Month: February 2004

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.