Month: December 2005

Even in this day of graphic intense video and computer games most can remember the video-arcade game that started it all in 1980, “Pac-man.” Who can forget the little round yellow critter with the chomping mouth that seemed to exist only to gobble up every pellet within its reach. In a similar manner, in the game of “Branson Tif-man,” the City of Branson seemingly exists only to gobble up all the current tax revenue it can from other taxing entities in its seemingly insatiable greed to use TIF (Tax Increment Financing) to control the economic future of this region regardless of the cost to its citizens and neighbors.

What is that cost? Oh about, $49 million dollars. Whoa there, hold on Seagull, isn’t it true that if $49 million in TIF wasn’t spent that the big box stores would have gone elsewhere? Oh really, how much of a TIF did it take to get Lowes or Kmart into our region? What TIF was used to get Wal-Mart into Branson originally or to its new location at the Branson Mall?

How much of a TIF was given to IMAX, the Branson Mall, the Red Roof Mall, or Tangier Mall? Didn’t the city’s own consultants point out that the negative impact on existing retail in Branson because of the TIF financed Branson Landing would be over 20% for the first two years after it opened? Curiously, no one has ever explained what is going to miraculously reverse the trend after the first two years. How does the use of still more TIF financing to build still more retail in Branson Hills help either Branson Landing or Branson’s existing retail establishments?

Why would any developer invest in Branson without trying to get a TIF? How can they compete against TIF financed developers who are getting reimbursed for the cost of their land, grading, site lighting, landscaping, vehicle curbs, loading docks, etc? How much more competitive could other developers in the Branson area be if they too were reimbursed millions of dollars in fees they have to pay for engineering, survey, construction management, and other fees and permits, etc?

Not too long ago it seems, there used to be an effort to develop our region for the benefit of all. Wasn’t that the purpose of the Branson Area Regional Economic Development Association (BREDA)? When did things change from trying to develop our region for the betterment of all its citizens to the Branson gets it all scenario?

Were an Ole Seagull a betting Seagull he would bet it was when developers determined that the City of Branson was only too eager to play the game of “Tif-man.” When they realized that, in its zeal and greed to prevent further retail development along the Highway 65 corridor south of Branson and to prevent any further big box stores from going into Hollister, that Branson would jump at the chance to use a TIF and the charade of blighted land.

To help insure that the TIF commission makes the recommendation that the City of Branson wants, and to control the process, from the way minutes are kept to the selection of the commissions chairman, the City of Branson appoints its six aldermen to the ten person commission. The practical result is that the Branson Board of Aldermen gets the recommendation they want from the commission and forwards it to themselves for final action. To paraphrase a popular local Russian comedian might say, “What a process!”

The sad thing is that the citizens of this region are going to lose millions of dollars in taxes to get the benefit of the big boxes that had already made the decision to come into our area. Some would, with some justification say, “Come on now Seagull, maybe they were going to come into our area but they might not have gone into Branson.”

To that an Ole Seagull would say, “So what? Are the future finances for our school district and development within the county worth risking so that the City of Branson and its aldermen can continue to play Tif-man?” In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, at a minimum, the TIF laws should be amended to prevent any taxing entity taking the revenues of another without their consent. Until that happens every taxing entity that does not want to have their tax revenues taken should play their own game with the City of Branson regarding any new TIF or the expansion of any current TIF, the game of “Sue-man.”

Christmas celebrates love and the birth of a child. The children of Faith Lutheran Church in Branson, Missouri gather with Pastor Wanner in celebration of that birth and love. What better way to wish you and yours a Merry Christmas or, in the spirit of that love, a Happy Hanukah, Happy Kwanzaa, or just the joy, peace, and love of the Christmas Season.

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.

Editors Note: It should be noted that although it is the opinion of the cartoonist, this editior, and a lot of other people in and around Branson, that the ammendment to Branson’s exisiting TIF plan for that area is to try to entice Wal-Mart into the development,it is just that opinion. Although there’s a lot of “winking” going on, there has been no official announcment by the developer or anyother credible source that Wal-Mart was the reason for the requested ammendment.

To an Ole Seagull’s tired old mind, it’s pretty simple. The reason the tax payers are paying over $49.3 million dollars and that the education of our children and grand children is being placed at risk is because the Branson Board of Aldermen didn’t want the big box stores like Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Target, etc. to go to Hollister.

Here’s the kicker, were an Ole Seagull a Branson Board of Alderman he would have wanted the same thing. In fact, among other things he would have considered the use of Tax Increment Financing which is commonly referred to as a TIF. The difference would have been how the decision to use the TIF would have been made and its extent if the end result had been to use it.

Please hang in there for a minute, as the Ole Seagull uses a brief paragraph in an attempt to share his understanding of what a TIF, Branson style, is. This understanding could be critical to the education of our children and grandchildren.

In its simplest form, it is a mechanism whereby one taxing entity, in this case the city of Branson, takes tax money from other taxing entity’s, the Branson R4 School District, Taney County, etc. for its own perceived economic benefit. The money is then given to developers to reimburse them for certain development costs. It can do it regardless of whether or not the other taxing entities agree to such taking or the impact that such taking could have on the operation of the taxing entities from which it is taking revenues.

Unfortunately, as to the Branson Hills project, in spite of lawyers swearing to the contrary, the Ole Seagull has a tough time believing the legal fiction that vacant land is “blighted” and the concept that there can be a redevelopment project before the land had ever been developed in the first place. The concept that taxpayer money should be used to reimburse developers the approximately $184,000 per acre they paid for the allegedly blighted land is beyond his understanding.

Even if one got beyond that, there were other real and practical considerations, not the least of which was the opposition of the Branson R4 School District. Their concern is based on the impact that the diversion of 50 percent of the tax revenues from TIF projects, for up to 23 years, could have on the ability of the school district to maintain the quality of their product, the education of our children and grandchildren.

It costs over $6300 per year for each student sitting in a seat in the Branson schools. Of that amount approximately $5000 per student comes from local tax revenues, a primary source of which is real estate property taxes. The vast majority of the schools income from the real estate tax is from commercial real estate. Under the current Branson TIF for Branson Hills, 50 percent of the commercial real estate taxes will be used, for up to 23 years, to pay the TIF off. Unfortunately, the school district cannot wait for up to 23 years to pay for the education of its children.

There is a dizzying array of figures that the City and developers present to show just how much money the TIF will generate for everyone. It simply dazzles an Ole Seagull’s mind but this one thing he knows, if the person that has the responsibility for the financial planning of the Branson schools, Brian Blankenship, its business manager, says there is a problem, as he so succinctly did at the Dec. 14 meeting of the Branson TIF Commission, then there is a problem. A problem that the school district has been trying to resolve since this TIF was first proposed.

For those and other reasons, as a Taney County representative to the Branson TIF Commission, the Ole Seagull voted on Dec. 14, as he has voted in the past, against the Branson Hills TIF. But, as in the past, it was an exercise in futility because six of the ten member commission, is composed of Branson Aldermen. In spite of the school districts objections and Blankenship’s excellent presentation, they voted for the amended TIF Plan. The final vote was the six Branson Aldermen against the two Taney County and two Branson R4 School District representatives.

The bottom line is this, if the school district doesn’t have the funds it needs, because, among other things, the number of kids it has to educate, exceeds its current income, there are only two choices, cut back on the quality of the educational experience that our children receive or raise taxes. The first option is no option; that leaves only the raising of real estate taxes. That is unless, between now and when the Branson Board of Aldermen meet to formally approve the recommendation that it voted to send itself for approval, common sense prevails and an accommodation is made to meet the school districts concern.

As each of the Branson Board of Alderman voted for the TIF they expressed their commitment to the education of our areas children. If it was more than words, they will actively work with the Branson school district to resolve its concerns. What are the chances of that happening? Oh, about the same as it has been over the last two years or all of the new one percent retail sales tax that the voters recently voted in going for tourism marketing but, after all, it is Christmas and the season of hope

It seems that prices are not the only thing that the insipid little Wal-Mart smiley face is slashing. Currently, it appears that the little critter is more interested in slashing Christmas from Wal-Mart stores than in slashing prices.

In a recent Associated Press story, entitled “Wal-Mart Says Happy Holidays Covers Several Events,” Dan Fogleman, Senior Manager, Public Relations for Wal-Mart said that Wal-Mart is encouraging the use of the term “Happy Holidays” to “include celebrations from Thanksgiving to Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and New Year’s Eve as well as Christmas.” It’s an interesting, if somewhat confusing concept but, more importantly, what a strange way for Wal-Mart to show just how much they care about the feelings of the vast majority of its customers to whom the holiday of Christmas is so special.

An Ole Seagull is confused. If, for whatever reason, it was truly the “celebration” of certain events that Wal-Mart management wanted combined into a single greeting, why use the term “Happy Holidays” instead of “Happy Celebrations?” It becomes even more confusing when one considers that although all five could be celebrations only two of Wal-Mart’s named celebrations are official holidays, Thanksgiving and Christmas, and only two are recognized as religious Holidays, Hanukkah and Christmas.

So exactly what does the term “Happy Holidays” mean? To an Ole Seagull, in this time and place in history, it is the term used by those who want to, not only obscure the significance, meaning, and importance of Christmas, but remove the very word “Christmas” from public display or mention.

It’s amazing, from a business perspective, why any business, but especially Wal-Mart would want to do anything but promote Christmas let alone something that obscures it. Is there another single holiday besides Christmas that means as much to the vast majority of their customers besides perhaps, Easter and Thanksgiving? What other holiday generates as much economic activity for Wal-Mart or the nation’s other retailers? Is it Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or New Year’s Eve? Not in this life time!

Yet, in spite of all that Christmas does for their bottom line and all that it means to most of its customers, how does Wal-Mart’s management shows its “holiday” compassion and kindness and just how much it cares about the Christmas feelings of those customers? Apparently, by intentionally taking steps to remove the word Christmas from their corporate culture.

They know they can get way with it because they are the biggest retailer in the nation and know that most of their customers, including Christians, will tend to ignore their actions regarding Christmas in favor of the cheaper prices and merchandise selections they offer. Oh, how well they think they know the level of commitment that most of their customers have to themselves, saving money, and convenience as compared to the true meaning of Christmas.

But wouldn’t it be interesting to see what Wal-Mart would do if those who value the traditional Christmas, and resent Wal-Mart’s arrogant actions toward it, simply resolved to shop at Wal-Mart 20 percent less during the next year. Oh, they’d shop at Wal-Mart, particularly for the bargains, but would purpose to take 20 percent of the business elsewhere. How special it would be if every person participating in that program just wrote the word “Merry Christmas” on a slip of paper and handed it to the Wal-Mart Associate checking them out as they paid for their merchandise throughout the year.

Is that the Wal-Mart smiley face zapping prices in the book section? It’s the smiley face all right but it’s not zapping prices. It appears to be hovering over a book that has fallen off the shelf and flipped open as it fell to the floor. Wait, is its head bowed, is that tears falling from its eyes as people rush by, pushing it out of the way as, in their urge to shop, they step over and on the page of the book that reads, “for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord?”

In its simplest and most basic terms, on Nov. 8, in a very practical and unselfish act, the voters of the Branson area voted to, among others, tax themselves so that adequate funds were available to bring new visitors into the Branson area as soon as possible. Now don’t get all riled up, the Ole Seagull knows that, in pure legal terms, the purpose of the tax is to provide funds for “the marketing, advertising, and promotion of tourism, the administration thereof, and a reasonable reserve” to “enhance the economic health of the district.”

That said however, the reality of the situation appears pretty simple. If, the end results of all that legalese and the Nov. 8 election, is not a timely significant increase in the number of new visitors to the Branson area the marketing will be of as much value to Branson as Terrell Owens is to the Philadelphia Eagles’ hopes of going to the super Bowl this year.

Prior to the passage of the tax the voters were told, and bought into the concept, that Branson needs to quickly and significantly increase the number of its first time visitors. They voted for a new tax so that there would be enough marketing money for Branson to market itself against its competitors who all have marketing budgets significantly greater than Branson’s $3.1 million i.e. Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge’s $11 million and Wisconsin Dells’ $7.1 million.

They were led to believe that the new tax would raise about $6 million dollars, which, when added to the approximately $3.1 million currently used to market Branson, would, for the first time, give the Branson area the marketing funds needed to competitively market it against other tourist destinations, approximately $9.1 million. But what happens to that competitiveness if the approximately $3.1 million currently being used to market Branson is reduced, eliminated, or used for other purposes?

The net result is that instead of having an additional $6 million dollars to market Branson there would only be an additional $2.9 million. Even worse, however, is the distinct possibility of still not having enough money to market Branson effectively against its competitors. How can this happen after the voters just provided another $6 million dollars so that Branson would be able to market itself competitively?

Hypothetically, let’s go to the “Tourist Destination 500” auto race. It’s a winner take all challenge with the winner getting one million new first time visitors. The Branson car is racing against the Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge and Wisconsin Dells cars. At a minimum, it will require 100 gallons of fuel to finish the race. The Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge car has 120 gallons, the Wisconsin Dells car has 110 gallons, and the Branson car has 66 gallons. Anyone want to guess which car doesn’t have a chance of finishing the race let alone winning?

To an Ole Seagull, marketing’s fuel is funding. If it takes $8-9 million to finish the “marketing race” and Branson only has $6 million will the final result be much different than it will be in the “Tourist Destination 500” race described above? It won’t make any difference how brilliant the race strategy was, how skillfully the car was driven, or how far ahead Branson was when the car ran out of gas short of the finish line, the Branson area still loses.

For the sake of discussion, let’s say that Branson’s $3.1 current million marketing effort is funded with $2.3 million from the current City of Branson Tourism Tax and about $800,000 from Marketing Partners, local tourism businesses that contribute marketing funds to the marketing of Branson. Obviously, if that support is not maintained it will reduce the amount of “new” funds available to market the Branson area from $6 million to $2.9 million.

To keep that from happening, doesn’t it make sense for the City of Branson and the Marketing Partners to maintain the same levels of marketing support they have in the past? To work to find a way to combine that support in a coordinated cohesive marketing effort with, and controlled by, the independent Tourism Community Enhancement District Board?

To an Ole Seagull it does. Why? In addition to insuring that faith is kept with the voters, it will also provide the Branson area with the benefit of its best funded market effort ever at a time when it is sorely needed. If made in a timely manner, this effort can help those businesses that are hurting now, and, trust an Ole Seagull on this, the many more, particularly existing retail, that will be hurting over the next year or two if significantly more new and return visitors are not brought into the Branson area quickly, like “yesterday.”