What set of circumstances could cause three mild mannered sisters, trying to make a success of the restaurant they purchased late last fall, to stand accused of having murdered, with chainsaw buzzing and chips a flying, the now famous “Jimmy Jet’s Tree,” in violation of Section 295.100 of the Branson City Code? Their alleged dastardly deed has caused some to dub them the “Olson Sisters Chainsaw Gang” and there is even a rumor that a book entitled, “In Cold Sap” will be published soon. Can a movie be far behind?
If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny but the thing to remember is that although it is the Olson sisters and Jimmy Jet’s Grill today, it could be you or your business tomorrow. How could you end up in this same situation? The same way the Olson sisters did, by simply relying on what the city communicated to you.
The Olson sisters purchased Jimmy Jet’s Grill, in historic downtown Branson, in the late fall of 2003. Although the tree had been there when they purchased the business they had failed to realize just how important signage is to those businesses located south of downtown Branson’s, “great divide,” Pacific Street, and the potential health hazards posed by the tree being so close to their front door. As these problems began to manifest themselves the sisters decided to see what could be done to get the tree removed.
An obvious first step was to go to City for assistance and information upon which to base a course of action. After at least three trips to City Hall and the expenditure of “an enormous amount of time and energy” with the city’s planning and development department, on August 11, the sisters sent a letter, via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, to Don D. Stephens, director of planning and development for the City of Branson.
It very professionally communicated their concerns and asked Stephens to confirm four specific items, “1) That your office intends to resolve the matter within a reasonable amount of time and what that timeframe is; 2) That we will be notified in a timely manner when a resolution is reached; 3) Your assurances that there are no administrative steps or procedures required by us to facilitate the removal of the tree ) i.e. appeals, variance requests, hearings, etc.); and 4) Which ordinance specifically prevents the removal of the tree.”
Stephens responded in his letter dated August 24. The letter said, “Because the landscaping in downtown Branson was an area project, your concerns should be directed to the Downtown Branson Main Street Association (DBMA).” It specifically told the Olson sisters that “The ultimate solution to your concerns falls under the immediate discretion of DBMA.”
Further, the city’s letter contained no mention of Section 295.100 of the Branson City Code or any other ordinance prohibiting the removal of trees. Most telling however is the way the letter ended with the communication that “If you have any further questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact Gayla Roten, DBMA, at (417) 334-1548” and absolutely no indication that the city had any further concern or involvement in the matter.
Among other communications with DBMA, after the letter was received from the city, a DBMA spokesperson, on or about August 26, is alleged to have said, in front of at least two witnesses, at a local downtown business, words to the effect that they would be inclined to look the other way if the tree was cut down. According to the citation issued by the Branson Police Department, charging the Olson sisters with a violation of Section 295.100 of the Branson City Code, the tree was “cut down and removed” on or about August 29.
In the lobby of Branson’s Planning & Development office is a series of three posters describing how the city should serve its customers. “A firm commitment to honesty, integrity, and fairness,” says one; another says “Noted for serving customers with excellence and professionalism.” A third rounds out the theme by saying, “Better government through communications.”
How much excellence, professionalism, honesty, integrity, fairness, would it have taken the city, in their August 24 letter, to have answered the questions the Olson sisters asked in their letter, particularly the one relative to which ordinance specifically prevented the removal of the tree? Instead the city referred them to a non governmental entity for “the ultimate solution to your [their] concerns.” With all the effort the Olson sisters had made to resolve this issue with the city prior to the receipt of the city’s letter can any reasonable person really believe that “but for” the city’s letter of August 24 that the Jimmy Jet’s Tree would still be standing?
If the city’s handling of this situation illustrates what they mean by “Better government through communications” it does not bode well for the small businesses of Branson. The good news is that they still have the chance to do what is fair, professional, and honest in this case. The only question remaining is, “Will they?”
Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.
