The Ole Seagull really wasn’t surprised when he received information from a confidential source this week indicating that the city of Branson had failed to comply with one or more of the conditions they agreed to with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the process it went through to get the necessary approvals to build Branson Landing. Some might ask, “But Seagull, why weren’t you surprised?”
Based on some of their current and past actions, why would anyone expect the current leadership of the city of Branson, it’s current Mayor, Board of Aldermen, and City Administrator, Terry Dody, along with whatever “legal munchkin” he has currently hired, to treat the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with any less arrogance or more respect, compassion, and common sense than they treat the citizens and businesses of their community? Is it even reasonable to expect a leadership that apparently will not honor and respect its own ordinances when it chooses not to, and will stretch and abuse state law when it chooses to do so, to honor the conditions and requirements of its agreement with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under similar circumstances?
Let’s look at a few examples. Is it just possible that the city of Branson has abused the Tax Increment Financing, (TIF) laws of the State of Missouri to the point where it could serve as the poster child for TIF law reform? Did not Alderman Ron Huff, in a public meeting, state words to the effect that if the city of Branson didn’t pass a TIF that the development would go to Hollister instead of Branson? Is that what the TIF laws were designed for? State wide, TIFs normally finance what percentage of the total development cost as compared to what percentage at Branson Hills? The TIF is reimbursing the developer how much per acre for the “blighted land” serving as a substantial part of the legal justification for the TIF in Branson Hills?
Did not the vast number of the city of Branson’s tourism businesses receive a letter from the city telling them that the Branson city code required them to submit their customer lists to the city when there was no such requirement? Was not a citizen, and not for profit business, in our community blatantly and falsely accused by the city of Branson of being in violation of federal statutes for using the term “Branson” in their business name? For the umpteenth time did not the mayor and board of aldermen let Branson’s City Administrator Terry Dody violate Subsection 2-55(2) of the Branson Municipal Code again at their Mar. 12 meeting?
What makes this latest occurrence particularly ironic is that not ten minutes before, when someone who had not signed up to speak wanted to speak, they were told they could not do so because it was a violation of the ordinance. Yet, the mayor let Dody violate the very same ordinance not ten minutes later. Some might ask, “But can’t the mayor exempt senior city staff officials like Dody from complying with city ordinances?” To put it simply, the mayor has about as much authority to exempt them from complying with city ordinances as he does to exempt the city from complying with the conditions and requirements they agreed to with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
“But Seagull, you haven’t said whether or not there was any substance to the allegations about the city of Branson failing to comply with the conditions and requirements they agreed to with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.” That’s right, but were the Ole Seagull a betting Seagull he’d bet that this time, by apparently treating the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the same manner as it treats some of its citizens and businesses, the current leadership of the city of Branson has done, in their morning bowl of cornflakes, what a male dog does to a fire hydrant.
