At the Sep. 25 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, while public discussion was being held on the plans to build a 25 story skyscraper, one of the projects developers, Rick Huffman, the CEO of HCW, used a quote, attributed to Walt Disney. He said words to the effect that, “We build this for those who come, not those that are here.” Unfortunately, for the fortunes of the 25 story building, a number of “those that are here,” not only showed up for the meeting but contacted their elected representatives about the proposed project prior to the meeting.
The net result is that “those who come” will be seeing, at least for the moment, if anything, a much shorter building. By a 6-0 vote, in spite of the mayor’s “in your face” gratuitous comments that he would like to see the building built to a height of 35 stories, the board honored the wishes of those they represent and voted to limit the size of the building to 12 stories.
Why would any reasonably thinking community, let alone one who already had the best of both worlds, adopt an economic development, or any other philosophy for that matter, that ignores the needs of its own citizens and existing businesses by espousing the concept that “We build this for those who come, not those that are here?” It’s a “Mickey Mouse” philosophy that flies in the face of the “Old Branson” philosophy that brought over 7 million people to Branson last year. A philosophy based on the concept of, “We build this for those we hope will come with those that are here.”
In an email that Branson City Administrator Terry Dody sent out to a number of people, including the Ole Seagull, on Sep. 21, he said, among other things, “It is unfortunate that you choose to carry Groman’s water for him in your e-mail by perpetuating his tag line of the ‘New’ Branson;’ a divisive term that he and a few others like to exploit to further there (their) hope of causing discord and conflict within the community.” Interestingly, the email Dody was responding to was from a local Branson business person expressing their concern about the city’s use of the City Tourism Tax to promote the convention center.
What caused Dody to divert his efforts from the “New Branson” to a lowly Ole Seagull and make the arrogant, condescending, and oh so inappropriate comment to the business person who sent him the email? Well, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, as to the arrogance and condescension part of the question, some people just have the gift.
Knowing the person to whom he sent the email, Dody was as wrong about that person “carrying anyone’s water” for them as he was about the fact that only the Ole Seagull “and a few others” are using the term the “New Branson.” The term “New Branson” did not originate with the Ole Seagull and, as indicated in the email he was responding to, means different things to different people.
Despite its different potential meanings, can any reasonable person doubt that there is a “New Branson” being created under the orchestration of the City’s chief unelected official, Dody, and certain developers as they direct the City of Branson’s elected officials in a stirring rendition of the “New Branson Hip Hop?” Is there just the possibility that the decision of the City of Branson’s chief unelected leader, and its elected officials, to ignore the united appeal of “Old Branson,” to locate the convention center closer to the theatres, attractions, retail, lodging, and restaurants that built Branson might be considered divisive and causes “discord and conflict within the community?”
The initial decision by City of Branson’s chief unelected official and its elected officials to use taxpayer, TIF, financing to make sure Branson’s neighbor, Hollister, did not get a Target and Home Depot helped eliminate community divisiveness and discord and conflict within the community how? Would the “New Branson” be coming into existence without the seven million plus visitors that the blood, sweat, tears, and financial investment of the “Old Branson” generates?
It’s not a matter of economic development; it’s a matter of how that development takes place. Under the “New Branson” philosophy, the “We” seems to be the City of Branson’s chief unelected official, its elected officials, the big developer(s) and others who need to create a “New Branson,” with a new different clientele to be successful. On the other hand, the “We” of the “Old Branson” philosophy is based on the very community that has made Branson what it is today and already has an existing clientele. Which philosophy is more likely to cause less discord and conflict within the community or be more divisive?
