A recent letter to the editor from Mr. Robert Cohn of Branson appeared to be primarily concerned with the Ole Seagull’s columns pertaining to the actions, or inactions, of the city of Branson’s elected officials and a few senior, unelected, executive level employees. The only factual content of the letter seemed to relate to the column entitled, “Does Branson need an SOB to save it from the city of Branson and it’s ‘Dodink Law’” published in the Nov. 5 edition of this paper. It is available on line at www.bransoncourier.com under “Editorials.”
The letter states that the Ole Seagull “complains that the rules limit him, to 10 minutes at the podium at the end of a Board meeting. It is people like Mr. Groman that make the 10 minute rule necessary as they don’t seem to be able to have their say in just a few well selected words.” From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, in its kindest light, Cohn’s statements indicate that he is a fountain bubbling over with miss information.
The column mentioned a specific action, taken on the official public record of the meeting cited, evidencing yet another situation where a senior, unelected, executive level employee of the city of Branson, in this case city attorney Paul Link, appeared to either abuse their authority or violate the laws of the city of Branson. The Ole Seagull wasn’t even at the meeting and, to the best of his knowledge, has never asked for an extension of time.
In yet another instance of missing the reality of the situation, Mr. Cohn states that the Ole Seagull is allegedly, “part of a small band of individuals that are not residence of Branson, Missouri, and yet spend their time finding fault ….” Cohn’s attempt to relate residency within the city of Branson with ones right to speak out about the issues that effect Branson is the type of cart before the horse logic that undervalues what makes the city of Branson financially relevant and overvalues the city of Branson’s contribution to what has made Branson what it is.
“Branson” is in the public domain; it is a visitor expectation; a community; a geographical region covering multiple counties, cities, towns, villages, and unincorporated areas; and, of critical importance, an economic development tool used for the benefit of all living, working, and conducting business in “Branson.” As is the case with many others, the Ole Seagull, while not a “residence” of the city of Branson, is certainly a resident of Branson.
What the city of Branson does or does not do, in the vast majority of cases, affects Branson and, in that regard, everyone in Branson has a vested interest, not just those few that reside within the city limits of the city of Branson. Where would the city of Branson be without the sweat, investment, and effort of those living in the Branson that is outside of the city limits of Branson?
If, over the next 10-23 years the citizens of Branson are going to lose millions of tax dollars so that certain “big box” stores are located within the city limits of the city of Branson rather than elsewhere in Branson, such as Hollister, is it not prudent for every citizen of Branson, including those living within the city limits of the city of Branson, to get involved? If the city of Branson is sending letters to Branson businesses outside of the city limits of the city of Branson alleging that they cannot use the term “Branson” in their business names is that too not an issue that transcends mere residency within the city of Branson?
The letter states, “I believe that Terry Doty would be the first to admit that he is human and capable of error.” Mr. Cohn probably doesn’t want to hold his breath waiting for that to happen. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, based on the public record, the chances of such an admission are about the same as Terry Dody admitting that his last name is spelled “Doty.”
