Month: May 2006

The purpose of the original Memorial Day was to honor those who died in the Civil War. Its purpose today has evolved into remembering and honoring all who have died in the service of our country. What better way is there to honor and remember them than to honor and remember their living comrades, those men and women who have and are currently honorably serving in America’s Armed Forces.

Someone a lot wiser than an Ole Seagull said, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Since the earliest days of our history America’s Armed Forces and their families have paid the price for the freedoms and privileges that we, as a Nation, all enjoy and sometimes take for granted. Memorial Day gives us a unique opportunity to not only honor the dead but to pause, honor and say “Thank You,” to those who have and are currently serving and their comrades who are Missing In Action.

The very act of going into the Armed Forces puts one’s life at risk. Immediately upon being “sworn in,” members of the Armed Forces have given control of their lives to their military and governmental leaders. It is a control that is absolute and, from an honor point of view, irrevocable.

It could be exercised through an order “to take that hill,” in the face of withering machine gun or mortar fire, to patrol a neighborhood in Baghdad, or the assaulting of a terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan. Or, it could be an order to serve in a supply depot, training facility, or hospital thousands of miles away from the battle. Regardless of where or how one serves, the risk to their life is an inherent part of serving and is omnipresent.

History records that it is the politicians, and those in power, who start wars and that it is the men and women of their Armed Forces who pay the price of those wars. It is a price paid in separation, stress, blood, suffering, anguish, and, sometimes, death by those, who have and are currently, serving in our country’s Armed Forces and their families.

Theirs is not the job of judging whether or not the politicians and those in power are risking their lives in a noble or just cause. Their job is to do their duty. Some have served in conflicts that were “popular” such as World Wars I and II and Dessert Storm. Others served in conflicts that were not as publicly popular, such as Korea, Vietnam, and, if current polls are any indication, in Iraq. Through it all however, the men and women of Americas Armed Forces and their families have done their duty, sacrificed, and given unstintingly of themselves.

The eloquent words of William James remind us that “No matter what a man’s frailties otherwise may be, if he be willing to risk death, in the service he has chosen, that fact consecrates him forever.” Since the beginning of our Republic the members of our country’s Armed Forces and their families have assumed that risk, done their duty, and ensured that a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” For that we owe those who have and are currently, serving in the Armed Forces our undying gratitude, honor, respect, and support, not only on Memorial Day but, every day we as a Nation enjoy the fruits of their efforts, sacrifices, and service.

The recent publicity involved with the illegal immigration issue illustrates how hard it is to identify someone. In the case of illegal immigrants it is how to identify those that are in the United States legally from those who have entered the country illegally but identification is a problem that transcends just immigration.

How about the bartender who needs identification information to know if they can legally serve a drink to someone, a retail store clerk in terms of selling tobacco products to minors, the airline check in agent checking someone in for a flight, or other national security checks etc. Is not the most used form of identification document the state issued driver’s license with a picture on it?

Just this week, the Ole Seagull flew to Tampa. He had to present “a government issued picture ID” as he checked in for his flight. As is the case with most people, he presented his state drivers license. The ticket agent took it, looked briefly at me to insure that the smiling face standing before her was the same as was on the license and entered the name on the driver’s license into her computer, which printed the ticket.

He then walked up to a security check point where a security person again looked at the license and boarding pass, comparing the names on each, and passed him on to the screening point. He went through the physical screening and boarded the plane.

If the Ole Seagull was a betting Seagull he would bet that nowhere in the process was a check run to see if the driver’s license presented was a validly issued license. Even if that had been done what are the odds that the picture on the drivers license presented was compared to the picture on the actual driver’ license issued to make sure that the person presenting it was actually the person to whom it was issued?

How long does it take an underage teenager to come up with a false driver’s license if they want to drink? Would it take any longer than it would for terrorist or an illegal immigrant to do the same thing? If personal identification is truly as important as it seems to be, for everything from underage drinking and national security to eligibility for government benefits and preventing illegal immigration, doesn’t it make sense to have a system that at least uses a standard format for identification and makes an attempt to validate the identification when it is presented?

Specifically, isn’t it time for a standard verifiable “National Picture ID Card,” NPIC, issued by the Department of Homeland Security? The governing words are “standard” and “verifiable.” The NPIC would be standardized in format. At a minimum it would contain a unique identification number, the picture of the bearer, standard identifying information and the holders current “Citizenship Status.”

With one Federal Agency charged with the issuing of the National Picture ID Card and the current state of information and data transmission technology, verifying the NPIC upon presentation should not be a burden. Once the card is presented, the person using it for identification enters the unique identification number into the system and gets verification in the form of, what should be, a duplicate of the card they have in their hand. By comparing the two the appropriate identification determinations can be made.

Once the cards are issued, how they are used is dependent upon the identification problem being addressed. In the case of security that could be a verification of the fact that the person presenting the NPIC is who they say they are. In the case of underage drinking it might be identification verification plus age, and in the case of illegal immigration as a means of separating legal immigrants from illegal.

How many fewer illegal immigrants would there be if there was a national requirement that such a card be shown by EVERY job applicant and verified by EVERY employer with stiff criminal penalties for non compliance. If employment is the major reason for illegal immigration it would do no good to cross the border illegally because they would not have an NPIC to present for a job and even if they forged one it would not withstand the verification process.

Oh the Ole Seagull is not naïve and knows full well that there would be problems but he also believes that none of them would be insurmountable if there was a national consensus to solve them. The money it would cost for such a system would be pale in comparison to the money that would be saved if such a system helped prevent just one “9-11,” control the flow of illegal immigration across our boarders, or reduce fraudulent government claims, etc.

What’s the most exciting thing that’s happened in the Branson area over the last year? The Titanic Museum, the Great Exposition at Silver Dollar City, the highway 65 improvements to the south, Branson Landing, Branson Hills, voters approval of a marketing tax, etc.? All worthy candidates but, to an Ole Seagull, the most exciting thing that happened isn’t any of those. It isn’t even something that can be measured using the normal gauges of success that the Branson area loves to use, tax revenues, rate of first time visitors, theatre seats filled, occupancy rates, etc.

It is the completion and overwhelming success of the first school year of the FirstPLACE program. FirstPlace is a common sense program that uses a combination of our areas schools, the community, and family to fill the minds of our children with, and reinforce, positive character traits that can forever change their lives.

Each month of the school year the schools emphasized and intentionally taught one character trait. That trait was reinforced during the month not only at school but throughout the community as “partners,” and, hopefully families reinforced that trait by committing to demonstrate one visible action each month that tied into the trait.

The character traits covered each month were as follows: September – Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor; October – Responsibility – taking ownership of what you say and do; November – Citizenship – being loyal to your country; December – Compassion/Kindness – caring for others; January – Commitment – being true to your word; February – Honesty – being truthful in what you say and do; March – Cooperation – working together toward a common goal; April – Perseverance – demonstrating persistent determination; May – Self-discipline – training and control of yourself.

Some might say, “But Seagull, what’s exciting about that?” Quite simply, that it happened! What does that say about a community that has the honesty to acknowledge the importance of character education in preparing its children for their future citizenship and accepts the responsibility to meet that need? Its one thing to recognize a need, but our community had the respect, compassion, and kindness for its children to make the commitment to unite together in a spirit of cooperation to fulfill that responsibility.

Our actions say that we are a community that cares and has the wisdom, self-discipline, and perseverance to meet the needs of our children even as it faces the economic, environmental, quality of life, and other challenges of today’s ever changing and competitive reality. We are a community that is blessed with a myriad of people and organizations that recognize and respond to its various needs.

The College of the Ozarks, an institution where character is a foundational part of the educational process, recognized the need and accepted the responsibility for taking a leadership roll. The result was the FirstPLACE program, a partnership among The Keeter Center for Character Education at College of the Ozarks, Characterplus, and the public schools in Taney County to foster a community where character is highly valued and intentionally taught.”

It would be easy to say, “And the rest is history” but that really wouldn’t be accurate. The rest was a lesson in self discipline as people and organizations made and implemented the decisions necessary for them to fulfill their FirstPLACE commitments and responsibilities. The cooperation of all the elements required for the success of the program, businesses, parents, grandparents, the special efforts of our area’s teachers and educators, and the community perseverance so necessary to make the character traits being taught something our children can use for the rest of their lives was, to an Ole Seagull, exciting to behold.

A person can be no more than what is in their mind. A great book says, “Whatever is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, of excellence, or worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” How much more exciting can it get than to have the minds of our children filled with “these things,” not much, not much at all.

This column is humbly and respectfully dedicated to Sue Head and Sharon Friesz, from the The Keeter Center for Character Education at College of the Ozarks, the FirstPLACE “angels” of self discipline, respect, responsibility, citizenship, commitment, honesty, and perseverance but most of all, compassion and kindness.

Prior to the passage of the new eminent domain legislation by the Missouri Legislature recently, could the City of Branson take your home or business through the use of eminent domain, and give to another private individual or entity because it would generate more revenue and jobs for the city than it receives from your property? The answer was “Yes.”

After the passage of the new eminent domain legislation by the Missouri Legislature recently, can the City of Branson take your home or business through the use of eminent domain, and give to another private individual or entity because it will generate more revenue and jobs for the city than it receives from your property? The answer is “Yes.”

Recent media coverage of the new eminent domain laws passed by the Missouri legislature on May 5 trumpets the comforting thought that the homes and businesses of Missourians cannot be condemned using eminent domain for economic development. The changes were in response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court case.

In that case, long term residents had their homes taken by their city through the use of eminent domain and given to private developers for economic development because the new development would generate more revenue and jobs for the city than the taxes on the homes did. The Supreme Court said the use of eminent domain for that purpose was permitted by the U.S. Constitution but that it was up to the individual states as to how, if at all, that permitted use was implemented. The state of Connecticut, where the property in question was located, had a state law that permitted the taking of private property for economic development so the court ruled in favor of the city and the residents lost their homes.

In an effort to insure that the same thing could not happen in Missouri, various actions were instituted at the state level with the net result of that action being the passage of the recent legislation. The legislative mandate states, “No condemning authority shall acquire private property through the process of eminent domain for solely economic development purposes” and, at first blush, all seems well.

But wait, “Not so quick kemo sabe,” why is the word “solely” used if the legislative intent is to truly prevent government entities from taking the property of residents and business owners through the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes? In that context, why not use a more restrictive word such as “primarily” rather than “solely?”

The difference is dramatic. Using “solely” as the criteria if there is any other purpose involved, the use of eminent domain for the purposes of economic development would be legal regardless of the degree of the other use. On the other hand if a more restrictive word such as “primarily” had been used and the evidence showed that the primary purpose of the eminent domain was for economic development its use would not be authorized.

Why didn’t the legislature use a more restrictive term? Could it be because they wanted to permit the most flexibility for land to be taken by cities using the power of eminent domain for economic development while appearing to restrict its use? Unfortunately, the bad news gets even worse.

The legislation specifically defines the term “economic development” as the “use of a specific piece of property or properties which would provide an increase in the tax base, tax revenues, employment, and general economic health.” If only it stopped there but it does not; it goes on to exclude from the definition, among other things, “the elimination of blighted, substandard, or unsanitary conditions.”

Interestingly enough, the new legislation does not contain a definition of “blighted.” Instead, in a move reminiscent of the old bean under the shell trick, the legislation states that the blight determination in eminent domain cases will be determined “with regard to whether the property meets the relevant statutory definition of blight.”

The City of Branson has already proven itself to be the master of “statutory blight” which, according to recent ads recently published in local newspapers by the Mayor and Branson Board of Aldermen, consists of, among other things, “criteria which do not necessarily meet or follow the standard dictionary definition of blight.” In terms of the City of Branson using its eminent domain authority to take private property for economic development purposes, what is the net result of combining the City of Branson’s, seemingly, insatiable need for more revenues to pay for more and more government by giving taxpayer funds to developers to compete against their existing businesses and their propensity to use statutory blight? Repeat after me, “Our Father who art in heaven….”

During the week of Apr. 10, a full page ad appeared in local news papers entitled “The Truth About Branson’s TIF Projects.” It is a message “from “the Branson City Council about the city’s use of Tax Increment Financing” (TIFs) and states that it was “Paid for by the Mayor and Branson Board of Aldermen.” In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, if what they paid for the ad was based on the major truths contained in it they should have received a 50 percent discount!

Among the inaccuracies and half truths in the ad, a couple of things that almost everyone can relate to, illustrate just how little respect for the intelligence of the ad’s readers that those paying for the ad have. They also provide a perspective into their idea of “truth” and provide an excellent example of the fact that a conclusion is only as valid as the basis upon which it is based.

Among other things, the ad states “Our 7 million visitors arriving each year fuel our economy and none of those tourists choose to vacation in Branson because we have an outstanding school district.” The Ole Seagull doesn’t know if the number is zero or not; but, he’d be willing to bet that the number of those same seven million visitors who came to Branson, because a portion of it was located within the city limits of the City of Branson, TIF Districts, or Branson Landing, is the about the same as the number who came because of its outstanding school district.

Using the obvious truth of that sentence of the ad and the thought “we have an outstanding school district,” the ad transitions into a conclusion that is simply not true. The next sentence reads, “But we do have an outstanding school district because people choose Branson as their vacation destination.”

What a baseless, inane, and inaccurate statement. The truth as to the reason why Branson has an outstanding school district is very simple and is known by most people living within the Branson area except, evidently, those paying for the ad.

It is because the Branson School District is blessed with outstanding teachers and programs coupled with professional administrators, a board of education, and patrons dedicated to working together to provide the districts children with an outstanding educational experience. An obvious truth is that if none of the seven million visitors to Branson came because of the outstanding school district they probably didn’t come to teach, administer, or otherwise help educate the children of the district either.

Some might ask, “But don’t the tourists pay for it all?” Not hardly. In general tourists pay retail sales tax not personal property and real estate tax, the primary funding mechanism for the school district. In truth it is the businesses and patrons of the school district who pay the lion’s share of educating our children not our visitors.

The ad further states, “New residential and commercial construction outside the TIF Districts (either completed, underway, or already permitted) and directly caused by the districts will add over $6.5 million annually of new revenue to the school district.” Now there’s a conclusion but where is the basis? Could it be that a large part of that construction was directly caused by the millions of visitors who were already coming to Branson rather than TIF Districts? Indeed, how far along would the very TIF districts referred to have gotten but for those millions of visitors coming to Branson?

Now here’s an Ole Seagull truth, “The ‘Branson’ that seven million visitors came to visit in 2005 is the expectation of an enjoyable experience, not the City of Branson.” It is an expectation that has been created, met, and exceeded by Branson’s pioneers and entrepreneurs through their value systems, efforts, risk taking, personal investment, and involvement in Branson’s entertainment industry for over half a century. It is the bedrock foundation which drew the seven million visitors to “Branson” in 2005.

The basis for this “truth” is contained in the answers to three simple questions. Is Branson’s biggest attraction, Silver Dollar City, located within the City of Branson? Out of the 7 million visitors who came to Branson in 2005, how many cared whether or not the portion of Branson they wanted to experience was located within the city limits of the City of Branson, its TIF Districts, or Branson Landing? How many came simply to be entertained and experience “Branson?”