Month: July 2006

A July 7, 2006 letter, from Branson City Attorney Paul D. Link to James Strahan, the Taney County Assessor, was purportedly sent to address specific concerns that Strahan had raised at a May 31, 2006 meeting about the current sewer agreement between the city and Taney County that was entered into on February 28, 2000. After addressing these concerns in a precise professional manner, and for reasons known only to him, Link, like the character Alice, in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” appears to fall down a hole into a fantasy world.

Link’s letter says, “My research has uncovered some interesting facts concerning sewer construction in Taney County.” The terms “research” and “fact” have a fairly objective meaning to most people, “Research” means a “close, careful study” and a “Fact” is “a truth as opposed to fiction or mistake.” On the other hand, the term “interesting” is a relative term meaning different things to different people. Unfortunately, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, the only “interesting fact” that Link’s research reveals, having relevancy in 2006, is just how low the unelected leadership of Branson will lower the bar on professionalism and ethics for their own purposes.

Link’s alleged facts and his conclusions are reminiscent of the discussion that Alice had with the Pigeon in Wonderland when she said, “But I’m not a serpent, I tell you!” The Pigeon said, “`Well! What are you? I can see you’re trying to invent something!” And try to invent something Link did.

One of Link’s interesting facts was a statement that in 1994, over 12 years ago, the Coon Creek Sewer Project included “sewer lines into undeveloped properties some belonging to elected officials.” The letter cites as one of these three lines “A 21″ line extended 2765′ into undeveloped property which to this day has no flow in it. (Strahan $82,970.)”

When one considers that the property mentioned above appears to belong to John Strahan, the father of James Strahan and Eastern District Taney County Commissioner Danny Strahan, who was a Taney County Commissioner in 1994, it doesn’t take a Solomon to see what Link is trying to invent. To an Ole Seagull the insidiousness of Link’s insinuation is as obvious as the mean spirit of a city’s leadership that condones and encourages such activity.

Unfortunately for Link and the quality, depth, and professionalism of his research, official maps of Taney County indicate that the sewer line in question does not go into the Strahan property. It’s not even close and stops about three quarters of a mile away from the Strahan property line. Said another way, Link’s stated fact is simply not true.

Another of the facts stated in Links letter was that, “If the county’s matrix would have been followed and these monies put to the top project, then the monies would have been spent correctly, lowering the overall cost to the project.” The “top project” being referred to is the Bee Creek Sewer Project but does the letter contain one iota of evidence to support, what the Ole Seagull believes is, his inane and baseless conclusions?

Interestingly enough the letter remains silent on two major points. The fact that, for whatever reason, the Coon Creek Project was only one of multiple Taney County sewer projects to be built between 1994 and the present even though the Bee Creek Project still remains to be completed. Even more telling, in view of Link’s insinuations, is the lack of an explanation as to why the city of Branson elected to enter into a new sewer agreement with Taney County on February 28, 2000.

Link’s logic, about the 1994 costs for the Coon Creek Sewer Project lowering the overall cost of the Bee Creek Project in 2006, makes about as much sense as saying that the $5 million dollars that the city of Branson paid to the Australians for their participation in the early stages of the Branson Landing Project lowered the cost of the Branson Landing Project to the city of Branson by $5 million. But then if the city says it’s so it is. Isn’t it? Sure, and if you believe that you probably believe that Pointe Royale drive will remain a public street and that Branson will support the Rockaway Beach casino gambling effort.

It is legal for a person to park their car in the parking lot of Branson Landing, take a six pack of cold beer out of their cooler, pop the top on one, and drink it as they walk down the Landing’s promenade, hopefully crowded with people, including families and children all having fun. Yet it would be illegal for that same person to park their car in downtown Branson, take a six pack of cold beer out of their cooler, pop the top on one, and drink it as they walked down Commercial Street, hopefully crowded with people, including families and children all having fun. The difference in the two results is the difference between public and private property.

With the appropriate permits, it is legal for vendors in Branson Theatres to sell cups of beer to be consumed in an area filled with people, including families and children, as they watch the show. With the appropriate permits, it is legal for vendors on the “public square” in Branson Landing to sell cups of beer which are to be consumed in an area filled with people, including families and children, as they listen to a band concert or watch a show being presented. In both instances, the beer is being served on private property legally.

Now there are those that might be quick to say, “But Seagull, the city of Branson owns the land so that makes it public land not private land?” The part about the city owning the land is right but, as part of the private public partnership that was used to develop Branson Landing, the city negotiated and entered into a 99 year Master Lease for the land with Branson Landing’s developer, HCW Development Co.

The net result of that lease is that Branson Landing, its promenade, “Public Square,” stores, and restaurants, condos, parking lots, etc. are treated as private land not public land. Said another way, for about the next 99 years, subject only to applicable laws and to restrictions negotiated into the lease, HCW has full control of the property and can use it and sub lease it for any lawful purpose in any manner it chooses.

Does this mean that the city has no more control of the promenade, public square, parking lots, etc. at Branson Landing than it does the Wal-Mart parking lot? That’s exactly right, for all practical purposes it is private land controlled by HCW.

Could the city have negotiated provisions into the Master Lease restricting how alcohol is served, specifically prohibiting the sale or distribution of any pornographic or obscene performances or materials as defined by Missouri Law, restricting new theatres, requiring prior city approval of tenants or their activities to ensure their consistency with Branson’s value system, or requiring that purple petunias be planted in pots at each public entrance into Branson Landing, etc.? Whether or not they would have been successful, the city could have tried to negotiate whatever it wanted into the lease.

Of course no one will ever know exactly how much effort was expended in this area because the negotiations were closed to the public under an exception to the Sunshine Law. Unless an Ole Seagull misses his guess however, about as much effort was spent on negotiating the planting of purple petunias at the entrances to Branson Landing as was spent trying to protect Branson’s value system.

The good news is that HCW has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in Branson Landing and has a very real interest in preserving a family friendly environment at the Landing. In a conversation with Mr. Rick Huffman, the CEO of HCW, he expressed HCW’s intent to strictly control open containers of beer and alcohol on the promenade, public square, and other public access areas of Branson Landing. Huffman further indicated that, to the maximum extent practicable, it was HCW’s general intention to prohibit open containers of beer and alcohol in Branson Landings public access areas except for special events, held in the evening hours, and restricted to areas deemed appropriate for the event by HCW.

The wisest man that ever lived said, “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?” As the “New Branson,” currently being built by the City of Branson and its developers with taxpayer dollars, emerges from “Branson,” the Branson that private entrepreneurs built with their own money, it would behoove us to consider a paraphrase of that question, “For what does it profit a community to gain a few bucks, and forfeit its values?”

Why? The very family value based system of Branson that makes our community such a great place to live and is the bed rock upon which its economic success rests is being gambled on the New Branson. A Branson based on family values and community interest is being wagered on a New Branson where anything is all right as long as it raises revenues to salve the seemingly insatiable appetite of the City of Branson for revenues and puts dollars in the pockets of its developers.

The amazing thing is that the vast majority of the very families benefiting from Branson, both those who built it and those who live in the community because of it, their leaders, associations, churches, etc. are taking no action, are standing idlely by, and letting it happen. What if the Lord appeared this very night and asked the question, “What have you done with the Branson that I entrusted to you?” If the public record is any indication, there would be a lot of people, churches, organizations, and elected officials who would be mute while the City of Branson’s unelected leaders and their developers just smirked.

A front page article, in the July 12-13 edition of this paper entitled, “Alderman urges Huffman to ‘reconsider’ alcohol sales” indicates how little control even the City of Branson’s elected officials have over the changing value structure of the New Branson. The article reported that Branson Alderman Jack Purvis gave an enthusiastic report on a recent visit to Branson Landing, Branson’s $400 million dollar New Branson icon, at the July 10 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen.

It also indicated that Purvis, based on his observations, was concerned about the mix of alcohol and children in the public square and asked the developer to please reconsider the way alcohol is served at Branson Landing. The article reports that although Rick Huffman, developer of Branson Landing, addressed the issue of open container sales during the regular Branson Board of Aldermen meeting on June 26 he made no comments in response to Alderman Purvis’ request.

As was the case with the question of potential pornography being brought into Branson Landing by the Hilton Hotels, which was brought up by City Administrator Terry Dody at their June 26 meeting, the City of Branson’s elected leaders, for whatever reason, again sat mute. There are those who might ask, “Don’t we need a new demographic in Branson and won’t this help us to get it?”

To that an Ole Seagull would reply, “Not really.” A recent branding study paid for by the City of Branson showed that the majority of the people who come to Branson love the experience, will come back repeatedly, and that one of the primary identifiers with the Branson experience is values.

Now let’s see, the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars spent on the New Branson will bring how many new visitors to Branson over the next five years? One can only wonder how that number would compare to the number of new visitors that $10 million a year, spent on expanding the range and penetration of marketing what Branson currently has to offer, over each of the next three years, would bring in.

Interestingly enough, the New Branson can not only survive, but can thrive, on Branson’s existing value system; but Branson, both from a quality of life and economic perspective, will suffer tremendously without it. Does it make more sense for Branson to gamble its value system against the New Branson concept of anything for a buck or for Branson to fight to preserve the family value system that has worked so well for it up to this point? To an Ole Seagull the answer is pretty simple, for what does it profit a community to maybe gain a few bucks, and forfeit its values?

At the Jun. 26 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, Branson City Administrator, Terry Dody made a report to the board regarding the issue of pornography coming to the Hilton Hotels at Branson Landing. In that report Dody said, “So I want to make it clear that we are not talking about pornography because pornography is illegal.” To an Ole Seagull that statement makes about as much sense as saying we are not talking about speeding because the car was going 65 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone and speeding is illegal.

At the outset, let’s make one thing clear, very clear, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Miller v. California said that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and that such material can be regulated by the States. The court said, “In our view, to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom.”

It should also be stressed the issue is with the commercial exploitation of obscene material not with the morality of any individual or what they do with pornography for their own private use. The issue facing Branson is the growth of the commercial exploitation of obscene materials within the community and the potential impact of such growth on the character of our community.

What was the basis of Dody’s statement? According to Dody it was that movies containing content similar to the content contained in the movies that Hilton Hotels wants to bring into Branson Landing, adult movies rated for mature audiences, are found in a number of pay for view type things in a number of our hotels here in town and that “you can also get it off your cable TV if you want.”

What an interesting legal concept, the Hilton hotels are not showing pornography because a number of other places in town are also showing movies with the same type of content. Using that logic, could someone traveling at 65 miles an hour, in a 45 mile per hour speed zone, that is being passed by other cars traveling faster, be charged with speeding if it was the car that the police pulled over for speeding? Would it be a defense at trial to say that other cars were also speeding?

The good news is that Dody has gone on record as acknowledging that pornography is illegal. In fact he used the same language earlier in his presentation in discussing the alleged suggestion “that the city council, both the elected and the non elected officials, have allowed the creation or existence pornography” in Branson Landing. He said, “First of all that the city can’t do that wouldn’t do that. Pornography is illegal and were we aware of any such thing we would have to take the appropriate legal action or notify the appropriate legal authorities to take care of that.”

If one can take Mr. Dody at his word, all that has to be done is make him aware that the movies the Hilton Hotels wants to bring to Branson Landing are pornographic and the city will “take the appropriate legal action or notify the appropriate legal authorities to take care of that.” Here’s a simple test that could resolve the issue.

Have the management of the Hiltons of Branson set up a special showing of any of the current movies, chosen at random, from the “Adult Collection” of the LodgeNet pay for view service that Hilton Hotels currently offers. Invite Dody, his City Attorney, the Branson Board of Aldermen, the Mayor, the President of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, the Chairman of the Branson Theatre Association, the Chairman of the Lodging Association, a couple of our areas pastors, the principals from our areas elementary schools, Rick Huffman, anyone else they wants to invite AND, here’s the most important part of all, their families, except for minor children, to a night of family fun at the movies.

Show the movies and after each one, or as people leave during the movie, have a simple three question questionnaire filled in by answering either “Yes” or “No” to the following three questions, (1) The movie is inordinately interested in sex, (2) The movie depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and (3) The movie lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Legally precise, probably not but from a community standard point of view, if it contains sex like pornography, offends like pornography, and has as much social value as pornography, it is pornography.

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 Mexican General Santa Anna, numbering in the thousands, made their final assault on the Alamo, overwhelming and killing everyone of its 189 defenders.

The prophetic words of Colonel Travis and the spirit of the Alamo manifested themselves, only 46 days after its fall, at the Battle of San Jacinto. The Mexican army, under 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 the Mexican army and captured Santa Anna.

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 or that they spent their lives for a noble cause? Was it the fact that so few stood against so many for so long, 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, or a combination of these factors?

History records that on the first day of the Siege of the Alamo, Santa Anna had the scarlet flag of “no quarter” run up on San Fernando Church within the sight of the Alamo defenders. It meant surrender or die. Despite the odds against them, instead of surrender, it was answered with cannon fire from the defenders of the Alamo.

Days into the siege, after receiving messages that no further help would be coming, Colonel Travis, explained the hopelessness of their situation. He gave the Alamo’s defenders a choice of escaping, surrendering and perhaps living, or of fighting on 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.

All, but one, chose to fight on. Unknown to them at the time however, was the special place in history where their choice would be forever enshrined. That place where the spirit of honor, dedication to purpose, valor, and willingness to sacrifice all, for a noble cause, is revered and preserved.

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.

The spirit of “Remember the Alamo” represents that which is courageous, honorable, and worthy of commitment in the hearts of individuals and nations. It was in the hearts of the signers of the Declaration of Independence as, on July 4, 1776, they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on behalf of a new nation. From July 4, 1776 to July 4, 2006, from Valley Forge to Bagdad, and countless places in between, America’s greatness, and very existence has depended on that “spirit” and those willing to commit and sacrifice their all for it.

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 would not long endure.Happy Birthday America, Happy Birthday!