One of the primary thrusts of the incumbent mayor and aldermen in their recent campaigns for re-election was the fear mongering that if they were not re-elected growth in Branson would stop. It was almost sickening to hear them, in one breath, take the credit for all of Branson’s growth while, with their next breath forecasting the end of growth in Branson if they were not re-elected.
One was left to ponder just how the city of Branson ever grew from its incorporation on Apr. 1, 1912 and the fire of Aug. 29 of that same year that virtually destroyed its downtown business district into the successful tourist destination that it had all ready become prior to their election in the early 1990’s. The city of Branson’s voters added yet new meaning to an old adage attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time” as they voted the incumbent mayor and aldermen out of office and elected new leadership.
In an Ole Seagull’s mind the voters acknowledged the same thing that the Branson community at large has acknowledged, that the type of growth that has made Branson what it is today is entrepreneurial growth. The type of growth where people invest their own money and assume the risk of developing what ever they want to develop instead of using tax payer funds to the benefit of a single developer or enterprise.
At the same time, it appears that the city of Branson’s voters, as well as the community at large, rejected the type of forced artificial growth that, for lack of a better term, the Ole Seagull calls “Government Induced Growth,” GIG for short. That is the type of growth where “but for” the taxpayer assuming a large part of the financial risk the development would not take place and, at the end of the day, the developers and their real estate brokers get their money up front while the citizens and taxpayers get “Gigged.”
“Oh come on Seagull, what about the growth of hundreds of year round jobs that was bragged about throughout the campaign because of the city of Branson’s use of TIF’s?” Well that depends. Are we talking about creating hundreds more of the of the same below Federal Poverty Guideline types of jobs that were going vacant prior to the city of Branson gigging the taxpayers through the TIFs? Or, are we talking about higher paying jobs above the Federal Poverty Guideline that at least give the average worker a chance to earn a wage sufficient to support their family?
“Now hold on Seagull, are you saying that the millions of taxpayer dollars being paid to developers through TIFs is providing jobs that pay less than the Federal Poverty Guidelines?” No, the Federal Poverty Guidelines and, for example, the Branson Hills Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Plan say that.
The Federal Poverty Guidelines for a family of four in 2004, as published by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, was $18,850. Table 2 of Exhibit D to the Branson Hills Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Plan entitled “Cost and Benefit Analysis” touts that 1,250 jobs will be created with a projected annual payroll of $19,200,000 or $15,360 per job. Isn’t that about $3,490 dollars per job less than the Federal Poverty Guideline?
“Well what about the new visitors that the TIF developments are bringing to Branson?” Can any reasonable person really believe that the net results are any better in that area than in the “new job” area? Dollar for dollar what’s doing more to bring new visitors to Branson, a dollar given to a developer through a TIF or a dollar spent on marketing Branson? Was the increase in tourism in the first half of 2006 due to the marketing of Branson or a TIF project that hadn’t even opened yet?
