Month: February 2005

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.