “Blunt must be getting his information on the Highroad from the same source that furnished the information to President Bush about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

But wait, that couldn’t be the case because Blunt goes on to say, “These projects were the consensus choices of elected and community leaders … for immediate upgrades.” It is beyond the comprehension of an Ole Seagull that, given the situation on Highway 65 between Branson and the Arkansas state line, any “community leader,” elected or otherwise, could even think about giving the Highroad priority over the “upgrading” of Highway 65.

Besides, what’s to make “safer and more efficient” on the Highroad? Are more people dying or involved in accidents on it than on Highway 65 between Branson and the Arkansas state line?

A school bus carrying your child or grandchild is traveling at 55 miles per hour and is being passed by an 18 wheeler and a steady stream of oncoming traffic going in the opposite direction also traveling at 55 miles an hour. Which road would you rather have that bus traveling on, the Highroad with its extra lane in each direction and meridian strip separating the bus from oncoming traffic or on Highway 65 south of Branson with nothing but a few feet of “spitting space” separating the school bus from the on coming traffic? Which road needs to be made “safer?”

In terms of the “heaviest traveled roads in southwest Missouri,” the only person that is lonelier than someone traveling on the Highroad is the Maytag repairman. By what kind of warped logic does the Highroad qualify as one “of the heaviest traveled roads in southwest Missouri?” What kind of creative imagination is necessary to even hint that an extension of the Highroad should take precedence over the upgrading of Highway 65 between Branson and the Arkansas state line?

How about the same logic that our “community leaders” use to fight gambling in Rockaway Beach on family value grounds while doing nothing to stop the expansion of the serving of alcohol in Branson’s theatres and attractions? What about the creative imagination of “elected leaders” who call Branson Landing, with its current anchors and “pimple” fountain, a “world class” attraction?

Here’s the Ole Seagulls favorite because, in his opinion, it illustrates the economic “false God” that a lot of this community’s leaders appear to pay homage to, “Do you really think that improving Highway 65 to the Arkansas line will bring more traffic to Branson?” In reply an Ole Seagull would suggest, “Who cares! Shouldn’t our priority be that whoever travels on Highway 65, tourists and local residents a like, travel on the safest road possible?”

Instead, what appears to be happening is that some of Branson’s “elected and community leadership,” is trying to make “lemonade” out of the “prune” called the “Ozark Mountain Highroad.” “But Seagull, you can’t get lemonade from a prune.” They know that but at least it’s “their prune juice.”

“Is that where the rational and logic for the Highroad getting priority over the upgrading of Highway 65 comes from, drinking their prune juice?” Hum, don’t know for sure but that could help explain the “stench” that an Ole Seagull, and others in our community, associate with the Highroad and its philosophy of economics before safety, for the benefit of the powerful and influential few, at the expense of the traveling public.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for March 28, 2004

In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, Mayor “Lou,” the Branson Board of Aldermen, and City Administrator Terry Dody should be commended for the leadership they have provided our community. If the participation in city meetings, elections, public reaction or inaction, and business investment in our community are any indication, it’s pretty obvious that the citizens and property owners of Branson seem pretty satisfied with the way things are going.

That’s a remarkable accomplishment in view of the major changes that are taking place within our community. An accomplishment that is made even more significant when one considers the diversity of egos, opinions, economic interests, and personalities of the individuals, organizations, and businesses that make up our community.

“Hold on Seagull, haven’t you written columns, as recently as last week, that were critical of certain actions that they have either taken or failed to take and the way the actions were taken.” Sure, in discussing the issues facing this community there have been all sorts of columns about a lot of things, some critical some not but then that’s what this column does. It provides an Ole Seagulls opinion and perspective, such as they are, on specific issues that affect our community.

“But how can you commend them?” It’s really not too hard. At the end of the day, with all the news, columns, and cartoons that have been published about the major issues facing our community over the last couple of years, one would have to say, based on the recent public record, that the majority of Branson’s citizens, businesses, and property owners have little or no problem with either the direction the city is heading or its leadership.

“What do you base that on?” It’s based on a very simple concept, the lack of public reaction or action which, for all practical purposes, amounts to an endorsement of the status quo. “What do you mean?” How about elections? If people weren’t satisfied with their elected leadership why are two out of three candidates for alderman running unopposed? Why wasn’t a new mayor elected last year?

How about participation in public meetings? Has anyone noticed anything except scattered individual opposition to issues like Branson Landing, the expansion of alcohol into theatres, the convention center etc. over the last year or so?

“Gotcha there Seagull, wasn’t that a pretty good group that showed up last summer for Alderman Purvis’s expected “no expansion of alcohol into theatres” resolution?” Sure was, for one night, but when it turned out to be the “Purvis Ain’t No Alcohol Here Resolution,” they all “disappeared” except for Chuck Pennel and John Logan who have steadfastly persisted week after week. “But aren’t those who ‘disappeared’ praying for Chuck and John to succeed?”If they are they better pray harder.

“Well, what about the public opposition to the Branson Landing and the convention center?” What about it? Where is it? The Ole Seagull has attended just about every public meeting held on both.He hasn’t seen any sustained viable opposition to it in over a year. Again, based on the recent public record it appears that the majority of Branson’s citizens, businesses, and property owners are satisfied with the city’s leadership in this area and that the Branson Landing and its convention center is a done deal.

“But Seagull, you don’t support the building of a convention center downtown, the selection of Bass pro as an anchor, the expansion of the serving of alcoholic beverages into Branson’s theatres and attractions, etc.”That’s true but so what! It’s but the opinion of one tired Ole Seagull whose opinion is worth no more than anyone else’s and, based on the recent public record over the last year or so, is obviously in the minority.

Besides, what’s not to like? Branson has an outstanding police and fire department with a road, sewer and water system and professional city staff that would be the envy of similarly sized cities. Look at the building that is going on, restaurants, office space, and even a new theatre. Is it logical to assume that this type of investment would be made without faith in Branson’s potential and its leadership?

“Does this mean that you won’t be writing columns critical of the city, its administration, policies, or Board of Aldermen anymore?” Give me a break! The Ole Seagull’s not suggesting “sainthood” just that we keep things in perspective and acknowledge the truth of what the public record shows the community thinks of their leadership. “But couldn’t the public record be wrong?” It is what it is.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for March 21, 2004

A “blue light special,” an Ole Seagull “kisses the pooch” as Branson Landing incentive process prostituted!

With the announcement of Bass Pro as the major anchor for Branson Landing recently, it seemed like an appropriate time to see if the city’s announced incentive process was being followed. Why? Because, it appears that the selection of Bass Pro as “the anchor” has triggered a process that could lead to the City of Branson issuing $40 million dollars in bonds for its “free” Convention Center and related infrastructure.

“Seagull, why would they do that, has HCW obtained a binding commitment for the financing of its portion of the projects cost?” According to the information presented at a special meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen on March 15, held to begin the process of issuing the bonds, the answer is “No!” “Does HCW have binding commitments from 50% or more of the projects anticipated tenants?” Again, for the same reason, the answer is “No!”

“Is there any chance that the Branson Board of Aldermen would approve the issuance of a $40 million dollar bond issue, guaranteed by the citizens of Branson, without HCW having a binding financial commitment and the commitment of at least 50% or more of the projects anticipated tenants?” What do you think?

“Won’t this be the fourth Bass Pro serving Missouri and its smallest Missouri store?” Yes and at between 40-60,000 square feet, the Branson Landing Bass Pro will be the smallest store in Missouri. “Are there any Bass Pro Shops anywhere that are smaller than the one that is being built in Branson?” Yes, as near as an Ole Seagull can determine, out of the 26 Bass Pro Shops currently operating and anticipated to be opened in 2004, there is one smaller, a 25,000 square foot store in Islamorada, Florida.

“Is there any other Bass Pro Store that has been built within 45 miles of an existing Bass Pro?” Not that the Ole Seagull is aware of. “Are there other Bass Pro shops located within Branson’s target marketing area?” Many and they continue to announce new stores. Just this week they announced a new one to be built in the Tulsa, Oklahoma area.

“Why build another one on Branson Landing within about 45 miles of the ‘Mother of all Bass Pro Shops’ in Springfield?” In an Ole Seagulls opinion, because “they” needed an anchor real bad to get their “free” convention center and “anchors” weren’t exactly lining up begging to come in.

The March 14 edition of the Springfield News Leader reported that “The Dallas suburb [Grapevine, Texas] offered Bass Pro about 2 million dollars in incentives- about $1.7 million of that was in road and bridge improvements, and $300,000 of it was in marketing assistance.” It further reported that the store, which opened in March of 1999, has 200,000 square feet.

“How much in incentives is Branson paying for its 40-60,000 square foot store?” The Ole Seagull must confess that, although the rumor mill says about $15 million dollars, he doesn’t know.

“Why don’t you know?” According to information received from City Administrator Terry Dody and HCW’s Rick Huffman on March 15, the details of the incentives are now part of a confidential agreement between HCW and Bass Pro that is not available to the public or the Branson Board of Aldermen. When the Ole Seagull asked Huffman if the details of the agreement will be released to the public he said, “No.”

On that same date Dody told the Ole Seagull that it was “not a public transaction” but “A confidential agreement between HCW and Bass Pro with no city dollars used for the incentive.” He further stated neither he nor the Board of Alderman had seen the agreement or the specifics of its incentive provisions.

“Wait just a minute Seagull, didn’t you write a column a short while back pointing out that no incentives would be paid unless the Branson Landing Project generated enough tax revenue to pay the indebtedness on the Branson Landings primary bonds and the entity receiving the incentive met specific pre determined performance and revenue incentive criterion?” That is true.

“Why did you write it if there was going to be no way to verify it?” Quite simply, because the Ole Seagull “kissed the pooch.” He trusted the integrity of the process and the city officials he got the information from and failed to ask the right questions. For that he sincerely apologizes.

An Ole Seagull’s failings aside however, in the last paragraph of that column he asked the rhetorical question, “Could the incentive process be prostituted?” His answer said, “Of course it could but, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, the citizens and businesses of Branson are best served if the process is honored.”

“Seagull, do you feel that the incentive process described to you by Branson City officials has been prostituted?” Absolutely! In terms of the incentive process that the city described previously, the situation has the potential to develop into one that will make Martha Stewarts problems seem like a “blue light special.”

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for March 14, 2004

During the Alderman’s Report segment of the March 8, Branson Board of Aldermen meeting, Alderman Ron Huff, for the second meeting in a row, chose to use that time to specifically talk about the Editorial Cartoonist of this paper, John Logan.While he was at it he also decided throw the Ole Seagull into the pot.

Huff preceded his remarks by saying he wanted to add a little humor to the meeting. While he has us all in the mood to laugh, here’s some potential “belly busters.”

Just think of the hours of potential laughter that could be involved with the publicity, or lack thereof, regarding the incentives that Bass Pro received to come to Branson Landing? Isn’t the Board of Aldermen currently in the process of approving tens of thousands of dollars in increased costs for work done on one small phase of the Branson Landing Project? Surely the community will be rolling in the streets with laughter at the prospect of similar potential cost over runs as the project proceeds.

An Ole Seagull would suggest that there will be no end to the potential humor when the City tries to explain to the residents and property owners of Branson why they were originally told that the City would have no legal obligation on the bonds issued for the Branson Landing Project? Oh well, enough humor.

After the meeting, the Ole Seagull told Huff that he thought his piece was very well done and suggested that he send it into the paper for publication. He thought it would be interesting for Huff to share the manifestation of his intellectual prowess, humor and logic with the community at large rather than just the few who were at the meeting.

Oh it’s pretty certain that some would say it was a great idea that Huff offered to share the services of Logan and Groman in Forsyth and other areas away from Branson and the Branson Board of Aldermen. But then some might ask “Why does Huff advise them to go write about “Forsyth;” what doesn’t he understand about the name and coverage area of the “Branson Daily Independent?” Why the Ole Seagull would bet that there are a few who might say, “Never seen anything like it but it does illustrate the type of logic, analytical genius, and wisdom that has resulted in the plans to build a convention center in downtown Branson.”

Above all they might ask, “Of all the opportunities and challenges facing our community, why is Huff seemingly so fixated on a lowly Ole Seagull and editorial cartoonist for a free local paper? With all this ‘smoke’ is there a fire some place?”

From the Ole Seagull’s perspective, has he written something about Huff, the City Counsel, or their actions that was not true? Has he said that they said or did something that they didn’t say or do? If so wouldn’t either a letter to the editor or a press release from the city pointing out his errors be an efficient intelligent way to get full, convenient, and documented public exposure and interaction on any concerns? An Ole Seagull thinks so.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for March 7, 2004

Priority, dollars, image, and class – Branson Board of Aldermen style!

During their public meeting on the night of February 23, the Branson Board of Aldermen gave their constituents, and the community at large, a chance to see something seldom been seen before in public.It was a rare glimpse into their deliberative process which is normally hidden by “executive sessions” and the formal structure of their normal meetings.

According to reports, it was a 20 minute plus public display of the board’s collective logic, intelligence, attitude, sensitivity, ability to prioritize, and management style, all brought to bear on a single issue that they originated. Surely it was an issue of significant importance to the community; wasn’t it?Just what issue did they originate for discussion?

Was it how much interest the City has paid on the debt incurred thus far for Branson Landing? You know the interest on the $5 million dollar “aussie” settlement, $30 to $40 million dollars for land, and who knows how many more millions spent in consulting and other fees. Was it a discussion on how many millions of dollars total that the city has invested in Branson Landing to date or a date certain when the financial hemorrhaging will stop? Not even close.

Did they invest even a minute discussing the number of “world class” tenants that have signed on for Branson Landing?Whoops sorry, that wouldn’t take five seconds because, as of February 23, there had been no public announcements of any tenants. Come to think of it, has anyone seen a public announcement that the City has signed a lease with its developer?

Well then, did they discuss why, almost three years into the process, potential world class tenants don’t seem to be fighting each other to get space in Branson Landing? Did they at least discuss what they mean when they use the term “world class” in connection with Branson Landing being a “world class” project? Even though it would have added a little “class” to their discussion these topics did not come up.

Was the “mystery” of how the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce’s web site suddenly became the property of the City of Branson discussed? The fact that, until a couple of months ago, the chamber claimed ownership of the site and kept its income even while spending hundreds of thousands of City of Branson Tourism Tax dollars developing, promoting and maintaining the site? How about the impact of the site ownership on the RFP process that just awarded the City’s multi million dollar marketing contract to the chamber?

Was the time invested in discussing how the City’s failure to put out the RFP for the City’s multi million dollar marketing contract in a timely manner virtually guaranteed that the Chamber would get the contract? Surely a public discussion on how it happened and, more importantly, the steps being taken to make sure it doesn’t happen again, relative to something as important to our community as its marketing, would have been worth while. Maybe so maybe not but it wasn’t the topic of discussion either.

Did they discuss the action that has been taken to remedy any of the problems pointed out in the State Auditors Audit Report presented months ago? The relative merits of awarding multi million dollar contracts for the performance of city services without a requirement that the contractor adhere to the same procurement and other policies that the city would have to follow were they doing the same work? Not of concern that night.

“OK Seagull, we give up. If not those issues, what was important enough for the Branson Board of Aldermen to originate and discuss in a public meeting?” Believe it or not, with all the issues facing our community, the Branson Board of Aldermen chose to spend that time publicly berating and chastising a local editorial cartoonist over a cartoon they didn’t like!

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings for February 29, 2004

The February 22 edition of this paper, in an article entitled, “Judge rules candidate be placed back on ballot,” reported that Jim Thomas, “A candidate for Branson City Ward 1 Alderman, who was nixed from the official ballot, has been put back on by order of Judge William R. Haas Friday after a hearing in the Taney County Courthouse.” According to the article Haas ordered “that Mr. Thomas be placed on the ballot for the April 6 election,” because he found that the state statutes relating to residency were “ambiguous,” have been for over 30 years, and needed “to be corrected.”

An editorial column appearing in the February 23 edition of the Springfield News Leader, entitled, “Decision points to flaw in election law — and serves democracy,” editorialized on that decision. It said “Branson’s attorney said he’ll appeal the judge’s decision” but, in their view, “Going to the legislature sounds like the better option.”

An Ole Seagull would ask “Why? Isn’t going to the legislature a little premature at this point?” If the appellate courts decide in the City’s favor it would make the matter moot and if they decide against the city it provides the justification and rationale for going to the legislature.Either way it would appear that an appeal is the more prudent and logical initial approach.

The column also said, “Besides, something is gained by having Thomas on the ballot. He has been among the most vocal opponents of Branson’s lakefront development. With him in the race, the election becomes a true referendum on the council’s decisions. If he wins, the aldermen will know they don’t have the full confidence of citizens. If he loses, his criticisms lose any punch. Either way, democracy is served.”

That logic seems incredulous.Can anyone explain how an aldermanic race, in just one of Branson’s three wards, Ward 1, could possibly indicate anything other than the opinions of the voters in that Ward? How does this escalate into “a true referendum on the council’s decisions” or let the aldermen “know they don’t have the full confidence of citizens?”

In an Ole Seagulls opinion, a vote for one Ward 1 candidate over another will have as much effect on Branson Landing and the Convention Center becoming a reality as it will on the City of Branson issuing a resolution opposing the expansion of the serving of alcohol, the “chamber” getting the city’s marketing funds, or changing the city’s position on casino gambling in Rockaway Beach. Does anyone believe it’s going to reduce the time the Branson Board of Aldermen need to debate and pontificate on a simple cartoon to less than 30 minutes? Manifestations to the contrary, it is but the election of one candidate over another who will cast only one out of the six votes that the Board of Aldermen cast. No more and no less.

Using the same logic as used in the column, the Ole Seagull would suggest that a “true referendum on the council’s decisions” has already been held. It was the April 2003 Mayoral election. In that election, didn’t Mayor Lou Schaffer beat all opponents in a “city wide” election, encompassing the votes of all the voters in Branson who voted, not just those in one ward? Weren’t Branson Landing and the Convention Center big issues in that election?

Even more telling however is the fact that, even with three new aldermen elected in 2003, with very few exceptions, the Branson Board of Aldermen have shown virtual unanimity in their Branson Landing related votes over the last year.Yet, with three seats up for grabs in the April 2004 election, the only contested race is in Ward 1 where Thomas has entered the race.

But for the candidacy of the “resident” that, in the Ole Seagulls opinion could win the title of “Branson’s Hummingbird Resident of the Year,” it appears that the “less flitting” and perhaps more permanent residents of Branson are permitting their incumbent alderman to run without opposition.This virtually ensures them another term. Doesn’t that “speak volumes” about the attitude of the residents of Branson and their confidence in their aldermen? Is it not a perfect illustration of the old adage, “People get the kind of government they deserve?”

Agree with it or not, love it or hate it, the Ole Seagull would respond to both questions with a resounding, “Yes!”

Gary Groman is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier and may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings for February 22, 2004

A recent article appearing in the Kansas City Star reported, “Peter F. Herschend, founder of Silver Dollar City in Branson and an ardent gambling foe who once likened casinos to skin cancer, said Wednesday he has approached casino industry leaders with a deal. If they will back legislation to cap the number of casinos statewide, Herschend said, he and at least some other anti-gambling forces around the state are prepared to support the industry’s longtime goal of repealing Missouri‘s “$500 loss limit rule.”

Incredulously, the article further quotes Herschend as saying, “You build the Great Wall of China around the Missouri and the Mississippi rivers and allow only the existing licenses.” It further reported that “He wouldn’t stand in the way of proposals for two new casinos in the St. Louis market. But Herschend acknowledged that his plan could put an end to plans for a casino in Rockaway Beach, on Lake Taneycomo near Branson.”

As the Ole Seagull read those words, almost with disbelief, he wondered, how anyone who believed that something was a cancer, could sacrifice the people and families in a given area to save themselves? If it was “skin cancer” with a “$500 loss limit” what does it become when there is no limit? Won’t the same thing happen, in those areas where casino gambling is concentrated, that happens to the body if cancer is not only not treated but permitted to grow untreated?

If one truly believed that gambling was inherently immoral and evil how could they make a deal that virtually sentences a large part of Missouri’s population, living behind the plans “Great Wall of China,” to not only live with that evil but at increased levels? Does this plan make it easier or harder to get the “evil” of casino gambling completely removed from Missouri?

How does morality enter into making a deal with “evil?” The obvious answer is that it doesn’t. The “deal” appears to have very little, if anything, to do with what is moral. Indeed, if you had to bet on whether or not this deal was based on moral or economical considerations which would be the more prudent bet?

The reader who sent the Ole Seagull the email informing him of the article summed it up pretty well, with one exception,when they said, “The title on the article is “Loss-limit proposal has an unlikely source”…..are we hypocritical? Let everyone else blow more money but keep it out of the Ozarks!” The exception is that it is not “we.” According to the article “Herschend acknowledged that his plan [Underline added] could put an end to plans for a casino in Rockaway Beach, on Lake Taneycomo near Branson.”

“Now Seagull, you could be wrong, the community might very well endorse the ‘Herschend Plan.’” That wouldn’t surprise the Ole Seagull one bit.He remembers well, when, at the request of Herschend, like lemmings going to the sea, hundreds in this community stood up in support of the Ozark Mountain High Road or what the Ole Seagull must honestly call, “Pete’s Pike.”

Regardless of who endorses it, will it make the “Herschend Plan” any less hypocritical or any more moral? Will it help in eradicating casino gambling from the state of Missouri any more than the building of the Highroad solved Branson’s alleged “economic emergency” and eliminated traffic congestion?

The Ole Seagull doesn’t think so.

That aside however, whether the Ole Seagull agrees with Peter or not on this issue he would be remiss not to acknowledge that he is one of our community’s true leaders. His political, financial, and social clout; articulate and passionate, although sometimes elitist and seemingly arrogant, method of presentation; the ever present “Mabel,” and his personal accomplishments and community involvement are the things that legends are made of. But like Ole Seagulls even legends aren’t right all of the time.

Gary Groman is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier and may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Seagull Musings Column for February 15, 2004

A recent article appearing in the January 30-31 edition of this paper entitled, “Pennel continues push for alcohol resolution,” reported on local resident Chuck Pennel’s continuing quest for the Branson Board of Aldermen to pass a resolution against the serving of alcohol in theatres. The article said that Pennel “is puzzled that the city will pass a resolution against gambling but not alcohol.”

What caught the Ole Seagull’s eye was the logic used to address Pennel’s concern. Alderman Ron Huff was reported to have said, “I think a resolution would not be the thing for the council to do.Newspapers throughout the country could pick it up and the message could be misconstrued that we don’t want you (people who drink alcohol) here.”

That logic boggles an Ole Seagull’s mind. Why are the newspapers more likely to pick up a story on a resolution against the expansion of the serving of alcohol, from its traditional venues in restaurants, clubs, bars, and at private functions, into Branson’s traditionally alcohol free venues such as theatres and attractions, than they are a resolution against gambling? Using that same logic, couldn’t people who gamble misconstrue things in the same way?

Yet, seemingly, they don’t. The Ole Seagull would bet that a large part of the millions of visitors who come to Branson each year gamble even though Branson’s stand against casino gambling is a matter of long standing record. Why?Could the answer be, as is the case with most destinations, people base their primary decision on whether or not to come to Branson on what they expect to experience while here not what they don’t expect to experience.

Until recently, it was common knowledge that Branson did not serve alcohol in its theatres. Evidently, few, if any, potential visitors construed the message as “We don’t want people who drink to visit Branson.”Why?Because people use common sense and realize that although they can’t get alcohol in Branson’s theatres and attractions they can get all the alcohol they want in all the traditional venues where alcohol is normally served such as restaurants, clubs, bars, and at private functions.

Alderman Stan Barker is reported to have told Pennel “that gambling could be more detrimental to the city than alcohol.” Yeah sure and an atom bomb dropped on Branson could be more detrimental to the city than alcohol and gambling combined but the chances are about as great of that happening as it is, from a family value point of view, that gambling could be any more detrimental to a community, and its families, than alcohol.

The article goes on to report that Barker said, “I’m not going to discriminate against businesses in our community.” Isn’t Rockaway Beach part of our “community?” Alderman Barker is a long time resident and knows full well that what is being asked for in the drinking resolution is actually an affirmation of the way the majority of theatres and attractions have operated since day one in Branson, alcohol free!

Now, because a few theatres want to change the way it has been, and are willing to risk Branson’s family entertainment image to do it, its discrimination to pass a resolution opposing such action? Can anyone explain to an Ole Seagull how a resolution stating the Boards opposition to the expansion of the serving of alcohol from its traditional venues in restaurants, clubs, bars, and at private functions into Branson’s traditionally non alcoholic venues is either discriminatory, inconsistent with tradition, or, most ludicrous of all, unconstitutional?

The article further reports that Barker said, “We need to focus our energy to deter gambling.” In terms of family values, why is gambling any more important than the expansion of the serving of alcohol, strip clubs, a “Hooters” restaurant,” adult book stores, xxx rated movies etc? Each has the potential to erode the very foundation of what makes Branson unique, to visitors and residents alike, its family friendly environment.

In terms of espousing the family values of what Branson has to offer, isn’t it hypocritical to oppose gambling on one hand while ignoring the expansion of alcohol on the other? If it’s moral rather than economic or apathetic factors that drive our concern why focus on just the potential of gambling? How can the actuality of the expansion of the serving of alcohol into Branson’s traditionally alcohol free family friendly venues such as theatres and attractions be ignored? The answer is obvious and that does not bode well for Branson’s future.

Gary Groman is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier and may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Branafia for one, a “Merry Christmas” for most, and “let’s pray” for all!

The Ole Seagull had the opportunity to speak at the Jan. 26 meeting of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce & CVB Board of Directors regarding a resolution pertaining to encouraging the use of the greeting “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays” during Ozark Mountain Christmas. As it was being discussed, one of the board members just couldn’t seem to wait to share the fact that he had a problem with one of the columns that the Ole Seagull had written about six months ago, the one where the term “Branafia” was coined.

“Seagull, I remember that column, it was entitled ‘Look, up in the sky, it’s the secret handshake clique – no wait, it’s the Branafia” and had nothing to do the use of the term ‘Merry Christmas’ during Ozark Mountain Christmas.”

“You are absolutely right.”

The tapes of the meeting indicate that the person specifically said that the column had “basically compared this group [the chamber board], this organization [the chamber], and the very people sitting in this room to a criminal organization that deals with murder and drugs and that sort of thing.” When the Ole Seagull replied that “The column was not directed at the board or the chamber,” he said, “It was specifically directed at this board.”

“WOW, and “Merry Christmas” to you Seagull, he seems pretty adamant.”

“And he’s not finished yet.”

The Ole Seagull asked “Was the chamber board even mentioned in that article?”

In what just might be a Freudian slip, he replied, “The meeting of the chamber board, the board retreat was, yes.”

Just to make sure the Ole Seagull asked, “It was mentioned in that article, “the board retreat?”

He replied, “Yes.”

Using his own terminology, let’s see what the column “basically” contained, or, more appropriately in this case, didn’t contain. A “basic” word search of the column shows that the words “board” and “retreat” did not even appear in the column and that the word “chamber” only appears once, in noting the title of Ross Summers as a speaker at the July 1, 2004 meeting of the Hollister Board of Aldermen. It should also be noted that the words “criminal,” murder, and “drugs,” or any reasonable derivative thereof, do not appear in the column.

“Based on that and what the column actually said, how can any reasonable person say that it was “specifically directed” at the chamber, the chamber board, or “the very people sitting” anywhere, let alone in that room?”

“Anyone can say anything but does that make it the truth?”

When the meeting finally got back to the issue of the chamber encouraging the use of the greeting “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays” in connection with the Chambers involvement with Ozark Mountain Christmas, the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce & CVB’s Board of Directors voted by a margin of nine to seven to adopt the measure.

“Whoa there Seagull, doesn’t that close a vote on a measure to encourage the use of the greeting “Merry Christmas,” in lieu of “Happy Holidays,” during Ozark Mountain Christmas cause you some concern?

“Sure it does but let’s keep things in context.”

The very next vote was on a totally unexpected and spontaneously presented motion. That motion was to open each board meeting with prayer, passed unanimously, and, to an Ole Seagull, speaks volumes as to the commitment to our community’s values that the majority of those on the board have.”

“You know what Seagull, that vote just might be as important to Branson’s future, or even more so, than the Merry Christmas vote.”

“Good point, after all, God works in mysterious ways and ’causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.’”

Seagull Musings Column February 1, 2004

Given the recent spate of publicity pertaining to the financial woes of the Wonders of Wildlife Museum, WOW, in Springfield, some probably expect another column cautioning about the possibility of the same thing happening at Branson Landing. The current publicity surrounding WOW is, however, only the report of the actuality of what past reports had forecasted was going to happen. Rather than be redundant let’s consider the possibility that the financing of the public portion of Branson Landing just might not be another WOW.

To a large extent it appears that WOW’s financial woes are based on the rather bizarre way its revenue projections were used in its financial planning. WOW’s planners had received two different studies from two different reliable sources, two years apart. The last study indicated a 40 percent drop in potential revenues from the first study.Did they use the lower estimate?No, they increased the newer lower estimate by about twenty percent and proceeded based on those figures!The rest is history.

In the case of Branson Landing the initial, unsubstantiated estimates by various developers and others were anywhere from 40 to 50 percent higher than those ultimately indicated in a study furnished to the City of Branson by a nationally recognized firm, ERA, in October of 2003.The difference is that in the case of Branson Landing, its planners are using the lower more conservative figure in the ERA study as the basis for their financial planning.

The Ole Seagull had an opportunity to meet with Alderman Dick Gass, City Administrator, Terry Dody and the City’s Finance Director, Deanna Schlegel to discuss the indebtedness and revenue projections for Branson Landing.Based on that meeting and documentation furnished by Schlegel it appears that, using the more conservative lower figures contained in the ERA Study, over a 23 year period, there will be a surplus of $86 million dollars more than will be spent in debt coverage. The surplus grows to $92 million if Tax Increment Financing is combined with an Annual Appropriation by the City guaranteeing debt payment.

“Hey Seagull, what’s this Annual Appropriation stuff, didn’t ‘they’ originally say that the City of Branson wouldn’t be legally responsible for the debt involved with Branson Landing?” It’s a matter of public record, sure they did.”Were they lying?” No, they just didn’t overly emphasize the fact that without such an appropriation financing for the project might be more difficult to obtain and that the rate of interest to get the financing would be much higher. For these and other obvious reasons, the Ole Seagull has never had any doubt that, when all is said and done, there will be an Annual Appropriation by the City guaranteeing the public portion of the Branson Landing debt.It just makes good business sense to do so.

In a column written in November of 2003, the Ole Seagull asked, “How financially viable would the project be if those figures were off 10 to 25 percent or more?What exactly is the “worse case scenario?”

According to the information furnished by the City, even if the revenues were off by 25 percent, over a 23 year period, there will be a surplus of $40 million dollars more than will be spent in debt coverage using pure Tax Increment Financing and a surplus of over $50 million if combined with an Annual Appropriation.

Well what about the “worse case scenario?”Although that is pretty subjective, if revenues were off 50 percent, over a 23 year period, there will be a deficit of about $13 million dollars using pure Tax Increment Financing and a surplus of almost $7 million dollars if combined with an Annual Appropriation.

“Well Seagull, that’s all well and good but how do we know if the figures are going to be right?”Unless we have a crystal ball we don’t, it’s just the process of using the best available information in an effort to make the decisions that have to be made.”Is there any better information available that could be used?”The Ole Seagull has been to a lot of meetings relating to the financing of the Branson Landing Project and has neither seen any nor heard anyone request to submit alternative information that could be used to make the financial decisions that have to be made regarding Branson Landing.

“Hey Seagull, how about this, only about 19 percent of the anticipated revenues from the Branson Landing Project will come from Convention Center visitors but it represents about 40 per cent of the project indebtedness. Why don’t we just forget the Convention Center?”Hum, the possibilities are endless aren’t they?

Gary Groman is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier and may be reached by clicking here.

Seagull Musings for January 25, 2004

An article in the Jan. 15 edition of the Springfield News Leader reported that “The education credentials of Larry Cockrum, the school’s dean of administration and director of its Keeter Center for Character Education, were called into question last fall by C of O, (College of the Ozarks), biology professor Jonathan Davis.” What really caught the Ole Seagull’s attention however was what immediately followed, “Davis was suspended in December for the spring semester and will not be offered a contract renewal for next year.”

“Surely that must be a misprint,” he thought but alas, and to his disappointment, it wasn’t. The article went on to report that “Virginia Fry, the school’s attorney, said earlier that if Davis had done things properly and reported what he learned to his division chair, he’d likely still be working at the school.” Well Virginia there might be a Santa Claus but, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, given the apparent facts of this situation, short of Davis backing off, even Santa couldn’t have kept Davis in his position.

What had Davis “learned?”According to the article, Larry Cockrum, C of O’s dean of administration and, the school’s director of its Keeter Center for Character Education, had received a Ph.D. in 1991, from Crescent City Christian College. The article went on to point out that the “college” was being operated out of a residence, that “investigators from Texas and Louisiana have said the degrees from Crescent City were fraudulent,” that “the school is no longer operating,” and that “C of O still lists Cockrum as having a Ph.D. in its most recent academic catalog.”

From the Ole Seagull’s point of view, here’s where it gets interesting, in a sad sort of way. It appears that C of O knew about the Cockrum’s “sham” Ph.D. when they hired him. William Todd, former C of O administrator and board member was reported to have said, “everyone on the board was aware of Cockrum’s degree when they hired him in 1992, but ‘It didn’t matter at the time. … We didn’t consider it that important.’

Why didn’t it matter at the time? Why didn’t they consider it that important? In an email received from C of O’s attorney, Virginia Fry, she said, “During this process, the credentials of the candidate are reviewed and, if necessary, questions are asked. Since you may be wondering about Dean Cockrum, the position that he applied for initially at the college was Dean of Students. The position required only a master’s degree. The Ph.D. has not been required for any position that he has held at the college.”

No Virginia, an Ole Seagull would respectfully disagree. The position required more than a masters degree, it required a person with a character consistent with the qualities that the college’s “Five Fold Mission” program seeks to impart to its students. If it doesn’t start with its faculty where does it start?

The fact of the matter is that it appears, whether required or not, Cockrum submitted an employment application holding himself out as having a Ph.D. that, given the circumstances under which it was received, no reasonable person, let alone a college trained professional with a masters degree, could reasonably consider legitimate. It also appears, in spite of what he knew or should have known that for over a period of 13 plus years Cockrum has compounded the situation by holding himself out as a Ph.D.

Unfortunately, the situation only gets worse. It appears that “everyone on the board was aware of Cockrum’s degree when they hired him in 1992, but “It didn’t matter at the time” because they didn’t consider it that important. Yet, knowing what they knew about the way Cockrum obtained his Ph.D. the college administration not only hired him and holds him out to the public, students, accrediting associations, and potential donors as a Ph.D. but, in an oxymoron turn of events, made him the director of the colleges Keeter Center for Character Education.

How does the process that the college has followed relating to the hiring of Cockrum, holding him out as a Ph.D., and its “firing” of Davis for the way he exposed what appears to be a “living lie,” illustrate the application of C of O’s “Five Fold Mission?” (Academic Goal, Vocational Goal, Spiritual Goal, Patriotic Goal and Cultural Goal) Exactly where did either the actions of Cockrum or the college, in this situation, help “provide a sound education,” …”promote a strong work ethic,” encourage “the development of good character and values” or demonstrate an “adherence to high personal standards?” Sadly, from an Ole Seagull’s perspective the answers, in order, are “it doesn’t” and “nowhere.”

An “Inducement” is defined as “a motive or consideration that leads one to action.”Exhibit 6 of the “Branson Landing Tax Increment Financing Plan” indicates that up to $33 million dollars of Branson Landing Project funds could be used to “induce prospective Retail and Hotel Anchors” to commit to the project.

One such potential “Hotel Anchor,” conditioned their participation upon “receiving at least $10,000,000 in direct Sales Tax TIF Bond Proceeds or other similar inducement and entering a long-term subordinated land lease with the City of Branson at a minimum cost.”That’s sure a way to “lead one to action,” pay them $10 million dollars up front to take the desired action.The Ole Seagull would bet that there are a lot of businesses, theatres, hotels, etc. that would have loved to been “induced” like that when they started their businesses in Branson.

There is also another way to “lead one to action.”It is called “incentives.”As used in the case of Branson Landing, an “Incentive” could be defined as, “the expectation of a reward, that induces action or motivates effort.”What a difference it would have been if the potential “Hotel Anchor” mentioned above had conditioned their participation upon “receiving $10 million dollars in tax revenues only if their business produced $15 million in tax revenues first and, in addition, taken as a whole, the tax revenues from the Branson Landing Project were sufficient to pay the projects indebtedness.

In the first case it’s a one sided situation.They get their “inducement” up front, merely by coming to the Branson Landing Project.In the second case, the “incentive situation,” they have to get it “the old fashioned way, earn it.”If the Ole Seagull understands the process, it appears that the “incentive” case scenario is being used for the Branson Landing Project inducements. Let’s take a look.

“Gotcha Outdoor Outfitters,” GOO, approaches the city about the possibility of building a $50 million dollar outdoor retail facility in Branson Landing.The city of Branson determines that GOO would make a great anchor and decides, as an inducement, to give GOO the opportunity to earn $10 million dollars in incentives.At this point the city hasn’t given GOO one penney.

In a “bond legalese” thing, $10 million dollars of the $50 million that GOO is going to invest in Branson Landing is also used to simultaneously “purchase,” what the Ole Seagull will call, “Incentive Bonds” from the City of Branson.At this point GOO gets the Incentive Bonds from the city, giving it the opportunity to earn up to $10 million dollars in incentives, is investing $50 million dollars in a facility in the Branson Landing Project, and the city hasn’t given GOO one penney.

It is important to note that the Incentive Bonds are “subordinate” to, what the Ole Seagull will call, the “Non Incentive” Branson Landing Bonds.In terms of priority, tax revenues from the Branson Landing Project will first be used to pay off the Non Incentive Bonds.Then, whatever tax revenues that are left may be used to pay off the Incentive Bonds.If there is insufficient revenues to pay the debt on the Non Incentive Bonds the Incentive Bonds will not get paid.

In addition, there will be performance and revenue incentive criteria that the holders of the Incentive Bonds must meet before they would receive payment.This criterion would be business specific, subject to negotiation, and would change from business to business depending on their perceived value to the overall project and other factors.The one thing that would not change however is the fact that it is another condition that the Incentive Bond holders must meet prior to receiving payment on their bonds.

In a nut shell, two things must happen before “Gotcha Outdoor Outfitters,” GOO, receives one penney in incentives from the City.First, the Branson Landing Project must generate enough tax revenue to pay the indebtedness on the Non Incentive Bonds.Second, the holders of the Incentive Bonds, in this case GOO, must meet the specific performance and revenue incentive criterion that they agreed to.If both do not happen, the Incentive Bond holders do not get paid.If both do happen, then GOO receives the $10 million dollars and the incentive process has worked.

“Could the incentive process be prostituted?”Of course it could but, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, the citizens and businesses of Branson are best served if the process is honored.It will either result in obtaining the sincere interest and commitment of the “world class” anchors that will be critical for the success of the Branson Landing Project or demonstrate their lack of interest and commitment.Either way, assuming appropriate action by city officials, the Branson wins.

What Do “XMAS,” “Happy Holidays,” and “Seasons Greetings,” have in common with “_ _ _ _ _ _ mas?”They leave CHRIST out of Christmas.So what? What does CHRIST have to do with Santa Claus, Rudolph, presents, office parties, Christmas trees, Christmas wreaths, holly, sleigh bells, and turkey dinners?Not much.What does CHRIST have to do with CHRISTmas?Everything!Without CHRIST there can be no CHRISTmas. Oh yes, there can be a holiday, a season, even an XMAS but, without CHRIST there can be no CHRISTmas, in either fact or spirit.

What is so obvious about CHRIST and CHRISTmas?One cannot even say or spell the word “CHRISTmas,” let alone explain its actual history, meaning, or origins without CHRIST.The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia states that Christmas is “Christ’s Mass in the Christian calendar, the feast of the nativity of Jesus.”The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “Christmas” as “A Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus.” Jesus who?Jesus, the CHRIST Child, the only begotten Son of God, born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem over 2000 years ago.

First there was Jesus CHRIST and because of CHRIST there is the celebration of His birth, “CHRISTmas.” According to the Encyclopedia Britannica “the Christian festival of Christmas was celebrated in Rome by AD 336.”Secular customs and traditions such as the Yule log, mistletoe, Christmas trees, holly, and the exchanging of gifts have developed since; but, first there was CHRIST.

Even the greatest current secular symbol, the “Ho, Ho, Ho” jolly old Santa Claus seen everywhere during the Christmas season, was first made popular in New York during the 19^th century.He is a fictional combination of a Dutch tradition honoring Saint Nicholas and Nordic folk tales.The result is a kindly old man with a big white beard, dressed in a red suit, who gives presents to good boys and girls once a year.Oh yes, the tradition of “Sinterklaas,” a Dutch variant of Saint Nicholas, can be traced back hundreds of years; but, first there was CHRIST.

Why, there are even some who would try to replace the bright guiding light of the Star of Bethlehem with the red glow of the nose of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.”Rudolph’s nose has been guiding Santa’s sleigh since 1939 when Robert May wrote a verse for a Montgomery Ward promotional comic book. In the late 1940’s his brother-in-law adapted the verse and used it in the song “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer;” and the cowboy crooner, Gene Autry, made Rudolph famous but, first there was CHRIST.

When someone says “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings,” rather than “Merry Christmas,” one could actually ask, “What Holiday?” or “What Season?”Do we say “Happy Holiday” for the 4^th of July or Memorial Day?No, of course not and yet, even before these there was that first CHRISTmas when the world was given the greatest gift of all because “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”If we keep the spirit of the Christ Child and His love in our hearts and share it with others, CHRISTmas, in its truest sense, will be with us everyday of the year. Merry CHRISTmas folks, Merry CHRISTmas.

Cost to city taxpayers for chambers private web site “millions” – benefit to the chamber “priceless”

In his November 30 column, the Ole Seagull asked the question, “What is the name and URL of the internet marketing site that the City owns and can transfer to any other entity that might be doing marketing for the city in the future?”Some might say “www.explorebranson.com” because that’s the internet address, URL, they see when Branson is advertised on TV and in publications, etc.They would be wrong!

The answer to the question, simply put, is, “none, zero, nada, zilch, etc!”The internet address, “www.explorebranson.com” is registered to the Branson/Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce /Conventions & Visitors Bureau, PO Box 1897, Branson, MO 65615.It is owned and controlled by the Branson/Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce/Conventions & Visitors Bureau, the chamber.It is the “chamber’s site” not the City of Branson’s.As such, the chamber can do whatever it wants with it.

When asked if “www.explorebranson.com” is in fact owned and controlled solely by the chamber, Ross Summers, its Executive Director said, “True.The Chamber owns a number of URL’s including bransonchamber.com […].”When asked about any written contractual arrangement between the City of Branson and the chamber to transfer “www.explorebranson.com,” in the event that the City selected another organization to act as its vendor for the provision of marketing services, Summers said, “There is no such agreement.”

“Hey, wait a minute; wasn’t the chamber’s web site built using City of Branson tourism tax dollars?”At least a portion of it was.According to Summers, “The initial costs were shared between Chamber funds and reimbursable Tourism Tax dollars.”He further pointed out that the “Initial development costs in 1999-2000 were $75,000.”

“Has the chamber site been used to raise revenue for the chamber?”According to Summers, “Leads and advertising are sold to participating Chamber members.”Summers also stated that “Revenue last year was $72,557.””Did any of it go to the City of Branson?”Summers said, “The Chamber/CVB and the City have no mutual financial interaction regarding the Chamber website other than on-going maintenance […].”

“Whoa there Seagull, are you saying that the chamber not only didn’t share the $72,557 in revenues it raised from the chamber site last year but also used reimbursable Tourism Tax dollars received from the taxpayers of the City of Branson for the sites “on-going maintenance?”No that’s what Mr. Summers appears to be saying.”Can any business collecting the Branson Tourism Tax get access to the leads generated from the ‘Chamber website’ and advertise on it?”Not if the term “participating Chamber members” means anything.

“Doesn’t the fact that the chamber owns the only web site the City of Branson has for the marketing of Branson give it a distinct advantage when it is bidding on the city’s marketing contract?”Of course it does.On December 3, while making a presentation trying to win the city’s multi million dollar marketing contract, Mr. Dan Cowling, President of the Communications Group, pointed out that the City of Branson does not own a marketing web site and that if his organization won the contact that was an issue that would have to be addressed.

“Hasn’t the vast majority of the traffic to the chambers site been built using advertising purchased with millions of ‘reimbursable Tourism Tax dollars’ received from the taxpayers of the City of Branson?”Of course it has. “And the chamber owns the site and could use it for whatever they wanted to even if the City used another web site to market Branson?”That is true.

“Doesn’t it make sense for the City to own its own marketing web site and 800 response number(s)?Why should the city spend millions of dollars promoting someone else’s who may or may not be Branson’s vendor for marketing services next year or three years from now?”From an Ole Seagulls perspective, in order, the answers are “Yes” and “it shouldn’t.”

From a Seagull’s perspective it would seem that common sense tells us that something celebrated as “Thanksgiving Day” should be a “day” of “giving” “thanks.”How many of us routinely say “Thanks” for something to “no one?”Generally, when we say “Thanks,” there is the “something” that generated the “giving” of “Thanks” and the “Thanks” is given to the person or entity believed to have provided that “something.”

Yet, even as some would take “CHRIST” out of CHRISTmas they would take the “GIVING” out of ThanksGIVING.To whom are we GIVING “Thanks?”From Coronado’s 1541 Thanksgiving in Palo Duro Canyon, in what is now West Texas, through the 1600 Puritan Thanksgivings in New England, history testifies to the fact that our modern day Thanksgiving is based on GIVING “Thanks” to God for blessings bestowed.

The true meaning of “Thanksgiving,” and its involvement with the very foundation of our Nation can be readily gleaned from the Proclamations establishing it.One of the “First Thanksgiving Proclamations,” issued in 1676, by the Governing Council of Charlestown, Massachusetts proclaimed, “a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favor.”

On December 18, 1777, after the victory over the British at Saratoga, the Congress recommended, “That at one time, and with one voice, the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that, together with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings they may join the penitent confession of their sins; and supplications for such further blessings as they stand in need of.”

On November 16, 1789, the First President of the United States, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation stating, “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.’”

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln, in his 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation said it best.”No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things.They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one hart and one voice by the whole American People.I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficient Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”

Particularly at this time in our Nations history, it would seem appropriate, during our Thanksgiving celebrations, to stop and give “thanks” to Almighty God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon this Nation and its people.As Lincoln so beautifully said, “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things.They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God.”

It is a sad fact of life that the politicians, and those in power, start wars and that the people of the nations involved bleed, die, suffer, and otherwise pay the price of war. As the people of countries make war on each other they tend to fall into two general categories, “Military” and “Civilian.” The Military kill each other the old fashioned way, directly, with bullets, rockets, bombs, mortars, artillery, planes, tanks, ships, hand to hand combat etc.

The Civilians of warring nations provide the means for the military to kill each other and the bodies to replace those that are killed and maimed. History records that the bullets, bombs, torpedoes, planes, ships and other implements of war used by Japan, to destroy the peace at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, were made by civilians.

Prior to December 7, 1941 there was peace between the United States and Japan. At approximately 7:55 a.m. Hawaii time, on Sunday, December 7, 1941, while Japanese diplomats met with Secretary of State Cordell Hull in Washington, DC, the country of Japan shattered that peace by spilling American blood in a cowardly surprise attack on the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. The attack killed over 2,400 and wounded over 1,175. On Monday December 8, 1941 President Roosevelt went before Congress and declared December 7, 1941 as, “A date that will live in infamy.” Congress declared war against Japan on that date and the United States entered into World War II.

Upon the death of President Roosevelt on April 12, 1945, over three years and 200,000 American lives later, Harry S. Truman, became the 33rd President of the United States. He was a Missourian known for his honesty and one of the most respected politicians of his time. The war in Europe was over and the Axis Powers of Italy and Germany had been defeated. All that remained between war and peace was the fanatical and kamikaze like resistance of the Japanese people and their army of over 2,500,000. In spite of the repeated warnings to surrender and that the alternative “was complete and utter destruction,” Japan refused to surrender and continued to fight.

Truman had served as an Artillery Officer in France during World War I and, prior to becoming President, was not aware of the “Manhattan Project” and its Atom Bomb. His advisors estimated the war could be shortened by a year and that 1 million Allied casualties, 500,000 of them American lives, could be saved if the Atomic Bomb was used on Japan. He decided that enough American blood had been spilled in trying to reestablish the peace that Japan had shattered.

At approximately 9:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945, after repeated warnings for Japan to surrender, the Atomic Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. In spite of the horrific carnage and destruction that resulted Japan did not capitulate. On August 9, 1945, another Atomic Bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Japan sued for peace the next day and the formal surrender papers were signed, on the deck of the Battleship U.S.S. Missouri, on September 2, 1945. Peace had been restored.

Some say America owes Japan an apology for using the Atomic Bomb. The lives sacrificed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved many times the lives, Japanese, American, as well as others, that would have been spent if the war had continued. Without Pearl Harbor and the refusal of Japan to end the war that they had started, not only would there have been no Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but millions of people, Japanese as well as others, would not have died. If the people of Japan are due an apology it more appropriately should come from their own government.

Some say that Japan owes us an apology for Pearl Harbor. No apology can undo history, bring back the lives that were lost, or change the treacherous cowardice of that attack. The blood of her sons, and ours, staining the sands of remote Pacific Islands such as Peleliu, Okinawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and others, stand as evidence of the futility of such an apology and, of war itself.

In his farewell address given in January 1953, Truman said, “The President–whoever he is–has to decide. He can’t pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That’s his job.” He did his job and hundreds of thousands of lives, Japanese as well as American, were saved and World War II was ended. Why would anyone apologize for that?

Billions to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure while ours is deteriorating – that’s nuts!

In Jack Arnold’s 1959 satirical movie comedy staring Peter Sellers, “The Mouse That Roared,” the tiny nation of “the Duchy of Grand Fenwick” was going broke.They decided that the only way to stave off financial disaster was to wage war on the United States and lose.The general idea for the movie was based on what the United States did for its enemies after World War II.It virtually “rebuilt” the two nations that were our enemies, Japan and Germany.

As a U.S., Marine at the time, the then young “Ole Seagull” thought to himself, “It would be funny if it wasn’t true but it is true and that’s nuts!”His idea of war more or less aligned itself with the simple three word definition of “war” attributed to General William Tecumseh Sherman, after the battle of Vicksburg, “War is hell.”

Whether done formally or informally, by organized armies, terrorists. or guerillas, be it our Nation waging war on another or another on us, those involved, either directly or indirectly, in starting or conducting a “war” should be prepared for “hell.”Not only the “hell” that is inherent in the actual fighting the war itself but the “hell” that war inflicts on individuals, societies, economies, and governments long after the last shot has been fired.

An April 22, 2003 article entitled “Rebuilding Iraq: What will it cost?” by CNN’s Liz George, reported that, “Analysts have said it could cost anything from $84 billion to nearly $500 billion to rebuild Iraq, a country battered by two wars in two decades and 12 years of United Nations sanctions.”It went on to point out that “One economist from America’s Yale University predicted rebuilding Iraq could cost up to $1.6 trillion over 10 years.”As a point of comparison, the article reported that “so far the cost of rebuilding Afghanistan has topped $900 million.

All over our Nation, from out dated power grids, to the air traffic control system, highways, bridges etc., our basic infrastructure is drastically in need of repair and improvement.The “power grid” failure that hit a large part of our country a few months ago and the reports of how inadequate it is to meet our needs illustrates the deteriorating condition of our nation’s basic infrastructure and its potential consequences in a very dramatic way.

Locally, just last week two more people died on U.S. Highway 65, between Hollister, Missouri and the Arkansas border on a stretch of highway that badly needs improvement.Yet, even in the face of our own national and local infrastructure needs we are, as a nation, going to spend billions repairing the infrastructures of Iraq and Afghanistan that we destroyed while waging war on them.That’s nuts!

Is it unreasonable for an Ole Seagull to think that the threat of war and its “hell,” both during the war and post war, should be used as a deterrent to those who would wage war upon or with us?”Oh, but we are helping the poor people of those countries who have nothing to do with what their governments did.”That’s nuts!

All governments, ours or our prospective enemies, do what they do through the efforts, or lack of effort, of those whom they govern..”It is individual people who visit the actual carnage of war on their enemies.An Ole Seagull once wrote, “It is a sad fact of life that the politicians, and those in power, start wars and that the people of the nations involved bleed, die, suffer, and otherwise pay the price of war.A large part of the “hell” of war should be the “post war” consequences.To remove that deterrent, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, is just plain nuts!

An August 15 article in the Wichita Eagle, entitled “Opportunities lure local businessmen to Ozark Resort,” reported on the connection between, what it, among other names, refers to as the “Wichita Mafia,” and the Branson Landing project. It said that the “Wichita Mafia” is simply “a bunch of guys who gradually switched from doing business in Wichita to developing in — and finally moving to — Branson, Mo.”

In keeping with its theme, the article describes some of the people who can make things happen in Branson and their financial commitment to making them happen. It said, “Chief among the movers and shakers in the development community are [Rick] Huffman, Santo ‘Sam’ Catanese and Marc Williams of HCW LLC.”

It further reported that “The development company won a major bid for the Branson Landing project, a $300 million public-private partnership to develop retail, hotel and convention center space on Lake Taneycomo.” The article continues, “HCW’s financial investment in the project, which has been likened to San Antonio’s Riverwalk, is $180 million.” Oh, really!

In actuality, “the development company” that won the bid for the Branson Landing project was not HCW LLC it was an entirely different company. The company mentioned in the article, HCW L.L.C., was created in May of 2000. HCW Development Company, L.L.C. (HCW), the company that won the bid for the Branson Landing project on August 27, 2002, was created on April 3, 2002. Both corporations have the same registered agent, Marc Williams and the same mailing address.

If “HCW’s financial investment in the project…is 180 million” where has it been spent? The Ole Seagull is aware of tens upon tens of millions of dollars being spent by the citizens and businesses of Branson on the Branson Landing project through their Board of Alderman and city administration. He has yet to see a report indicating that HCW has spent or invested $180 million in the project.

If the public record is any indication, one could almost get the impression that the only money being spent by HCW is money for which they get reimbursed by the city. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see a comparison of how much of its own funds HCW has “invested” or will invest, as compared to the tens of millions that the city has spent thus far and the tens of millions both HCW and the city will borrow to complete the project?

The article also states that the Branson Landing project “has been likened to San Antonio’s Riverwalk.” Who can honestly compare the history, intimacy, atmosphere, design, pedestrian flow, tenant mix, and the water feature of the San Antonio Riverwalk, with the projected Branson Landing project? Could it be some of the same people who describe it as a “world class attraction?”

How “world class” can it be, if people are concerned that competition from a “regional shopping center” in Branson Hills could effect its success? In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, the Branson Landing Project is about as close to being “world class” as the investment of HCW in it to date, is to $180 million. Oh, it will more than likely be built. The only question is, whether five years after it opens, will it be “likened to San Antonio’s Riverwalk” or the “Titanic?”

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Last weeks column entitled, “The ‘Odyspin Virus’ – Part 1 – Silence the public,” which can be viewed on the internet by clicking here, discussed how the Odyspin Virus has infected the public’s ability to speak at City council Meetings.This week’s column explores how it has infected the City’s ability to regulate the expansion of the drinking of alcoholic beverages into its theatres, theme parks, and amusement parks.

The issue isn’t whether or not there should be expanded regulation.That is something that is between the community and those elected to represent them.Rather, it is an issue of whether or not the community even gets to discuss such expansion in a meaningful way with their elected representatives.That’s kind of difficult to do when the Odyspin Virus has so infected City Hall and the Board of Aldermen that the prevailing attitude, regardless of existing state law, is that, “The City does not have the ability to regulate alcohol in theatres.It is a state issue to be taken up with the State of Missouri.”

Why is it even an issue in Branson?Over the years, a large part of Branson’s promotional “brand” has been the wholesomeness, Christian values, patriotism, and family values associated with its entertainment environment.Mr. Ross Summers, Chamber Executive-Vice President, was recently reported as having said, “Branson is family-friendly, wholesome entertainment. It’s based on Christian values and patriotic themes, and we believe gambling doesn’t represent those values.”

“Alleluia brother.” But neither does the spread of the sale, serving, and consumption of alcoholic beverages, from their traditional venues, into our theatres, theme parks, and amusement parks where, traditionally, they have not been served.Does it?

At the August 25, 2003, meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, regarding what the Ole Seagull calls the “Purvis Ain’t No Alcohol Here Resolution,” the Ole Seagull, as others before him, wanted to encourage that the Resolution address the expansion of the drinking of alcoholic beverages into our theatres, theme parks, and amusement parks.Then the “Odyspin Virus,” in the form of Terry Dody, City Administrator and City Attorney, Daniel Wichmer, started its “spin.”

When the “spin” fell short on the procedural aspects, the tape of the meeting shows that Wichmer, said, “Actually Mr. Groman, what I am trying to point out to you, since you raised the question, is that the City does not have the ability to regulate alcohol in theatres.It is a state issue to be taken up with the State of Missouri.”As one who would walk into a room full of “dribble” and ask where the “dribbler” was, the Ole Seagull instantly knew he was standing knee deep in “Odyspin Virus Dribble.”

In response, the Ole Seagull stated words to the effect, that although the State controls the initial licensing, there are statutes that permit the Cities to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages within their jurisdictions and “you are aware of them.Aren’t you?”Never answering the question directly, a distinct symptom of the “Odyspin Virus,” Wichmer said, “I stand by my opinion.”

Among other things, Section 311.220 of Missouri’s Liquor Control Law authorizes the Board of Alderman of a City to “make and enforce ordinances for the regulation and control of the sale of all intoxicating liquors within their limits.”Further it permits them to “provide for penalties for the violation of such ordinances, where not inconsistent with the provisions of this law.”

In May of 2001, in the case of “State of Missouri, Respondent v. Entertainment Ventures I, Inc,” the Missouri’s Supreme Court specifically addressed the application of Section 311.220 to local regulation.In discussing the application of Section 311.220 to Section 311.095, the very statute authorizing the liquor licenses to the businesses that Wichmer says “the City does not have the ability to regulate,” the court said, “Put simply, the two sections are not contrary to or inconsistent with each other. Indeed, the two sections are entirely compatible and are part of a complementary system of state and local regulation of businesses that sell intoxicating liquor.”

Evidently they didn’t put it simply enough. At least not for the “Odyspin Virus” that seems to thrive on an environment of created confusion, “smoke and mirrors,” making the simple complex, and the controlling of public input into the processes of government.Whether or not Branson chooses to exercise the authority given to it by statute is one thing but having that authority is a matter of law and even the “Odyspin Virus” cannot change that!

The “Odyspin Virus” – Part 1 – Silence the public

In the perfect illustration of “much ado about nothing,” the Branson Board of Aldermen passed the “Purvis Ain’t No Alcohol Here Resolution,” at their August 25^, 2003, meeting. Its formal title, “A Resolution Stating the Commitment of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Branson to Support and Protect Branson’s Reputation as a Family Vacation Destination,” is much longer in verbiage and promise than its contents are in substance.

Repeatedly, as speakers tried to voice their concerns, either in support or non support of the Resolution they were attacked by the infamous “Odyspin Virus.”In its primary stage, the virus manifests itself primarily through the actions of the City Attorney, Daniel Wichmer as he continually interrupts citizens trying to express themselves to their elected leaders at public meetings.

The tape of the meeting will show that the Mayor stated words to the effect, “Does anyone in our audience have any comments?”There were no conditions placed on the offer to speak either in the Mayors invitation or in the Agenda.Yet, not too far into his presentation the Ole Seagull, like those who had gone before him, was interrupted by Wichmer, who had not either been given the “floor” or been recognized by the Mayor prior to his interruption. As the Ole Seagull was trying to point out that he was in fact on topic he asked Wichmer, “Why don’t you just let the people speak uninterrupted?”

At that point the “Odyspin Virus” went into its potent secondary phase, after which it is named, the ever present “Odyspin.” City Administrator Terry Dody, who like Wichmer before him, had not been given the floor or been recognized by the Mayor, interrupted the proceedings.Dodys “spin” was that it was not an issue of not wanting people to speak but rather the City Attorney doing his job and enforcing the rules of the City Council which they could change if they wanted to.

The “Branson Spinmiester” falls short on this one however.The tape of the proceeding will show that the Ole Seagull, who is not exactly “the vestal virgin” when it comes to dealing with the “Odyspin Virus,” was well within the City Councils rules when Wichmer had interrupted him, as were a number of other people that he interrupted throughout the evening.

Also, it was kind of neat the way Dody passed the buck to the Aldermen.One can only wonder if it’s a precursor of things to come if the Convention Center fails.Even more important and telling however, is the fact that Wichmer didn’t enforce the same “rules of order” on Dody that he attempted to enforce on everyone else.

Now there’s a man that knows who “butters his bread.” It evidently isn’t the Mayor or the Board of Aldermen.Has the “Odyspin Virus” so infected our City Council and Mayor that they will sit there like “See Nothing, Hear Nothing, and Do Nothing” while those they serve are treated in such a manner?Don’t they want the public to feel free to stand up and speak to them?To an Ole Seagull the answer seems clear and it’s not a pretty picture, but the picture really turns ugly if the “Odyspin Virus” is infecting other aspects of City government.

Next Week”The “Odyspin Virus” – Part 2 – Liquor regulation in Branson is what “Odyspin” dictates regardless of what the law says it is.

Compliance with the “Sunshine Law?-The State Auditor says “thank God” as an Ole Seagull says “God help us!”

At State Auditor Claire McCaskill’s Audit Report presentation, on July 30, 2003, when referring to “Finding Number 9” of the report, entitled, “Board Meetings, Minutes, and Records,” covering the City’s compliance with the Sunshine Law she said, “If there was one finding I wanted them [Branson Board of Aldermen] to agree with it was this one and thank God they did.”As she made that statement and expounded on how important compliance with the Sunshine Law was an Ole Seagull’s reaction was not “thank God” but “God help us!”

The City’s exact and total response to Finding Number 9 was, “The Board will review the auditor’s comments and continue to rely upon the City’s legal counsel’s advice to ensure compliance with state law.”Could someone enlighten an Ole Seagull, exactly what did the City “agree with?”Why is the State Auditor thanking God that the “Board will review the auditor’s comments?”Her report is filled with responses from the City for just about every Finding.Does she really believe they, including this one, were prepared and submitted without a review of the “auditor’s comments?”

Why would the City’s statement that they would “continue to rely upon the City’s legal counsel’s advice to ensure compliance with state law” give either her, or anyone else, any comfort?Isn’t this the same legal advice that the City followed during the audit and led her to say, “I can’t think of an audit where the auditee [City of Branson] has been more uncooperative?

Like many in the community, the Ole Seagull had concerns about the number of “closed” or “executive session” meetings being held by the Branson Board of Aldermen, whether or not the topics discussed in those “closed meetings” were excepted from the “public meeting” requirement of the Sunshine Law, and whether or not the “notices” of such meetings were in compliance with the Sunshine Law.If the Audit Report is the last word, evidently there has been no reason for these concerns.

Item A. in Finding 9 of the Auditors Report states that, among other things, “The regular board minutes and the meeting agendas do not document the specific reasons for going into a closed session. The minutes and the agendas normally quote Section 610.021 RSMo., subsections 1, 2, and 3 which are three general reasons for going into closed session….”

Section 610.022 of the Sunshine Law requires the City to state the reason for holding the closed session “by reference to the specific exception allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 610.021?”Doesn’t the very verbiage quoted above in the Audit Report itself establish that is exactly what the City did?

Finding 9 further states, “It is unclear how some items discussed by the Board of Aldermen during closed meetings are allowed under the provisions of the Sunshine law.” It then goes on to cite several examples of alleged “unclearness.”

What’s this “unclear” stuff?If the State Auditor, with the resources of the State of Missouri at her disposal, can’t make a simple determination as to whether or not the City was in compliance with the Sunshine Law then, “God help us.”What’s next?Speeding tickets being issued because it is “unclear” whether or not someone is speeding?

“Now simmer down Seagull, doesn’t Section 610.027 of the Sunshine Law contain a provision stating that, among others, Missouri’s Attorney General, may seek judicial enforcement of the Sunshine Law?”Yes it does.”If the State Auditors Findings regarding Branson’s Sunshine Law truly indicate non compliance with the Sunshine Law regarding closed meetings, why doesn’t the Attorney General take some action?”

Now how would an Ole Seagull know the answer to that?Has anyone, including the State Auditor, even asked the Attorney General to take action?”If they did do you think he would accept the case?” No.”Why?”Well, to paraphrase the words of the State Auditor herself, because of “several weaknesses in Finding 9 of the Audit Report.”

Is it still the “chamber tax?” Probably so but it doesn’t have to be!

At the July 7, 2003, meeting of the Taney County Commission, Mr. Ross Summers, of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, did his level best to separate the “Chamber Tax” from the Chamber and suggested that everyone start calling it a “Tourism Tax.”Based on the reaction of those present, it appeared that he was about as successful, in this endeavor, as a gnat would be in separating buzzards from carrion they wanted to eat.

In its current form, if the “Chamber Tax” is to be called something else, it’s probably more accurate to call it a “Tourism Community Enhancement Tax” rather than a “Tourism” Tax.”As an example, the 10 percent for schools and 10 percent for community enhancement projects has nothing to do with the tourism marketing of our area and, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, was originally included by the “Chambers Secret Handshake visionaries” as a vote getting “carrot.”

What is necessary to make the transition to just a simple “Tourism Tax,” that can be debated on its own merits?The transition from a “Tourism Community Enhancement Tax” to “Tourism Tax” appears to be pretty simple.Just delete the “carrot provisions” and provide that “Ninety-seven percent of the revenues shall be used by the Districts Board for the marketing, advertising, and promotion of tourism as it deems appropriate to most effectively market the District [Branson area].”

The transitioning from the “Chamber Tax” to a “Tourism Tax” is a little more challenging.The first, and most critical step, is to eliminate the obvious bias in the original law toward just about guaranteeing that the proceeds from the tax will be administered by the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce.The wording suggested above is one way to accomplish just that and provides the Districts Board with the flexibility it needs to effectively market Branson in whatever manner they deem appropriate.

The second step is to insure that the Districts Board of Directors is either elected directly or appointed by, and accountable, to a governmental body elected by the voters.Doesn’t common sense dictate that Board members should not be selected by non governmental entities, such as the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, which may be competing for the very marketing funds that the Board they are selecting people for has the responsibility for administering?

The simplest way to accomplish this is to eliminate any provision in the statute that permits any entity other than a government entity, elected by the voters, to select Board members.A suggested composition would be a five member Board with three (3) members selected by the Branson Board of Aldermen, one by the Taney County Commission, and one by the Stone County Commission.

After the February 2002 election, a new “voter approval” section was added to the law that authorizes the tax.This section appears to authorize the flexibility to accomplish the above but must be done so by the voters at the same time they vote on the sales tax.To an Ole Seagull, it is a cumbersome and legally dubious process, but it at least provides a mechanism for needed changes.

Could it be that a better approach would be for the community to agree on a new law and commit to getting it through the legislature?Is it unreasonable to expect the Chamber that created the problem to step forward and provide the leadership to give the voters the law they should have had in the first place?

Will the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce take the lead and say, “Whatever it takes let’s get it fixed?All we want is for Branson to be marketed in the most efficient manner possible and if that means that someone else does it that’s all right with us?”Will the public accept that, forget the past, and work towards what is best for Branson’s future?An Ole Seagull’s prayer would be that they would but his fear is that they will never get the chance.

On March 3, 1836, Colonel William Barret Travis, the Commander of the Alamo, wrote to Texas Governor Smith, “…victory will cost the enemy so dear, that it will be worse for him than defeat.”In the early predawn hours of Sunday, March 6, 1836, after 12 days of almost constant bombardment and siege, the soldiers of General Santa Anna, numbering in the thousands, made their final assault on the Alamo, overwhelming its 189 defenders.The immediate cost to the Mexican Army was over 600 killed and countless wounded.The cost to the defenders of the Alamo was the life of each and every one, 189 souls.

The prophetic words of Colonel Travis, the spirit of the Alamo, and the actual cost of the Mexican “victory” at the Alamo manifested themselves, only 46 days after its fall, at the Battle of San Jacinto.The Mexican army, under General Santa Anna, outnumbered the Texas army, under the command of General Sam Houston, by over a two to one margin. In spite of these odds, the Texas Army, inspired by the sacrifice of the Alamo defenders and shouting the battle cry, “Remember the Alamo,” defeated Santa Anna’s army.The short brutal battle lasted only 18 minutes, resulted in the deaths of over 630 Mexican soldiers, the capture of General Santa Anna, and won the independence of Texas.

What is it about the Alamo that so inspired the Texas army at the Battle of San Jacinto and has touched the hearts and souls of generations since?What are we to remember? Was it their courage?Was it that they spent their lives for a noble cause?Was it the fact that so few stood against so many for so long?Is it a combination of these factors?Is it possible however, that the true inspiration of the Alamo draws its strength from the fact that the defenders of the Alamo could have elected not to give their lives in a battle they knew they could not win?

History records that on the first day of the Siege of the Alamo, Santa Anna had a blood-red banner, signifying “no quarter,” surrender or die, run up on San Fernando Cathedral within the sight of the Alamo defenders.It was answered with cannon fire from the Alamo and the siege began.

Eleven days into the siege, after receiving messages that no further help would be coming, Colonel Travis, explained the hopelessness of their situation and gave them a choice of either escaping or surrendering and perhaps living, or staying and the certainty of death.The chances of escape were pretty good as people had been going through the Mexican lines all during the siege.These brave men had already brought General Sam Houston 12 precious additional days in which to gather, organize, and train his Texas army.They could have left as heroes for what they had already done.

Why, as James Bowie said, would they ” … rather die in these ditches than give them up to the enemy?”Their individual reasons probably varied, the nobleness of the cause, loyalty to each other and their country, honor, duty, freedom from tyranny, and, for some, like Bowie, the defense of their homes.They were however, bound together by the common threads of their courage, their belief that it was right and necessary to fight the army of Santa Anna at that time, in that place, no matter what the price, and in their commitment to pay that price.

While declaring his own intent to stay and die for his country, tradition Travis unsheathed his sword and drew a line in the dirt. He asked all that would stay with him to cross the line.All but one, including Colonel James Bowie who, because of illness, had to be carried across the line, crossed the line into the face of certain death, and, although unknown to them at the time, into a special place in history.That special hallowed place where the spirit of honor, dedication to purpose, valor, and willingness to sacrifice all, for a noble cause believed in, is preserved.

“Remember the Alamo” and celebrate its spirit.It represents that which is courageous, honorable, and worthy of commitment in the hearts of individuals and nations.Born from the hearts of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, it guided their hands, on July 4, 1776, as they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on behalf of a new nation.It is the spirit of “the Alamo,” the “Let’s Roll,” heroes of United Flight 93, and of countless others who have committed “their all” for that in which they believed.

It is the “American Spirit,” the very lifeblood of our nation.May that Nation “Under God,” be eternally blessed with that spirit, for without it, She would not have been born and could not long endure.Happy Birthday America, Happy Birthday!

Seagull Musings Column for 06/22/03

Let’s go to the theatre, grab a beer, and complain about gambling in Rockaway Beach

At the outset the Ole Seagull would point out that he drinks on occasion and likes to play Blackjack and Limit Texas Hold’Em Poker.He could go on about why, because of personal failings, he probably should not be writing this column but he won’t.

The issues of expanded drinking and gambling in Branson go beyond the personal failings of one Ole Seagull.They go to the bed rock of the foundation upon which Branson’s success has been built.These are issues of what is right or wrong for Branson, her people, her guests, their families, and her economic future.As Abraham Lincoln said, “If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

Today, in a very competitive tourism industry, one of Branson’s main selling points is its “family friendly” atmosphere.It, perhaps more than any other one thing, is what differentiates Branson from other tourist destinations and gives our guests a clear choice to make in selecting a vacation or get away destination.Without it, Branson is but another “raisin” in a box of “tourist destination raisin bran.”

In making a list of the “Most Family Friendly Activities,” where would most people place gambling or the drinking of alcoholic beverages?If included at all, would they be near the top or the bottom?Similarly, in making a list of the “Least Family Friendly Activities,” where would they be?Unless, an Ole Seagull misses his guess, most of the potential “family value” or “family friendly” guests that Branson targets would leave them off the “Most Family Friendly” list and have them near, or at, the top of the “Least Family Friendly” list.

Of these two “Least Family Friendly Activities,” which one, gambling or the drinking of alcoholic beverages, is the least family friendly?Is one of the two a leading cause of deaths on Americas’ highways and roadways?Of the two, which do you believe is responsible for more instances of spousal and child abuse or has damaged the greatest number of lives and families?An Ole Seagull’s personal life’s experience convicts him that the answer, to all the above, is the drinking of alcoholic beverages.

Between 1983 and 1996 only three Branson theatres had received liquor licenses.Since 1996 eight theatres have received Liquor Licenses.Of these eight, five have been granted during the years 2002 and 2003. Is there a trend developing here?If so, is it a trend that adds to the friendly atmosphere that Branson is allegedly so concerned about?

In a Pontius Pilate self fulfilling prophesy sort of way, the Branson Board of Aldermen and City Administration seem to say, “Oh hum, we can’t do anything about it because it’s the state that issues the liquor licenses.”But the state also issues Driver Licenses.

Doesn’t the City have ordinances that restrict how the privileges permitted by that license are exercised within the Branson City limits?Similarly, couldn’t Branson have ordinances restricting how the privileges authorized by state Liquor Licenses are exercised in its theatres, theme parks, amusement parks, and amusement parlors?

Can Rockaway Beach’s proposed gambling damage Branson’s family friendly atmosphere anymore than expanding the drinking of alcoholic beverages into its theatres, theme parks, amusement parks, and amusement parlors would?An Ole Seagull doesn’t think so.Aren’t both “family unfriendly?”

The Branson Board of Aldermen has passed a resolution against the expansion of gambling in the Branson area.All rhetoric and excuses aside, as an initial measure of Branson’s true commitment to “family friendliness,” the Branson Board of Aldermen could pass a similar resolution regarding the expansion of the serving of alcoholic beverages in its theatres, theme parks, amusement parks, and amusement parlors.

Will they?Not without the commitment, involvement, and action of those allegedly opposed to the expansion of the drinking of alcoholic beverages into Branson’s theatres, theme parks, amusement parks, and amusement parlors.If the apathy of the past is any indication, let’s get our beers and belly up to the show as we complain about how gambling coming to Rockaway Beach will harm our family friendly atmosphere.

Here’s an Ole Seagullisim, “Newspapers report what those who control them want them to report exactly the way they want to report it.”Some might say, “Well I can see that happening at the national level but it doesn’t happen at the local level, does it?”Of course it does.

For the last two years the Branson City Administrator has been deeply involved with bringing the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center to Branson.Just as the state approves the TIF, which enables the Convention Center, and the project is getting ready to break out of the starting gate, the City Administrator goes to Naples, Florida to interview for a new job.

In most cities the size of Branson, particularly under these circumstances, that’s a news story. Evidently, not in Branson!Were it not for the fact that this paper reported the story in its June 6-7 edition, there would have been no newspaper coverage of this event.Why, quite simply, because either those having the responsibility to report the news, their editors, or their publishers decided not to report it.

In another situation, the Ole Seagull made a presentation to the Taney County Commissioners on June 2, 2003, about establishing a committee to see what the County could do regarding the 1% Retail Sales tax guillotine that is currently hanging over the heads of those living in Taney County.A guillotine placed there largely thanks to the actions of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and the votes of Commissioner Herschend and Ex Presiding Commissioner Chowning.

There were two reporters at the meeting and the tax represents millions of potential tourism marketing dollars to the area.But, were it not for the fact that the Taney County Times and its sister publication, this paper, reported on the event, the public would have had no practical way of knowing what took place or that the matter was currently under consideration by the Commissioners.Why, quite simply, because either those having the responsibility to report the news, their editors, or their publisher decided not to report it.

How about the case of the local entertainer who was arrested and charged, by the Branson Police Department, for “Leaving the Scene of an Accident,” “Driving While Intoxicated,” and “Assaulting a Police Officer,” a few months back?At the time all the local papers, except this one, published a short article on the arrest.Was it an illusion?What is the current status of the case?Is it being handled any differently than a similar case would be handled for those who are not celebrities or have no clout or influence?

How bad can it get?As bad as advertising, personal pettiness, clout, and personal relationships are permitted to influence whether or not, and how, a story is written or published.It adds real meaning to what the newspaper industry means when they herald “freedom of the press.”Could it be that what they really mean is the “freedom for them to decide what the news is and then control how and when it will be presented?”

Why the Ole Seagull has even heard reports that there is the possibility that, in one or more small communities around our area, the publisher of the local paper has actually prohibited the publication of anything involving the names of one or more persons within the community in their paper.Now there’s a “cockamany” idea that sets new standards of journalistic professionalism and ethics!

The June 2, 2003, “Ozarks Business” column entitled, “Branson needed its againners for better deals,” written by Springfield News Leader Columnist Paul Flemming, was about “againners” and “visionaries.”The column appears to be based on the unsubstantiated opinions of long time Branson insider, Smith Brookhart, who obviously considers himself a “visionary.”

The column starts with the banality, “The Branson againners lose, and the visionaries are victorious anew, without an ‘I told you so’ yet.”Brookhart later states, “There are seven critical junctures we’ve had since 1970.”In referring “to such fights as construction of the Ozark Mountain High Road,” Brookhart opines, “In every case there’s been a group of people four-square against it and they’ve never won.”

It seems like there’s only two dogs in this fight, the “good guys,” the “visionaries” who are opposed by, the “bad guys,” the “againners.”More telling however, is the elitist arrogance of the statements and the cute subtlety of their attempted intimidation.One might even get the impression an “againner” will never be invited to learn the “secret handshake.”

Interestingly enough, one of the two illustrations used to show Brookhart’s “visionary” idea of victory is the High Road. At first blush one wonders if the word “visionary” is being confused with “hallucination?”Hum, maybe not.A “visionary” is defined as, “one who is given to impractical or speculative ideas.” Sure sounds like the High Road. And it gets even more “visionary.”His second illustration was the Branson Landing and Convention Center.If nothing else, he sure is consistent.

Exactly what victory is the High Road?How does it help alleviate the alleged economic emergency the “visionaries” touted as the justification for its building?Oh well, its $100 million dollar plus cost does add new “visionary” meaning to the term, “Look for the ‘silver’ lining.”

In May of 1996, the Ole Seagull wrote about ‘Position Paper/Highway 765,’ dated April 20, 1992.This paper expressed the apparent willingness of some of the “High Road visionaries,” to put the economics of their vision ahead of the safety and lives of those traveling on Highway 65.

Among other things, the paper supported giving the priority to the building of the High Road and “the concept of transfer of Highway and Transportation Department construction funds from the planned use of four-laning of Highway 65.”In true “visionary” fashion, in what could be the understatement of the decade, the paper later said, “we are supportive, in the long run, of four-laning Highway 65.”

The Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission held their meeting in Branson on June 5, 1996.At that meeting, while addressing the Commission, the Pied Piper of the High Road asked those in the room who supported the High Road, to stand up. Hundreds of “High Road visionaries,” like lemmings being lead to the sea, sprang to their feet.

One of the very few that did not stand up, a lowly Ole Seagull, addressed the Commission shortly thereafter. He asked them not to build an economic road while people were bleeding and dying on roads that were not safe.He also presented the Commission with documentation, from the Missouri State Highway Patrol, showing that during the years 1992-1995, the number of accidents, between the Christian/Greene County line to Taney County at the interchange of Missouri Highway 248, had gone up 73% as compared to the years 1988-1991.

History testifies that the “againners” didn’t win the battle that day but, it also shows why the battles must be fought.Soon, Mr. Brookhart, and the rest of the “High Road visionaries,” will celebrate their $100 million dollar plus “victory” as the High Road opens.This while the city of Hollister and Taney County are trying to get another $500,000 to come up with their half of the $19 million dollars it is going to cost to four-lane Highway 65 south through Hollister.

Now here’s a true “visionary” idea from an “againner.”How about all you “High Road visionaries,” donating just a small portion of the $50 million plus dollars you didn’t have to contribute for the High Road, only about $500,000 or so, to help your community with the four-laning of Highway 65 south of Branson.A project that can help save lives, increase the traveling safety of our citizens, as well as benefiting the entire area economically.

What could the High Road have to do with gambling and drinking?Could it be that it was championed under the banner of “economic necessity or emergency?” That many of the benefits touted to get its approval will fail to materialize, and that its primary benefit will accrue to a “vested few,” while its “price” will be paid by the whole community?

At the outset the Ole Seagull must point out that he drinks and gambles on occasion.Too, during the campaign for the building of the High Road, in the mid 90’s, he was unalterably opposed to giving priority to the building of the “High Road,” a purely economic road, while people were bleeding and dying, on highways, like US 65, that needed safety improvements.

“Fast tracked” through as a solution for an alleged “economic emergency” in 1996, the $120 million dollar plus High Road will be opening very soon.Exactly what was the “economic emergency” that the building of the High Road was to solve?How will its opening help the majority of businesses and residents of Branson?Will one, or, possibly, a few, businesses, clearly benefit from its opening more than all others?

Won’t the whole community “pay” its price?Of course it will!Not just as taxpayers but, on a daily basis, as it sits in traffic jams at the Taneycomo Bridge and on Highway 65 south, from Branson to Highway 165 and beyond.One can only speculate as to the economic and “traveling safety” price our area has already paid, and will continue to pay, because of the priority given to the construction of “worlds longest driveway” instead of improving our areas main traffic artery to and from the south, Highway 65.

There are those who would expand drinking within our community into theatres and attractions and bring casino gambling into our community. Like the High Road before them, the justification is one of economics and allegedly meeting the needs of the new “demographics” that some tell us we need.One thing is as sure as there is a God in the heavens, as with the High Road, there is a better chance that their figures and logic will be wrong than right and, one way or the other, right or wrong, our whole community will pay the price.

Was it drinking in theatres and attractions and casino gambling that developed the crowds that drew the performers and developers that flocked to Branson in the early 90s? Will they be the salvation of Branson in its future?The answer is, “No!”

Branson, as a community, is a special place.Those of us, not having the privilege of being born and raised here chose to move here.Why?The reasons may vary but, unless the Ole Seagull misses his guess, in the majority, at least pre 1990, the reasons will center on the community, its people, spirit, natural beauty, and “uniqueness.”

It is that “uniqueness,” that makes Branson what it was and is its best hope for its future.Is it inappropriate to suggest that the linchpin of that “uniqueness,” and, possibly, Branson’s tourism success, is because God has so blessed this area?He has provided natural beauty, a people and a community that provides a welcome place for families and those who need Him to find respite, a special place set apart from others.

In his heart, an Ole Seagull finds it almost incomprehensible that individuals and families have less need today for that Branson “uniqueness” than in the past.In total, from a quality of life perspective and economically, what would do the most for our community, sharing our “uniqueness” with the world, expanding drinking into our theatres and attractions, or casino gambling?

A loving God gives us free choice but by the choices we make, the actions we either take, or do not take, so shall we reap.The High Road, and the price this community has paid and will continue to pay for it, serves as a concrete monument to that fact.

In terms of a “profession” America‘s future does not lie in the hands of Presidents, politicians, lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. Her future lies in the hands of the profession that will be teaching those who will become the Presidents, politicians, lawyers, doctors, or accountants, America‘s Teachers.

A “teacher” is “One who teaches,” a professional who has accepted the awesome challenge and responsibility of helping to prepare our children and grandchildren to fully realize their individual potential, create the desire to fulfill it, and equip them with the skills necessary to achieve it. It is an awesome challenge because America‘s destiny and future depends upon the realization and fulfillment of that potential.

Oh sure, there are those, professing to be teachers, who do the minimum and simply go through the motions. They could be characterized as those who perform the mechanical function of providing instruction from prepared lesson plans without a personal commitment to their students or accepting the responsibility and accountability for their results.They are teachers in title only.

The true “Teacher” has a personal commitment to their students. A commitment to not only teaching the necessary information and skills that their students will need but to make learning an experience they will want to continue for the rest of their lives.They fully realize and appreciate that “how” they do what they do is as important as “what” they do and dedicate their professional lives to equipping, helping, and motivating their students to recognize and reach their full potential.

To a large extent true “Teaching” is an art form. It requires the same type of dedication, commitment, and skill that a painter would use on a great canvas, a music composer would use on an opus, a lawyer on a jury, or an entertainer on an audience. What makes the successful musician, singer, comedian, painter, or author? Is it the mere application of “the mechanics” of what they are doing or their ability to communicate and relate what they are doing to their audience?

Even as the success of an artist is directly linked to their ability to relate what they are doing to their audience so too is the success of a Teacher, only more so. Although the professional entertainer wants and desires to reach every member of their audience, they can still be very successful if they reach a substantial majority of their audience.

A Teacher however, does not have that luxury. For them, success and failure is measured in the eyes, minds, and hearts of each individual student. The Master Teacher said it best. “If any man has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying?” He was not willing to lose even one.

The Teachers heart and spirit transcends mere “mechanics and basics” and goes to the concern and commitment of dedicating themselves to their students and their individual ability to effectively apply what is being taught. It is a task that, in a lot of cases, is made more difficult by influences outside of the Teachers direct control such as the physical or mental challenges of individual students, school funding issues, child abuse, and dysfunctional families to mention a few.Fortunately, for America and Her children, in spite of these additional challenges, there are those who feel a calling to become, in the truest sense of the word, “Teachers.”

Where then is the nobleness of Teaching? It is obvious that it is not based on factors such wealth, title, or power and yet, it is nobleness in the truest sense of the word.Nobleness based on the character, honor, generosity, dedication and commitment of those who are true Teachers and the quest they have chosen, preparing our children and children for the rest of their tomorrows.There’s not much that is nobler or more important than that, not much at all.

Gary may be contacted via email at editor@bransoncourier.com

Could a recent article, about the Wonders of Wildlife Museum (WOW), appearing in the Sunday, April 27, 2003, edition of the Springfield News Leader, entitled, “Outlook dire for wildlife museum” contain a dire warning for the development of Branson Landing?If reality and learning from history have any place in the process, it would appear so.

“Dire” is defined as “urgent” or “desperate” in one context and as a “warning of or having dreadful or terrible consequences” in another.But wait, how could anything “dire” happen to a world class attraction that is located within a stones throw from the Mother Of All Bass Pro Shops, one of Missouri’s best attended tourist attractions?Can things be “dire” even though WOW has the opportunity to tap into the millions of tourist coming to Branson?In a word, “Yes!”

The article reports that Mr. John Moore, WOWs Board Chairman, said, “We’ve got some significant challenges ahead.”WOWs Director of Finance, Peggy Smith, said, “In December, we will face challenges unless we can get greater attendance, reduce expenses, or identify other revenue streams.”

“OK Seagull, so WOW has some financial challenges.Don’t we all?”Sure we do but, in this case, it is the depth of the financial challenges and their cause that make the situation dire, for WOW and serves as a warning for the future of Branson Landing.

According to the article, WOW is expected to draw 242,000 visitors this year which is about a third less than the 350,000 visitors needed this year to make just the payment on WOW’s indebtedness.In what could be the understatement of the decade, the article goes on to point out that the 242,000 visitors is “far short of the 927,000 visitors officials once anticipated the museum would draw this year.”

As most attraction and theatre operators know, “visitors” or “patrons” translate into potential revenue or, in the alternative, its lack.The depth of the problems at WOW can better be appreciated when one considers that, according to the article, WOW “had an overall operating deficit for the first three months of 2003 of $1.97 million. It had budgeted to lose $289,523.”In Ole Seagull math that’s a loss that’s about six times greater than projected.

Does common sense indicate that the projections and estimates made for the Branson Landing project are going to be anymore accurate than those relied on for WOW?Were the people making the projections for WOW any less intelligent than those making similar projections for the Branson Landing Project?

What’s really scary is that Bass Pro Shops and an aquarium are two of the three touted main anchors of Branson Landing.If WOW is having these problems, located right next to the Mother Of All Bass Pro Shops, what impact is a smaller Bass Pro Shop, located about 50 miles away from it, going to have on Branson Landing?How many people will it draw to Branson Landing, especially when one considers that there are Bass Pro Shops in, or committed to, Okalahoma City, Dallas, St. Louis, N. Little Rock, etc.?

People have all sorts of ideas why WOW is having problems such as you can’t find its front door, poor marketing, no central theme that appeals to the public etc.To an Ole Seagull it appears that WOW’s house was built on a “foundation” of projections, estimates, and most important of all, anticipated “visitor” needs, wants, and desires for a “product” that were, quite simply, wrong.That foundation is now crumbling around a project it was never capable of supporting.

President Harry S. Truman said, “The only thing new in this world is the history you don’t know.”The American philosopher, George Santana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”WOW’s history is known.An Ole Seagull can not help but believe that we ignore its dire warning at our own peril.

In a news paper article appearing in the April 18^th edition of this paper it was reported that both the City of Branson and the Tri Lakes YMCA are considering building, what would be, competing fitness centers in the Branson Hills area.The article indicates that they would be built on donated land, would cost in the neighborhood of $5-6 million dollars each, and would be located within a mile of each other.

In reading the article one gets the distinct impression that the YMCA is trying to work with the Branson Parks and Recreation Department to avoid the building of two similar competing facilities.Further, the desire of the YMCA to work with the City of Branson in meeting the recreational needs of the citizens of our community seemed apparent.

Although the article indicated that there is some scheduling co ordination between the City and the “Y,” Mr. Scott Deckard, the YMCA Executive Director, indicated that “the strained relationship between the YMCA and the park board has been going on for nine months.”He pointed out that the YMCA is scheduling their programs around Branson’s, offering programs that the Branson Park District does not offer, and is “not duplicating programs that you [Branson Park District] offer.”

For years, the Branson Parks and Recreation Department has been providing recreational programs, not only for the children and citizens of Branson, but the surrounding area as well.In large part, these programs are similar to programs run by other cities of a similar size, softball, base ball, soccer, basketball, tennis, golf, an outdoor pool, parks, etc.It did not include the operation of a fitness center!

Herein, the Ole Seagull thinks lays the “strain.” The YMCA is striving to build a multi purpose fitness center facility, similar to that which they have been building and operating for decades.On the other hand, the Branson Parks and Recreation Department wants to expand into an area that it has not operated in before and, apparently, with as little involvement from the YMCA as possible.The question is why?

Do they, collectively, have as much experience in building and operating multi purpose fitness centers as the YMCA does?Will they use less tax payer dollars to build and operate such a facility than the YMCA or by working with the YMCA to build and operate such a facility?Do they have a program support system and personnel available, from the local to the national level, to provide the types of programs that will maximize the use of such a facility by the community?

Considering that the YMCA would be able to invest substantial private funds in such a facility would it be a better investment on the city’s part to partnership with the YMCA in the building of such a facility or, at least refrain from building a competing facility with tax payer dollars?Is there the possibility that this could free up tax dollars to be used in other areas where the investment of tax payer dollars could better serve the recreational and economic needs of our community?

One, of many areas, that might be considered is the “fast tracking” of the City’s Master Trail Plan.This Plan provides for the development of an 89 mile net work of hiking and biking trails.These trails will not only provide a unique outdoor recreational experience for locals and visitors alike, but also has the distinct potential of providing an environmentally friendly economic stimulus to the “soft adventure” side of Branson’s economy.

One can only wonder what could be accomplished if the Branson Parks and Recreation Department decided to work in partnership with the YMCA for the benefit of our community.Like the community he serves, the Ole Seagull can only hope that the Branson Parks and Recreation Department is not all “shook up” over building a “kingdom” or visions of a fitness center “profit center” and will consider the total value that such a partnership could be to our community.

On April 8, 2003 Branson’s Voters went to the polls in an election that was billed as a “referendum on the Branson Landing Project.”At the end of the day, if the city wide mayoral race was any indication, approximately 58% of the vote went to candidates that supported the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center and 42% to candidates that opposed it.

An “Our View” editorial piece appearing in the Springfield News Leader in their April 10, 2003 edition covered the election results and their apparent support of the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center.It quotes Mayor Lou Schaefer as saying, “There’s no question in my mind about that because that’s what the whole race was about. It’s a vote of confidence.”The piece then goes on to say, “When we [News Leader Staff] look at the tea leaves of the election, though, a mandate is much more difficult to find. Schaefer won less than half the vote to top a five-candidate field.”

In discussing the aldermanic races however, they point out that in Ward I, David Edie, who favors delaying the project, “took 50.3 percent of the vote to defeat an incumbent strongly in favor of the project.It goes on to point out that in Ward II, a five candidate race, “the two candidates backing the lakefront project got 49.8 percent of the votes. The three candidates opposed to the project took 50.2 percent.”

Things really get interesting when the piece gets to their analysis of Ward III where it states, “Only in Ward III was there anything that looked like a mandate. Project backer Beverly Martin won 57 percent of the vote in defeating Larry Taylor, the lone incumbent who consistently opposed lakefront proposals.”

Now granted that the Ole Seagull isn’t the brightest bird in the Branson sky and, at this stage of his life, confusion is easier to come by than it was a few years ago, but alas, he must admit, he is confused.If a 14% margin in Ward III looks like a mandate what is different about the 16% margin in the City wide mayoral election between candidates that very actively either supported or didn’t support the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center?

Of more importance however is the “selective manner” in which the piece chose to analyze the election results.It appears that, in the mayoral race, it was not statistically significant to point out what percentage of the vote supported candidates in favor and against the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center but it was in the case of the aldermanic races.Why?

Is it to support the conclusions and recommendations that the piece makes?Conclusions and recommendations such as “When an election indicates the community is divided down the middle, the town’s leaders need to take heed. This is a time to listen, to make sure all residents, not just two new board members, have all the information they need — and every opportunity to have their voices heard before next year’s election.”

What’s wrong with the results of this year’s election?Using the same analysis and logic that the piece uses, and applying them to the mayoral race, it appears that, city wide, 58% of the voters want the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center while 42% do not.There is absolutely nothing in the piece supporting the proposition that these voters didn’t “have all the information” they needed to make a decision and to imply otherwise does them a disservice.

Now here’s a “Seagull’s View.”Using the “Our View” criteria and applying it to the city wide mayoral vote, the 16% majority in favor of the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center candidates appears to be a significant victory.

Will City and developer STIF indiscretions cause the Governor to “slobber” in his cornflakes too?”

By Gary J. Groman

In last weeks column entitled, The MOAT, “Mother of All TIFs,” vs the STIF or “Whoops, someone slobbered in their corn flakes,” the Ole Seagull asked a question regarding the STIF, State TIF financing, for the Branson Landing project.The question was, “How could anyone, sign an affidavit specifying that the redevelopment area could not be reasonably anticipated to be developed without the State TIF?”

Well, it didn’t take too long to get an answer.On Monday, March 17, 2003, via email, Mr. Rick Huffman, one of the “members” of “HCW Development Company, L.L.C., said, “The reason I have signed an affidavit is because what I said is true.”

“Truth” is defined as, “Conformity to fact or actuality.”In “fact” and “actuality” the law, as applies to the Branson Landing Affidavit, is very simple and straightforward.It does not appear to require either the wisdom of a Solomon or the legal expertise of a lawyer to read and apply.

The statutory requirement for getting State Tax Increment Financing, the STIF, requires that the municipality submit an application to the state.In it, the “municipality shall include,” among other things, an affidavit, signed by the developer, “specifying that the redevelopment area would not be reasonably anticipated to be developed without the appropriation of the new state revenues” [the State TIF].

The “truth” appears to be a simple and straightforward “yes” or “no” determination.Is it reasonable to anticipate development within the redevelopment area without the State TIF or not, “Yes” or “No?”

Mr. Huffman continues on, “Without the TIF the convention center is Questionable at best.”Hum, this must be “developereese” for agreeing with the City’s apparent logic of, “‘synergy rhetoric’ aside, surely no one thinks we are ‘dumb’ enough to build a Convention Center in downtown Branson without $23-$80 million dollars from the state.Do they?”

He then points out that, “Without the convention center the lakefront retail and entertainment becomes a lesser project because the tenets we are working with will not come. We can still develop the lakefront, it just won’t be the project that everyone would be proud of.”

In “fact” and “actuality,” Mr. Huffman states specifically and currently, what has been stated by the City all along.Without the TIF there will be no convention center but that “We can still develop the lakefront, it just won’t be the project that everyone would be proud of.”Is that consistent with an affidavit “specifying that the redevelopment area would not be reasonably anticipated to be developed without the appropriation of the new state revenues” [the State TIF]?Not to an Ole Seagull.

He then asks, “Don’t you think it is fair, that if the City and the developer are willing to spend about 250ml, the State can let us have half of the tax revenue that we generate from it.”What an Ole Seagull may or may not think is “fair” has nothing to do with either what the statute pertaining to the affidavit requires or whether or not it could reasonably be anticipated that the redevelopment area would be developed without the State TIF.Those are matters of objective fact.

However, using that logic, wouldn’t it be “fair” to let those, who invested about $40 million dollars in “Celebration City,” keep half of the tax revenues it generates?Hey, we’re on to something here, think about all the money that might be invested in Branson, or the State of Missouri, if the State behaved in such a “fair” manner.

Like the rest of the states citizens, even the Governor and his Director of the Department of Economic Development are constrained by the requirements of the law.Had the City and the Developer had the discretion to restrain themselves from public comments about developing the Redevelopment Area without the State TIF they could have used the old “see, hear, and do nothing routine” and granted the TIF.

But, alas, the indiscretion of the City and the Developer has placed both the Governor and his Director of the Department of Economic Development in a very unenviable position.Will they too slobber in their cornflakes?Will they too apparently violate state law?Only time and an investigation by an appropriate state law enforcement agency will tell.

Although most of the readers of this column know that Bob Holden is the Governor, most will probably not recognize the name of Joseph Driskill.He is the Director of the State’s Department of Economic Development.Regardless of ones position relative to the Branson Landing Project, particularly the Convention Center, these are the two names that continually come up as controlling whether or not Branson gets a STIF, Tax Increment Financing from the State.

The Ole Seagull fully realizes his place in the political hierarchy and has no illusions about influencing the outcome but, given the current economic condition of our state and the potential expenditure of millions of dollars of State revenues, once, just once in this seemingly endless process, he would like to hear the answers to a some of the questions that people have asked him, straight from the “horse’s mouth.”No “spin” by the consultants, “suits,” or the “politically influential in crowd,” just some straight answers.Please!

1.Why would either of you even consider appropriating State revenues to the Branson Landing project in apparent violation of Missouri law, specifically subsection 99.845.10 RSMO?As substantiated by the comments of Mr. Terry Dody, the Branson City Administrator, at the January 13, 2003 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, the public record on the Branson Landing Project, and the “Technical Services Contract” recently entered into between the City of Branson and HCW Development Company L.L.C., the Branson Landing “redevelopment area” can “reasonably be anticipated to be developed without the appropriation of the new state revenues.”

2.In the midst of the current economic condition that the State is in, does it make sense to use State funding to build two competing Convention Centers, at the same time, less than 55 miles apart?

3.Does the State have data or evidence supporting the concept of “dueling convention centers?”Has the concept been tried successfully elsewhere in Missouri or, if not elsewhere in Missouri, at least somewhere in the country?

4.Could either of you, with a straight face, look someone in the eye and call the area between the east edge of “Business 65” and the west side of the train tracks, in Historic Downtown Branson, “blighted?”

5.From a State perspective, how could this process have come this far over the last 20 months, with a Convention Center being a required component of the project, without a feasibility study establishing that Branson needs a Convention Center?

6.Assuming that Branson “needs” a Convention Center, operated by the City, why the apparent State insistence that it be located downtown?Does the State have a study or data establishing that this is the best location?

7.During this on going 20 month process, has anyone at the State seen an effective plan for moving the anticipated traffic in and out of the proposed Branson Landing Area, particularly the area west of the train tracks where it is now proposed that the Convention Center be built?

8.If the City of Branson already has contingency plans to build the most financially sound aspect of the Branson Landing Project, its Waterfront Entertainment District, without a Convention Center and State financing, given the economic condition of the State, does it make financial sense for the State to use 50% of the “new state revenues” it would receive from that source to force Branson to build a downtown Convention Center?

9.If the State grants the STIF, and the Convention Center is built, would it be accurate to say that the State would get its 50% share of the “new revenues” generated from both the Convention Center and Waterfront Entertainment District even if the Convention Center had millions of dollars in net operating losses?

10.From the State’s perspective, if the originally proposed “Lakefront Convention Center” was on the lakefront, is a Convention Center located two blocks from the lakefront, and separated from the entire original Branson Landing Project location by a set of train tracks, still a “lakefront” Convention Center?

Ten questions is a lot of questions and might take a few minutes of your time but, at between 2.3 million dollars and 8 million dollars a question, it seems that no one knows how much the STIF will be if granted, it might be time well invested.How about it will you give us some straight answers?

Seagull Note:Concurrent with the publishing of this column on Sunday, January 19, 2003, it will be personally emailed to Governor Bob Holden at constit@mail.gov.state.mo.us and Mr. Driskill at ecodev@mail.state.mo.us.

Seagull Musings Column for April 18, 2004

Special Note: Each year, toward the end of the school year, this piece is respectfully published and dedicated to our areas teachers as a reminder to us all of how valuable they are to our community and the future of our nation. This year we would include a special dedication to Mrs. Lea Trimble who is retiring from the Branson School system after a teaching career spanning over 44 years. Her years of dedicated service and commitment to our community’s children epitomize the very “nobleness” of which this piece speaks.

In terms of a “profession” America’s future does not lie in the hands of Presidents, politicians, lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. Her future lies in the hands of the profession that will be teaching those who will become the Presidents, politicians, lawyers, doctors, or accountants, America’s Teachers.

A “teacher” is “one who teaches,” a professional who has accepted the awesome challenge and responsibility of helping to prepare our children and grandchildren to fully realize their individual potential, create the desire to fulfill it, and equip them with the skills necessary to achieve it. It can truly be said that America’s destiny and future depends upon the realization and fulfillment of that potential.

Oh sure, there are those, professing to be teachers, who do the minimum and simply go through the motions. They could be characterized as those who perform the mechanical function of providing instruction from prepared lesson plans without a personal commitment to their students or accepting the responsibility and accountability for their results.They are teachers in title only.

The true “Teacher” has a personal commitment to their students. A commitment to not only teaching the necessary information and skills that their students will need but to make learning an experience they will want to continue for the rest of their lives.They fully realize and appreciate that “how” they do what they do is as important as “what” they do and dedicate their professional lives to equipping, helping, and motivating their students to recognize and reach their full potential.

To a large extent true “Teaching” is an art form. It requires the same type of dedication, commitment, and skill that a painter would use on a great canvas, a music composer would use on an opus, a lawyer on a jury, or an entertainer on an audience. What makes the successful musician, singer, comedian, painter, or author? Is it the mere application of “the mechanics” of what they are doing or their ability to communicate and relate what they are doing to their audience?

Even as the success of an artist is directly linked to their ability to relate what they are doing to their audience so too is the success of a Teacher, only more so. Although the professional entertainer wants and desires to reach every member of their audience, they can still be very successful if they reach a substantial majority of their audience.

A Teacher however, does not have that luxury. For them, success and failure is measured in the eyes, minds, and hearts of each individual student. The Master Teacher said it best. “If any man has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying?” He was not willing to lose even one.

The Teachers heart and spirit transcends mere “mechanics and basics” and goes to the concern and commitment of dedicating themselves to their students and their individual ability to effectively apply what is being taught. It is a task that, in a lot of cases, is made more difficult by influences outside of the Teachers direct control such as the physical or mental challenges of individual students, school funding issues, child abuse, and dysfunctional families to mention a few.Fortunately, for America and Her children, in spite of these additional challenges, there are those who feel a calling to become, in the truest sense of the word, “Teachers.”

Where then is the nobleness of Teaching? It is obvious that it is not based on factors such wealth, title, or power and yet, it is nobleness in the truest sense of the word.Nobleness based on the character, honor, generosity, dedication and commitment of those who are true Teachers and the quest they have chosen, preparing our children for the rest of their tomorrows.There’s not much that is nobler or more important than that, not much at all.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Branson has the Highroad, how can it have traffic congestion problems?

Just in time for summer vacations and the Fourth of July Weekend, Branson received millions of dollars worth of national publicity. Unfortunately, it wasn’t the type of publicity that will enhance Branson’s image. In a “blast from the past” Branson ended up fourth on the American Highway Users Alliance/American Automobile Association’s new report of the top 25 most congested tourist spots in the nation.

“Now hold on there Seagull, that can’t be right. Wasn’t $50 million plus spent to build the Highroad?”

“It sure was.”

“Wasn’t the public justification to build the Highroad that it would solve the traffic congestion problems that were plaguing Branson at the time?”

“It sure was.”

“Well the Highroad was built so how can Branson be on the list as the fourth most congested tourist spot in the nation?”

“Evidently, the Highroad included, because the writers of the report have the perception that Branson has a traffic congestion problem.”

From its inception, common sense and logic cried out that the funds being spent on the Highroad, under the guise of eliminating Branson’s traffic congestion problem, would have been better spent elsewhere to help eliminate or mitigate the problem.

Like the war in Iraq, the rationale and justification for building the Highroad will change to cover the “tails” of those who made the decision but the logic used to justify that decision is a matter of written record and history. Even as our nation continues to pay the price of the war in Iraq, Branson, as a community, will continue to pay the price of the Highroad.

Fortunately, that price will not be as great as it could have been. Even as the city of Branson was “kissing the ring,” playing the political game, and endorsing the Highroad, it was working on the only practical way to solve Branson’s traffic congestion problems. Within the limits of the funding available, it was planning and coordinating with the State and Taney County and building the infrastructure, within Branson, necessary to provide for the safe and efficient transportation of its workers, citizens, and visitors.

In terms of traffic congestion and safety, one can only wonder where Branson would be today, if all the political clout and millions spent on the Highroad had instead been spent on actually trying to solve the problem that it was allegedly being built to solve. Could projects have been developed and their implementation accelerated that would have helped to eliminate more of Branson’s traffic congestion problems?

How many lives could have been saved on Highway 65 south of Branson if the improvement of Highway 65 to the Arkansas state line had been given the priority over the Highroad? What would that have done for the economic development of Hollister and the immediate area south of Branson? What alternative routes could have been developed, not only within Branson but outside of Branson, to make travel safer and more convenient for those who work, live, and visit the Branson area?

Obviously, no one will ever know. One thing is very clear however, the Highroad has done about as much to solve Branson’s traffic congestion problems as the publicity received from the American Highway Users Alliance/American Automobile Association’s report will do to eliminate the perception that Branson has a traffic congestion problem.

The nine characteristics that are part of the FirstPLACE character education program taking place in Branson and Taney County are kind of like motherhood, waving the flag, and mom’s apple pie. How can anyone disagree with teaching our children, and in doing so perhaps remind ourselves, about the importance of things like respect, responsibility, citizenship, compassion/kindness, commitment, honesty, cooperation, perseverance, and self-discipline?

Yet as one looks at that list and acknowledges their importance to us as individuals and as a community one is reminded of the verse of scripture saying, “But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.” In terms of the FirstPLACE character education program, as well as the reality of life itself, an Ole Seagull would paraphrase by saying, “But now respect, responsibility, citizenship, compassion/kindness, commitment, honesty, cooperation, perseverance, and self-discipline, abide these nine, but the greatest of these is responsibility.”

Granted, all nine are desirable traits and necessary if individuals are going to lead the kind of lives that will make them a blessing to others and themselves. Yet of the nine, an individual must consciously chose to be respectful, practice citizenship, be compassionate and kind, be committed, practice honesty, cooperate with others, persevere, or not, and be self disciplined. If the effort is not made the characteristic does not manifest itself.

Responsibility, taking ownership of what you say and do, on the other hand, is not a matter of choice. The responsibility to either act or not act and for the results of that action or inaction is an ever present reality of life. Oh sure, there is a choice of whether or not to act or behave in a certain way and whether or not one publicly accepts responsibility for what they say or do, or don’t say or do, but there is absolutely no choice in who owns the responsibility for what a person does or doesn’t do.

It was the initial failure of President Richard Nixon to accept responsibility for Watergate and Bill Clinton for his actions in the Monica Lewinski sex scandal that led to the resignation of one and the public disgrace of both. Why? Because whether or not they acknowledged it publicly, the responsibility for what they said or did or didn’t say or do was theirs. One can only wonder how different things would have been for them and our country if they had initially accepted the responsibility for their acts and had displayed the characteristics of honesty, self discipline, and respect instead of acting the way they did.

Young or old, child or adult, at one time or another we have all done something that we knew we shouldn’t have done. No one else knew what had been done wrong yet we knew. Most of us can recall how we felt and it wasn’t a good feeling.

Call it what you will, the fear of getting caught, punishment, embarrassment, etc., but an Ole Seagull calls it knowing that we are responsible for our actions. In the vast majority of cases, for one reason or another, almost to our relief, we eventually take “public” responsibility for our actions and life goes on. However, even in those cases where public responsibility is not taken the responsibility is still there exacting its price on our lives.

Responsibility is a two edged sword. One edge encourages us to actively take ownership of the character traits of respect, responsibility, citizenship, compassion/kindness, commitment, honesty, cooperation, perseverance, and self-discipline and make them an integral part of the way we live our lives. This equips puts us to do and say things that will be a blessing to those we love, our community and, in doing so, even to ourselves.

The other edge of responsibility reminds us of the fact that, good or bad, we will ultimately, either publicly or privately, intentionally or unintentionally take the ownership for everything we say or do. But now respect, responsibility, citizenship, compassion/kindness, commitment, honesty, cooperation, perseverance, and self-discipline, abide these nine, but the greatest of these is responsibility.