Branson Courier

The news abounds with numbers this week. The thing about numbers is that they generally don’t mean too much by themselves and it is only when they are associated with something else that they become meaningful, dollars, lives, years, etc.

For example, the number “6” by itself doesn’t mean much. But, add a dollar sign and a few zeros, come up with $6 million, and you have quite a hunk of change. Take that $6 million and apply it to another number “465,” as in the highway number of the Highroad and the net result is that at least $6 million more is going into a road that over $50 million has been spent on thus far.

“Seagull, what were the safety issues that lead to the building of the Highroad, on a priority basis, at the expense of improving the areas main north south route, U.S. 65?”

“That’s another number, 0, nada, or zilch.”

The number “1” is a low number and generally considered insignificant, unless of course it is applied to a human life. This week’s Taney County Times contained the headline, “One killed, two injured in crash.” The article went on to report that the person “was killed in a head-on collision Saturday morning, March 12 on U.S. 65, 10 miles south of Hollister.”

“Seagull, how many have died on that portion of Highway 65?”

“Don’t know for sure but, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to say a lot more than would have died had the same money and priority given to the Highroad been given to the improvement of the areas main north south highway, U.S. 65.”

On a lighter note, the number “7” has significance in a game of Craps and when the city of Branson is trying to go back “7” years to collect taxes allegedly owed to them by Taney County. According to another article in the Taney County Times this week, the city of Branson has sent “Taney County a bill for $42,221.68 in back TIF taxes.” The bill goes back to 1998. Interestingly enough, according to Branson Director of Finance Deanna Schlegel, the problem wasn’t discovered until an internal audit of her department in 2004.

“But Seagull, surely there were audits conducted between 1998 and 2004 on the city’s finance department. Why did it take so long to find it?”

“According to the article Schlegel said, ‘Our staff is small and this problem was not known to us or to the state until that audit.'”

From an Ole Seagulls perspective, with the hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars at stake, he would consider three more numbers. The number of personnel that would have to be added to the city staff to catch and resolve problems of this nature in a more timely manner, the number “3,” representing the maximum number of years in back taxes that the city should be paid for by the county, and, most importantly of all, the telephone number of another auditing firm.

At a time when other tourism destination cities, particularly coastal destinations, are recovering from the effects of 9/11 Branson appears to be, at best, level with its percentage of first time visitors continuing in a downward trend to critical levels. In an Ole Seagulls opinion, every person living in Branson and Taney County has a vested interest in reversing that trend because if it continues, and the sales tax revenues received from tourism drop enough, the residents of the City of Branson and Taney County will, one way or another “pay” to make up the difference.

IIma Loyal was on her way back to Columbia from a trip to Tunica, Ms. As she drove north out of Tunica she decided that she would make an impromptu stop at one of her favorite getaway locations for the night, Branson, to relax and see a show. Having been to Branson a number of times before, she made her lodging and show reservation directly with the motel and show and did not use a “reseller,” such as a ticket agency.

Her room rate was $100 and her show ticket was $25. The total $125 is subject to, among other taxes, the four percent Branson Tourism Tax. Ima paid $5 in Branson Tourism Tax.

On exactly the same day, Ira Resister, a salesman was driving south out of Springfield on highway 65, saw a barrage of billboards that reminded him of the great Branson ads he had seen on cable TV the night before and decided that he would spend the night in Branson and see a show. Not having been to Branson before he went into the store of one of the many “resellers” authorized by the various shows and lodging establishments in Branson to resell their tickets and lodgings.

Ira ended up staying in exactly the same hotel and going to exactly the same show as Ima did. His room rate was $100 and his show ticket was $25. The total $125 is subject to, among other taxes, the four percent Branson Tourism Tax. Ira paid $4.25 in Branson Tourism Tax.

“Now hold on Seagull, are you saying that Ima paid $.75 more in tourism tax than Ira did for the same thing?

“That’s exactly right.”

“That doesn’t make any sense at all, same lodging price, same ticket price, same Branson, the amount of tourism tax paid by each should be the same. Why isn’t it?

“If an Ole Seagull were going to hazard an opinion it would be because the resellers don’t collect it and pay it and the city lets them get away with it.”

“Resellers” buy tickets and lodging at, what most people could consider, whole sale prices, add their markup, and then retail them to the public. In the vast majority of cases, the four percent Branson Tourism Tax is only collected on the wholesale price that the reseller pays for the product. The rationale appears to be that the difference between the whole sale price paid by the reseller and what they sell it for at retail is a “service charge” and is not subject to the tax.

“But Seagull, what’s the difference between the local “Walkmarget Store” buying widgets at wholesale, adding their markup, and then retailing them to the public? Isn’t the amount of tax due based on the retail price charged? “In order, the answers appear to be ‘none’ and ‘of course it is.’”

As written, the state law regarding this tax says that it applies to the price “paid or charged” to any “transient person” for, among other things, hotel, motel, and condo rooms in Branson and to the price paid or charged for any admission ticket to or participation in any private tourist attraction. The net result of the way this law is currently being enforced by the city is that, potentially, millions of dollars in tax revenues, that would be available to the city for infrastructure and marketing, are not currently being collected by the city and have not been for years.

"Do I have this right Seagull, the tax applies to the price that is charged not to who is charging it?”“That’s the way it appears to read.”

“Is a reseller a ‘transient’ person?” “Not normally.”

“Then why doesn’t the city require the tax to be collected on the full price that the resellers charge?” “That’s the million dollar question!”

In a recent television commercial for a major credit card company, a band of marauding Vikings pillage and plunder until they are stopped by a consumer with the right credit card in their wallet. Every time he sees the commercial the Ole Seagull is reminded of the “pillaging and plundering” of Branson’s school district by the “Bikings.”

“Bikings” is a term the Ole Seagull uses to describe the Branson Board of Aldermen, City Administrator Terry Dody, and what he believes are the disrespectful, irresponsible, and uncooperative actions they have taken that place the quality of our children’s education at risk. Oh, they dress better and clean up nicer than the Vikings but let there be no doubt about it, their pillaging and plundering of the tax revenues available to the Branson School District could adversely effect the quality of our children’s education if something doesn’t change!

What is the apparent rationale for these Biking actions? Is it their apparent paranoia about having to have a “new” Branson or their almost psychotic preoccupation with preventing big box stores from going anywhere else but in Branson? “You know Seagull some could say that it is you that has the paranoia and psychotic preoccupation regarding the Branson Board of Aldermen and Dody.”

That’s fair enough and just like an Ole Seagull they are entitled to their opinion. To the best of his ability, the vast majority of the columns he has written are about actions taken, or not taken, not about people and personalities. “But Seagull, isn’t it people who either act or don’t act?” That’s true but, in the final analysis, whether it’s a President, an Ole Seagull, alderman, or city administrator, it is the action taken, or not, that creates accountability and reaction.

From teachers to programs and facilities, just about everything involved with the Branson School District provides a quality education for our children. It is that way because the school district has been blessed with school boards and people in administrative positions who have had the vision, commitment, administrative ability, leadership skills, community trust, and financing to make it so.

That said however, unless an Ole Seagull misses his guess, the foundational element upon which the educational experience of our children depends is adequate financing. It is financing that enables the school district to hire and retain quality teachers, provide programs, maintain facilities etc. Each year, from local revenue sources, the school district must raise about $5,000 per student.

Unlike the City of Branson, who receives a lot of revenue from the retail sales tax, the majority of the local funding for the school district comes from residential and commercial real estate tax, with the lions share coming from the commercial side. The Bikings, in spite of repeated warnings and requests by the Branson School District not to do so, legally confiscated the vast majority of the school district’s commercial real estate tax revenue generated by Branson Landing and the Branson Hills redevelopment project for the next ten years and beyond. But wait, it gets worse.

Even as the Bikings are confiscating revenues needed to run the school district, the projects they are building, and the thousands of “Branson average” paying jobs they will offer, will bring hundreds of new children into the Branson School District, virtually at one time. The school district doesn’t have ten years to wait; it must provide and pay for the education of these new children from day one, at an average of $5,000 per student per year. Yet the Bikings have confiscated, and appropriated for their own use, a substantial portion of the school districts revenues that could be used to meet this increased challenge.

Does it take a Solomon to see that the short fall for the school district will add up quickly and could, without additional funding, result in a deterioration of the quality of the educational experience that the Branson School District provides? It will be a gradual insidious thing, larger class sizes, cutting of programs, reducing preventive maintenance on facilities, gradually losing quality teachers and administrators etc. but, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, it will happen unless additional funding is provided.

From an Ole Seagulls perspective, the Bikings, the Branson Board of Aldermen and City Administrator Terry Dody, have created the problem through their one sided actions and are accountable for its solution. Would it be inappropriate to ask them, “What’s in your wallet, and what are you going to do to correct or mitigate the problem that you created?”

Better yet, why not do it in an open and public meeting including representatives from the Branson School District and the Bikings? Unfortunately, the Bikings solutions for the kids and taxpayers of the Branson School District will more than likely be the equivalent of saying, “We know what’s best for everyone and besides, we got what we wanted, what’s in your wallet?”

A recent column entitled “Australians did not get $5 million and other Branson Landing Info” contained, without editing or comment, four specific questions that the Ole Seagull had sent to Branson City Administrator Terry Dody and his response. Click here to view that column.

In his answer to the question relative to how much the city had spent on the project as of Nov. 30, 2004, Dody replied “the total spent by the City as of November 30, 2004, is $52,527,101. This number includes everything: land, financing costs, permits, feasibility studies, legal fees, professional services, demolition, capitalized interest, lobbying, etc., etc., etc.” The next question asked “Of that amount how much is the city of Branson and its citizens not legally obligated to pay?”

Dody responded, “The city of Branson and its citizens are not legally obligated to pay any of the above stated amount.” In substantiation he quoted the standard legal “boiler plate” language appearing on the approximately $77.3 million in bonds authorized thus far for the project by the Missouri Development Finance Board. The language quoted said that the issuance of the bonds is “not an indebtedness of the State of Missouri” or “the City” and “shall not obligate the State, the City or any other political subdivision to levy any form of taxation therefore or to make any appropriation for their payment.”

“But Seagull, doesn’t that substantiate that the city of Branson is not legally obligated to pay on the bonds?”

“Well, not really, but even if one took that position the ‘devil is in the details’ and, as Paul Harvey might say, ‘Now, here’s the rest of the story.”‘

When the issuance of the bonds for the project was being discussed back in 2001, at a public meeting, Dody said words to the effect that with the type of bonds being used to finance the project that the city of Branson and its citizens would be under no legal obligation to pay them because the investors assumed all the risk. Those words had scarcely been spoken when David Queen, an attorney from Gilmore and Bell, the city’s bonding attorney, very quickly pointed out the practical reality of the bond market.

Queen said that, although not legally obligated to do so, from a practical point of view, the city might very well want or have to assume some liability, such as an appropriation pledging payment on the bonds. As the Ole Seagull recollects, his rationale for such action was, among other things, to get a lower interest rate on the bonds, to make the bonds more marketable, etc.

“OK Seagull, let’s see if I have this straight, although the language of the bonds themselves doesn’t ‘obligate’ the city to make any appropriation for the payment of the bonds the city could do so if they wanted to for whatever reason, a lower interest rate, to make the bonds more attractive to investors, etc.?”

“That is exactly right.”

Although there was no legal requirement to do so, at a meeting held in conjunction with the initial bonding for the project, the Branson Board of Aldermen, for what the Ole Seagull believes was good reason, agreed to use appropriations to guarantee the payment of the bonds. Said another way, if the project doesn’t generate enough revenues to pay off the bonds the city will pay them from other revenue sources.

A Feb. 28 memo from Gilmore & Bell, presented as part of the public record for a meeting of the Tax Increment Financing Commission of the City of Branson held on Feb. 28, confirmed the fact that the City has assumed “debt obligations for the project based on the bonds that have been issued and will be issued.” The bonds that have “been issued” are the approximately $77.4 million in Series 2003A and 2004A bonds referred to by Dody in his response. Among the bonds yet to be issued is approximately $76.7 million dollars of Series 2005A bonds for which the same city obligations will more than likely apply.

“Wow Seagull, how can anyone say that the city of Branson is not legally obligated to pay any of the $52,527,101 spent on the project as of Nov. 30, 2005? If it looks like an obligation and has to be paid like an obligation isn’t it an obligation?”

“An Ole Seagull would think so. It reminds him of the 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.”

One of the primary reasons given for building the convention center downtown, rather than at a location more friendly to Branson’s primary stake holders, was that its closeness to the Branson Landing’s waterfront retail and entertainment district would provide a synergy that would increase the chances of the success of both. As one listened to the consultants and experts expound they could almost hear a virtual symphony of synergism that would attract new visitors and revenues to Branson.

Yet, as the downtown redevelopment project proceeds, it is apparent that it is divided into two distinctly different components. One is the upscale retail, residential condominium, and entertainment district called “Branson Landing” located on the Lake Taneycomo lakefront. The other is the, as yet unnamed, convention center complex that is physically separated from Branson Landing by a four lane road, a set of rail road tracks, and an occasional train with its accompanying whistle.

What kind of symphonic experience would one have if the orchestra was split down the middle and separated by a large space that is being actively used by, people, vehicles, and trains?

“Come on Seagull, get real. This is business not a symphony.”

“True enough but there is a parallel.”

As in a symphony, it would appear that, at the very least, the amount of synergy would be substantially reduced if the elements required to produce that synergy were separated. That separation takes on even more importance, perhaps critical importance, if the reduced synergy can impact adversely on the desired results. Under those circumstances, to an Ole Seagull, it just seems to make good sense to try to mitigate the effects of the separation.

During, a meeting on the convention center design, one of the concepts presented was a pedestrian walk way from the convention center complex, over the train tracks and road, to the Branson Landing waterfront retail and entertainment district. Such a walk way would provide convenient environmentally controlled access between the two in much the same way that the pedestrian walkway across International Drive, near Orlando Florida, connects the two major complexes making up the Orange County Convention Center..

Such a walkway could also help link historic downtown Branson to the Branson Landing. Easy street level access from Commercial Street through the convention center garage and its connection with the convention center would provide relatively convenient access to the walkway and Branson Landing.

From a synergy prospective, such a pedestrian walkway would provide a very visible physical connection between the project’s two main elements that would serve to unite them into a more cohesive whole. With all the money that is being invested in the project and its anticipated revenues to both the city and state if it is successful, doesn’t it make sense to invest, comparatively speaking, a little more, to tie the whole project together in a manner that could help insure the very synergy that is so critical to its success?

According to the “Seagull Journal of Ozark Mountain History,” in the fall of 1796, a bull owned by one of the Ozarks early settlers had just finished drinking from the river. As he turned and walked away he felt an urge and, unbeknownst to him, provided the protection and nourishment for the birth of what was to become Branson’s Liberty Tree, as his “deposit” landed on top of an acorn that had fallen from a nearby Bur oak a few days earlier.

Thus blessed, the Liberty Tree sprouted, grew into maturity and reached old age. This transition however, was not without price as nature and man alike attacked. In addition to the normal incidents of nature, the Liberty Tree endured “progress” as the city of Branson was founded, developed, and redeveloped around it. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion that progress, particularly the asphalt roads being built over its roots, the cutting of its roots on more than one occasion, and the confinement of its root system by a sea wall turned, over the last 50 years or so, the once mighty oak into a sickly imitation of its former self.

In 1996 it was struck by lightning, splitting a large limb from its top, cracking its main trunk, and ripping out a 12-foot high section of bark near its base. Two weeks after the lightning strike Justine Gartner, the forestry field program supervisor for the Missouri Department of Conservation, inspected the tree. She determined that the “tree already in decline” was, “combined with internal rot in the branches,”…. “a serious, unpredictable, threat to any person or personal property left near the tree.”

At a well attended public meeting of the board of aldermen held, shortly after Gartner’s inspection, to determine what should be done with the tree, the aldermen tied three to three on whether to cut it down or to spend thousands of dollars to monitor and preserve it for as long as possible. The mayor’s vote broke the tie and the Liberty Tree lived to die another day.

It was small town America at its best; those who govern recognizing and respecting the concerns of the governed, sharing information with and seeking input from them, and having the integrity and courage to make their decisions in an open public session. Although the Ole Seagull would have voted to cut the tree down he sincerely appreciated the process and respected the results.

For the next eight years the Liberty Tree survived on the oak genus equivalent of being on “life support” but, in the end, even the mighty Liberty Tree could not survive both the normal incidents of nature, a bit of progress called Branson Landing, and the “deposit” made on it by Branson’s elected officials and some of its senior staff.

The death sentence for the Liberty Tree was announced when, along with the announcement of the Branson Landing project, Branson’s elected officials and the projects developers, from the very earliest stages, said words to the effect that they would try to keep the Liberty Tree. Could any reasonable person not recognize where the priority was and that the days of the Liberty Tree were numbered?

A weakened and continually weakening Liberty Tree was on “life support.” In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, the building of the Branson Landing project around the Liberty Tree and the priority that the project would receive over keeping it alive for as long as possible was the oak genus equivalent of pulling the plug on its life support system. It was just a matter of when the plug would be pulled.

Unfortunately, it was the manner in which the plug was pulled that showed small town America at its worst. Those who govern Branson, while recognizing the concerns of the governed did not respect those concerns enough to share information with them or have the integrity and courage to make their decisions in an open public session, even though they had the opportunity to do so at a public board of aldermen meeting on Feb. 14.

Instead, the actions of Branson elected officials and some senior staff members resulted in two “deposits.” One on the demise of the Liberty Tree, when, on Feb. 15, without public warning or announcement, its feeble shadow of its former mighty self was summarily bulldozed over and hauled away. The other was on the trust and faith of those that they are pledged to serve.

Branson voters will go to the polls in April to elect a mayor and three aldermen. The competition for these positions should be intense and offer Branson’s voters an opportunity to have the candidates discuss issues that concern them.

“Ah, Seagull, you do know that they are running unopposed, don’t you?”

“Whoops, a Freudian slip but the word ‘should’ was used.”

Obviously, with the candidates for municipal office in Branson running unopposed there will be no competition, intense or otherwise. One can only marvel at the fact that with all the rhetoric going on about how dissatisfied people are that no one is being challenged for office. That is of course, assuming that people are actually dissatisfied.

“Oh come on Seagull, of course they are!

“Name some things that people say they are dissatisfied with.”

“How about Branson Landing, the new convention center down town, the preservation and growth of our existing downtown, the new recreation center, the city’s use of TIFs to compete against exisiting businesses, regulations that are burdensome to small business development, the rising rate of city debt, to name a few.”

As the Ole Seagull travels around town, drinks coffee or chats here and there, and attends various meetings he constantly hears about how upset people are with “this and that.” And, more than likely, depending on the circumstances, one of the above topics will be mentioned yet, as the filing period for running for office came and went, where were those who are allegedly dissatisfied?

“Maybe they didn’t sign up because they feel that the deck is stacked against them and they wouldn’t be able to change anything even if they got elected.”

“Ah yes, proof positive that people truly do get the kind of government they deserve.”

Thank God for people like Bob Warlick, Dave Edie, Mayor Lou, Ron Huff, Larry Milton, Ray Wilson, Walt Stone, Jeannie Hendricks, Larry Taylor, Dick Gass, Jim Thomas, Stan Barker, and others who, regardless of their position on the issues facing our community, had the fortitude, commitment, and conviction to run for office. Their efforts at least gave the voters a choice.

And chose they did. For instance, the fate of Branson Landing and the downtown convention center was decided during the previous two elections. Voters had the clear opportunity to elect both aldermen and a mayor who were against both. They chose to elect the candidates favoring both. How does that indicate dissatisfaction?

Quite frankly, apathy, laziness, or whatever other excuses one wants to conjure up aside, the Ole Seagull believes that the real reason that there is no opposition to the incumbents in the up coming Branson election is that the voters are basically satisfied and no one likes to lose. As an example, the only thing that could compare with the experience of running against “Mayor Lou,” as he cruises to an unprecedented and well deserved sixth term as Mayor, would be getting a root canal performed with a teaspoon. In either case only a masochist would try it.

The old adage that people get the kind of government they deserve is true and in Branson, if the opposition to the incumbents is any indication, they are getting the kind of government that they want. What a happy Valentine’s Day it is for Branson as its citizens ask Mayor Lou and the incumbent aldermen to be their Valentine for another term.

In February of 2002 the voters defeated a measure to impose a one percent retail sales tax to be used for the marketing of Branson and other non related community enhancement purposes. The tax failed for a lot of reasons but, in an Ole Seagulls mind, the main reason was that the legislation authorizing the tax was deficient in terms of accountability, efficiency, and, most of all fairness. It was unfair enough as to what organization could receive the tax proceeds to market Branson that a lot of folks, including the Ole Seagull, dubbed it the “Chamber Tax.”

Recently, at a series of public meetings held by the board of directors of the Tourism Community Enhancement District, the community worked together to come up with recommended changes to the legislation that would correct most of its deficiencies. What’s notable is that the lead organization and driving force behind modifying the legislation was the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce & CVB.

“Whoa now Seagull, are you saying that the same chamber that was instrumental in getting the original Chamber Tax, legislation passed, is now working to get it changed?”

“No, there’s no same to it.”

The Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce that exists today is a much different organization in terms of senior staff, accountability, receptiveness to new ideas, access, etc. than it was three years ago. Back then, within a day after the tax failed at the polls, the arrogant defiant response of a high ranking senior staff member of the chamber was words to the effect that “we’ll have the tax back on the ballot as early as August.” In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, that would not happen today.

It was the chamber staff, most visibly, Ross Summers and Wylie Barnes, and the chamber’s board of directors that provided the impetus and assistance so that the necessary changes to the legislation could be developed and submitted to the legislature. Without that impetus and assistance, if past history is any indication, the Tourism Community Enhancement District’s board of directors would be no closer to getting the necessary legislative changes developed and to the legislature than it has been over the last three years.

The neat thing is that the chamber did this knowing full well that they would lose the advantages that the current legislation gave them. These advantages include but are not limited to the appointment of board members and being just about the only organization that could be selected to receive the tax proceeds to market Branson. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, they have taken action, against their own self interest, in an attempt to right a wrong, with the hopes that the resultant legislation will, someday in the not too distant future, enable the tax to be resubmitted to the voters for their consideration based strictly on the merits of the tax itself and its potential benefits to our community.

In a May 2003 column, written in conjunction with the departure of some senior chamber staff members, the Ole Seagull asked the question as to whether or not the chamber’s board was “going to take the necessary steps to regain the trust of their members and the community they serve or will there just be a repeat of the past?” Included was a set of indicators such as faithfulness to process, openness, and a commitment by the Board to “dechamberize” the Chamber Tax.

Editors Note: Branson is trying to involuntarily annex land to its north. This cartoon represents the cartoonists opinion on the topic.

In the not too distant past the words “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year” was the greeting of the Christmas season. It seems that everywhere one went, between Thanksgiving and Christmas, they were surrounded by the “reason for the season.” From storefronts, to interior store advertising, greetings coming from store clerks, and the playing of traditional Christmas carols, the words “Merry Christmas” and the spirit of “Christmas” just seemed to permeate the air.

As did generations of Americans before him, the Ole Seagull actually learned the words to Christmas Carols like “Silent Night,” “Little Town of Bethlehem” and most of the old carols from a public school song book as he and his class mates prepared for the annual school Christmas Program.

Isn’t it interesting that the first 180 years of our nation’s history illustrates exactly the opposite of what the federal courts, over the last 50 years or so, are telling us the First Amendment actually means.

Even with that however, the Ole Seagull is not aware of any law or federal judicial decision prohibiting the use of the words “Merry Christmas.” Yet, in just a comparatively few years of our nation’s history, the very word “Christmas” is disappearing, not only from our nations schools but the very celebration of Christmas itself.

“But Seagull, how can schools teach the meaning of a holiday named Christmas without teaching its history, origin, and traditions? Wouldn’t they have to mention the ‘C’ word?”

“They can’t and they would have to.”

In recent years, those who would take Christmas out of Christmas, for whatever reason, have developed a strategy of “political correctness” and “let’s not mention Christmas because it might offend someone.” The word they would substitute for Christmas is “holiday” and the phrase they would substitute for “Merry Christmas” is “Happy Holidays.”

A recent column appearing in the Dec. 24, 2004 Wall Street Journal contains an illustration of just how far the pendulum has swung. It pointed out that “the mayor of Somerville, Mass., apologized for mistakenly calling his December celebration a ‘Christmas party.’ He should have called it, he said, a ‘holiday party.'”

“Boy Seagull, it’s a good thing that something like that can’t happen here in the land of “Ozark Mountain Christmas,” “Old Time Christmas,” and the “Adoration Parade.”

“That might be the way we wish it were but is it the way it is?”

The Dec. 24, 2004 edition of this paper contained a letter from a lady who, while eating in a local restaurant with her husband, received the greeting of “Happy Holidays,” from their server. It’s the same greeting that a lot of us, and, probably tens of thousands of visitors to Branson, received during Ozark Mountain Christmas. When her husband said, “I think you mean ‘Merry Christmas'” she quickly responded, “Oh, we can’t say that unless the customer does.” The Ole Seagull would echo the words that the writer of the letter used to describe the incident, “How sad.”

“Now Seagull, you are not actually going to suggest that the Branson community, make a concerted effort to use the term ‘Merry Christmas’ rather than ‘Happy Holidays’ are you?”

“Why not, isn’t ‘Merry Christmas’ more consistent with the promise of an Ozark Mountain Christmas, and our areas traditions and values?”

Shouldn’t our community be committed enough to its values and its advertised promise of an Ozark Mountain Christmas to make a concerted effort to provide those who respond and come with more than the politically correct, “Happy Holidays?” At a minimum, if employees – particularly those involved with the marketing of our area and the meeting of the public- are going to be encouraged to give a greeting, why not encourage them to say “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays?”

“What’s next Seagull putting up banners across Highways 76 and 65 saying “Merry Christmas,” putting verbiage in our “Ozark Mountain Christmas” advertising saying, “Visit Branson, Missouri, where Christmas is still Christmas, or a big banner across the front of City Hall saying “Merry Christmas?'”

“Why not, is it Ozark Mountain Kwanzaa, Ozark Mountain Hanukah, or Ozark Mountain Holidays that we advertise and promise or is it an Ozark Mountain Christmas? Besides, isn’t Christmas the official government name of the holiday being celebrated?”

Can anyone reasonably take offense if a community simply stands up and says, “We celebrate the holiday of Christmas, its promise and spirit and would love to have you come and share them with us?” If not in Branson, Missouri now, where and when?

During a political debate for national office, the Republican candidate said, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably for ever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

Indeed, as the press digs back into the candidates past they find another “skeleton,” his views on interracial marriage.In a speech given about a year earlier, the candidate had said, “There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women; and so let them be married.”

He went on to say that “separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation.”The candidate further expounded on his method of separating the races, “colonization” and was quoted as saying, “Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”

In today’s environment, the media, particularly the material starved 24 hour news channels, would go into a “feeding frenzy” and bombard the public with their version of this story on a 24/7 basis.It doesn’t take a Solomon to figure out what would happen to this candidate.The candidate would be branded a “racist,” or worse, and would soon be an “ex candidate.”

But, at that time, God blessed this Nation with the freedom from a media that could permeate the vast majority of America’s homes within hours with their carefully chosen 30 second “sound bites.” Sound bites designed to seemingly control public opinion rather than report the news. In that day and time, the media had to write a convincing story, one convincing enough so that enough of the American people read it, believed it, and cared enough about it “to pass it on.”

The Ole Seagull wasn’t there.But, evidently a lot of Americans that were there believed that the country was facing bigger issues such as a possible civil war, and the growth of slavery because, in 1860, the candidate that uttered those words, Abraham Lincoln, went on to be elected the 16^th President of the United States.

History solemnly testifies as to how Lincoln, in spite of his personal views on interracial marriage, colonization, or the “political and social equality between the white and black races,” performed as to the major issues of succession, the war to preserve the Union, and slavery.In a letter to Horace Greely, in 1862, Lincoln said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”Even his personal abhorrence of slavery did not take precedence over the bigger issue of saving the Union.While solving the bigger issue however, slavery was abolished and our nation paid a “bloody penance” for permitting the expansion of the slavery of blacks, from its origin and rampant practice by the black tribes in Africa, to our new nation.

In selecting our nations leaders today would it not be wise to select leaders like Lincoln, who, on the whole, have the ability to handle the bigger issues facing our nation such as the economy, potential wars with Korea and Iraq, home land security, illegal immigration, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all Americans rather than just the few?Lincoln’s warning, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” still resonates through the eons of time as does his blessing, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom–and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Question 1: Including the $5 million to the Australians, all legal, administration, land acquisition, consulting construction, lobbying, interest costs and any other cost directly related to the Branson Landing Project and
Convention Center, how much has the city of Branson either spent or
obligated itself for as of November 30, 2004?

Response: It has been explained many times that the Australians were never paid $5 million. The Australians received $1.9 million for fees and expenses resulting from work they performed for the City at the City’s request.

Additionally, when negotiations broke down with the Jacobsen Group, the Board of Aldermen elected to go ahead and purchase the lakefront property, even if nothing was ever going to be developed there.Consequently, the Board of Aldermen made a decision to expend $24,177,839 to purchase the land, demolish the buildings and site prep the ground knowing that they might not move forward with any development of the land.They felt it was in Branson’s best interest to own the lakefront into the future – even if it remained only as a park.

The above is important because the cost to purchase and site prep the original land can arguably be excluded from the total cost of the current Branson Landing project.

However, including the purchase and site prep of the original land, the total spent by the City as of November 30, 2004, is $52,527,101.This number includes everything: land, financing costs, permits, feasibility studies, legal fees, professional services, demolition, capitalized interest, lobbying, etc., etc., etc.

Question 2: Of that amount how much is the city of Branson and its citizens not legally obligated to pay?

Response: The city of Branson and its citizens are not legally obligated to pay any of the above stated amount.

The following is the language from the Series 2003A and 2004A bond indentures.

“The Series 2003A and 2004A bonds are not an indebtedness of the State of Missouri, the City nor any other political subdivision thereof within the meaning of any provision of the constitution or laws of the State of Missouri. The Bonds shall not constitute and indebtedness within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation or restriction and are not payable in any manner by taxation.The issuance of the bonds shall not obligate the State, the City nor any other political subdivision to levy any form of taxation therefore or to make any appropriation for their payment in any year subsequent to a year in which the Financing Agreement is in effect.”

Question 3: What is the distance from the retaining wall to the lakeside edge of the “Board walk?” What I am trying to determine is exactly how wide the “boardwalk” will be?

Response: The distance from the retaining wall to the lakeside edge of the boardwalk averages 50′ through the length of the project. At one point the closest distance is 30′ and the greatest is 120′. The boardwalk is generally 12′ wide with occasional widening to 16′.

Question 4: Am I correct in my belief that for a substantial portion of the Board Walk, there will be, in one form or another, a cement retaining wall rising to heights of 10 feet or more, separating those on the “Boardwalk” from the businesses located above?

Response: The concrete retaining wall is generally 10′ in height and will be faced (on the lake side) with material similar to what will be on the exterior of the retail buildings which will include awnings and other additions that will make the wall blend with the other exterior portions of the buildings. Stairs and elevators will be amply provided for access to and from the boardwalk and retail.

Now here’s an amazing factoid and a big surprise. First the amazing factoid, traffic on Business Highway 65, directly north of the Roark Creek Bridge, is going to be increased drastically and quickly when Branson Landing, Branson’s new $420 million plus master-planned shopping entertainment development, opens. This has the distinct potential to create traffic congestion in the area of the Skaggs Hospital, particularly near the access to its emergency room. Some might say that is not amazing it’s obvious. Let’s compromise and say that it is amazingly obvious.

Now for the big surprise, in spite of being so amazingly obvious, as Branson Landing gets ever closer and closer to opening, it appears that there has been minimal effective action taken to insure that the increased traffic on Business Highway 65 does not adversely impact on the efficient access to the Skaggs Hospital Emergency Room, the areas only hospital emergency room. For those wondering how something that is so amazingly obvious could result in such a surprise an Ole Seagull would simply say, “Welcome to the new Branson, where everybody has a chance to be amazed and surprised by the amazingly obvious.”

Let’s just hope that chance doesn’t come as either you or someone you love is trying to get to the emergency room at Skaggs and is delayed because the access to the road leading to it is blocked by Branson Landing traffic. Can anyone picture a situation where time could be of the essence in getting to the emergency room?

Can any reasonable person envision a situation where those making a decision to place a huge concentration of traffic directly in a position that could impede the only access road to the areas only available emergency room could even think of doing so without having a suitable alternate in place prior to doing so? Well, welcome to the new Branson, where everybody has a chance to be amazed and surprised by the amazingly obvious.”

The minutes of the regular meeting of the Taney County Commission, held on Dec. 12, 2005, state that “Bob Simmons addressed the Commission regarding a new Hospital road on behalf of Skaggs Hospital.” Simmons pointed out that the new road was needed “due to the estimated increase in traffic when Branson Landing is finished” and that “they should be seeing more concentrated traffic in the area, which could potentially cause difficulty getting emergency vehicles to Skaggs Hospital.”

Now let’s see, how many years ago was it when the city’s traffic consultants made their determination relative to the widening of Business Highway 65 and the location of the roundabout impacting on the access to the Skaggs Emergency Room? Weren’t the people present assured that access to the hospital and particularly access to the emergency room had been addressed? Who was it from the hospital that spoke at the public meetings about the hospitals concerns regarding the potential impact of Branson Landing traffic on the access to the hospitals emergency room?

What priority has the City of Branson given to solving the problem that they are creating for the advancement of the new Branson? Out of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on the Branson Landing Project, how much has the City of Branson allocated to ensure that its citizens, visitors, and others needing access to the areas only emergency room have safe and efficient access to that emergency room?

Evidently not too much according to the comments made by Branson City Administrator Terry Dody, as reflected on the official minutes of the Dec. 12 meeting mentioned above. When asked by Taney County Commissioner Ron Herschend when the county could expect reimbursement for the approximately $2.3 million dollars that the city and hospital are trying to get the county to pay for the new road, Dody responded, “There is a list of prioritized projects including a master transportation plan and since this is not yet on the list, it would be 10 to 15 years before the city could reimburse the county.”

Is it possible that more planning, funding, and priority has been given to Branson Landing’s fountain by those governing the City of Branson than to insuring that access to the areas only emergency room is maintained? Just how much is the City of Branson paying for the construction of the fountain at Branson Landing? How much will the city be paying each year for fountain maintenance?

Especially, considering that the City of Branson has created the situation, is it unreasonable to expect it to give at least the same priority and funding as the fountain is getting from the city to help ensure that access to the areas only emergency room is maintained? To an Ole Seagull the answer is amazingly obvious.

On Nov. 24, 2004, the Missouri Ethics Commission filed a “Consent Order” in the case of the “Missouri Ethics Commission v. Rick Huffman.” In the order Huffman stipulated that there was probable cause to determine that he had violated subsection 130.031.8 of the Missouri Revised Statutes during the “2003 municipal election cycle.”

The “2003 municipal election cycle referred to, was the Branson municipal election for mayor and the board of aldermen. Specifically, the consent order states that he “published, circulated, or distributed printed matter relative to a candidate for public office but did not identify on the printed matter in a clear and conspicuous manner who paid for the printed matter with the words ‘Paid for by’ following the proper identification of who paid for the printed matter.”

“Seagull, was that the cartoon that was anonymously mailed out to everyone just before the election that a lot of people believed would determine the fate of Branson Landing and the convention center?”

“That’s the one.”

The consent order states that “Rick Huffman agrees that he will comply with all relevant sections of” Missouri’s election laws. It further states that Huffman “agrees to pay a fee of one thousand dollars…..to the Missouri Ethics Commission.”

“Hey Seagull isn’t Huffman one of the principals in the company that was hired by the city to develop Branson Landing

and build the convention center?”

“He sure is.”

“How much money is involved in the Branson Landing project?”

“The project is estimated to cost in excess of $300 million.”

“Wow, then there’s a pretty good chance that he will get his one thousand dollars back and then some.”

“Like, duh!”

In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, the actions of the Missouri Ethics Commission, in this case, serve as the poster child for the impotency of Missouri’s election laws. If this is the extent of the deterrent value of Missouri’s laws to ensure fair elections why bother? From a pure business expense point of view and potential reward risk ratio etc., who wouldn’t risk a thousand to save or gain millions?

Someone much wiser than an Ole Seagull once said, “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.” The sad thing is that, in terms of affecting the outcome of the election and the totality of the Branson Landing and the convention center, the printed matter that was distributed is “a very little thing” but the potential it bodes represents “much.”

Could this case, and what it represents, cause a reasonable person to wonder if there were other laws that were stretched or broken to get the Branson Landing project off the ground? Does it give pause to wonder if there is the possibility that other laws, building codes, etc. could be compromised or violated as the project is being built?

“Come on Seagull, we got the city enforcing their codes and ordinances, don’t we?”

“Sure and we had the Missouri Ethics Commission enforcing the states election laws.

“But, what they did was too little too late.”

“Bingo!”

A November 5, Washington Post article, entitled “It’s a Victory for People Like Us,” was about why Carey and Tara Leslie, the mother and father of three children, voted for George W. Bush as president. The article used the Leslies to illustrate the 77 percent of, “the millions of voters, who describe themselves as ‘white evangelicals,'” who voted for Bush and who “said that moral values was the single issue that mattered most to them.”

The article pointed out that, “They are precisely the people that the Bush campaign built its reelection strategy on.” The type of people “who would put faith-based moral values above every other consideration when it came time to vote, including the war in Iraq, terrorism, the economy and, in the Leslies’ case, a life that has been in financial peril since Sept. 11, 2001.”

“But Seagull why would millions of people vote for a President based on faith and moral values?”

“Fear of the moral direction that their nation is headed and the persistent and increasing pressures to remove all vestiges of their God and His spirit from public life and government.”

It was the one of the few opportunities, where the average citizen felt that they could be heard and do something to help reverse the downward moral spiral that our nation is in today. From the removal of prayer from our schools to the taking of “Christmas” out of Christmas they are frustrated with being offended in the name of offending someone else all under the banner of “constitutional rights” and being “politically correct.”

“Well, that’s all well and good but what does that have to do with Branson?”

“Branson’s future depends on the support of the same type of people who reelected George W. Bush as president.”

“Do you mean those ‘white evangelicals’ to whom moral values are the single issue that mattered most?”

“No, any Christian who gives moral values a high priority.”

The recent branding study conducted under the auspices of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and paid for by the City of Branson indicated that the strongest “identifier” people had with the “Branson brand” was values. Predicated in large part on “the character, personality and values of the Branson community” the study developed a marketing tool called “The Branson Promise.”

Although not the sole marketing tool that will attract the new visitors “The Branson Promise” is certainly a tool that will be used in that endeavor and one that the study says “Is the glue that holds the Branson experience together” for the “Loyals” who return to Branson.

Upon what is “the character, personality and values of the Branson community,” the “faith” referred to in “The Branson Promise,” and the “glue” that will make the visitors return to Branson based? An Ole Seagull would respectfully suggest that it is based on the same values that got George W. Bush reelected, the values of those who believe that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

“Isn’t that a little radical Seagull?”

“No, its Branson’s blessing.”

Interestingly enough, the article closed with Cary Leslie saying, “Jobs will come and go. But your character — you have to hang on to that, it’s what you’re defined by.” As Branson heads into 2005, an Ole Seagull would pray that it would hang on to its unique character and profess it to the world because it is what we are defined by, what makes Branson the unique place that it is.

“Now Seagull, you need to be careful. If we have gospel songs or hold the name of Christ up as part of our shows, say “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays” or take a stand against shows that have off color jokes, etc. we might offend someone.”

“No, they will offend themselves.”

The “Grinch” never came any closer to stealing the true meaning of Christmas than has being “politically correct.” In recent years the traditional Christmas greeting of “Merry Christmas” has been changed to the “politically correct” terminology of “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings.”

In the perfect illustration of what could be too little too late, the Downtown Branson Main Street Association, DBMA, recently held “visioning meetings” to discuss what one newspaper reported as the desire of the downtown merchants “to keep up with the Joneses.” In this case the “Joneses” happen to be the Branson Landing project currently being constructed on the Lake Taneycomo Lakefront just the other side of the tracks from historic down town Branson.

“But Seagull isn’t Branson Landing part of historic downtown Branson?”

“How historic is “500,000 square feet of retail space (over 100 shops) and several marinas,” multi-story buildings, condominiums, and hotels being built on top of the 12 to 16 feet of fill that has been placed on top of the historic buildings and structures which were bulldozed to make way for their construction?”

Newspaper reports of the meeting reported that one of the reasons that “the members of the Downtown Branson Main Street Association are creating a new vision to revive the old sector” is “to ensure that those customers [Branson Landing’s] migrate uphill to the 311 businesses in the historic district.” The reality of the situation is that there is a Branson Landing project and an historic downtown Branson. Even as each business in town competes with each other for customers and the dollars they spend so too will historic downtown Branson be competing with Branson Landing in a similar manner.

If you were operating a shop or restaurant in Branson Landing, just how much effort would you put into encouraging your potential customers to “migrate uphill to the 311 businesses in the historic district?” How much sense does it make for a restaurant in Branson Landing to actively participate in anything that will have their potential customers leave the vicinity of their business and migrate up the hill to other restaurants to eat? An Ole Seagull would suggest that the answer to both of these questions is “Not much.”

And besides, on the typical Sunday or after 7 p.m. in the evening, what is there for visitors to historic downtown Branson to do? Outside of Dicks 5 and 10, what is it that would make someone want to either visit historic downtown Branson or “migrate uphill” from Branson Landing?

“Well got you there Seagull. Isn’t one of things they are ‘visioning’ about, the fact that “businesses need to stay open in the evening to attract younger visitors?”

“Visioning and doing are two different things.”

When the Ole Seagull was on the board of DBMA a few years ago Steve Hartley, of Dick’s 5 and 10, easily the biggest attraction in historic downtown Branson, encouraged downtown businesses to stay open later in the evenings and on Sundays like Dick’s did. Despite his excellent rational what was the response? Minimal at best and six years later the downtown businesses are still talking about the need to remain open past 7 p.m. because there is so little for people to do in the downtown in the evenings.

“But Seagull didn’t DBMA and its members actively support the Branson Landing Project including a large newspaper ad?”

“Yes, even to the extent of its Executive Director proclaiming ‘Yea! Yea!… It’s a “Wow!’ when the Branson Landing ground breaking was announced.”

“Are they masochists; what did the members of DBMA get for all their support?”

“Well the developers did announce that one of the themed districts within Branson landing will be called ‘Downtown.'”

An Ole Seagull would suggest that historic downtown Branson is a “dead man walking” if its vision is based on getting Branson Landing’s customers to migrate up the hill. Rather, it should be focused on having the customers of historic downtown Branson “migrating down the hill” and the financing, support, commitment, and dedication that it will take to make that happen.

“Do you see that happening?”

“If history is any indication, not really but in the words of Alexander Pope “Hope springs eternal in the human breast.

The Branson that has been attracting visitors and tourists for over a century is not the City of Branson. It is the “Branson” that created visitor expectations, enticed visitors to come to the Branson area for the fulfillment of those expectations, and then fulfilled them. Silver Dollar City pretty well sums it up when they say, “We create memories worth repeating.”

If history is any judge, a lot of those visitor expectations involve Branson’s unique history, traditions, folklore, and culture. Indeed, from before there was a City of Branson; these expectations have provided the very economic foundation upon which the City of Branson’s tourism based economy was built.

Most historical accounts attribute the major start of tourism in Branson with the publishing of Harold Bell Wright’s novel, “The Shepherd of the Hills,” in 1907. Thousands of tourists came to Branson with the expectation of walking where the book said the Shepherd walked, in an area located miles away from what was to become the City of Branson on April 1, 1912. Ironically enough, the very book that is credited with starting Branson’s tourism industry doesn’t even mention Branson.

Harold Bell Wright chronicled Ozarks history, legend, folklore, and tradition in his book. It was however, the vision, dedication, effort, and investment of those such as Pearl Spurlock, Lizzie McDaniel, the Trimble family, Gary Snadon, and Keith Furman in promoting and preserving the legacy of “The Shepherd of the Hills,” that it has so influenced tourism in the Branson area.

One of the area’s earliest tourist attractions, Marbel Cave, dates back to 1894. Located miles away from what was to become the City of Branson, the cave’s name was later changed to Marvel Cave. In 1949, Hugo Herschend leased Marvel Cave and some surrounding land, from its owners, the Lynch sisters, for 99 years. “But for” the efforts of the Lynch family and their recognition of the tourist potential of Marvel Cave would Branson’s biggest attraction, Silver Dollar City have come into existence?

Certainly not without the efforts of Hugo, Mary, Jack, and Peter Herschend who developed Silver Dollar City around Marvel Cave. “But for”, their vision, commitment to the area, marketing management skills, and investment there would have been no Silver Dollar City and the millions of visitors that it has attracted to Branson with the expectation that they would have experiences and memories worth remembering and repeating. Where would the City of Branson be today without Silver Dollar City and the millions of visitors that it has brought, and continues to bring, to “Branson?”

Branson’s first country music theatre on the now famous “Branson Strip,” was “Presleys’ Country Jubilee,” built in 1967, outside of the City of Branson on State Highway 76, by the Presley family. In 1968, the first show in the City of Branson, the “Baldknobber Jamboree,” with the Mabe family, decided to move out of the city to a location on the strip. Ever since, both shows have been meeting the expectations of Branson visitors for entertainment reflecting the Ozark areas values, culture, and traditions ever since.

“Seagull, are you saying that the one of the primary things that has made Branson what it is today is the history, traditions, folklore, and culture of our area?”

“Yes, what else was it that brought the millions of visitors to Branson that attracted the additional theatres, attractions, and developers, etc that subsequently came to Branson?”

Edward Gibbon, an 18th century British historian and the author of “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” said “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging of the future but by the past.” Branson never has been “everything to all people.” It has thrived on meeting or exceeding the expectations of its visitors for an Ozarks experience worth remembering and repeating.

Ere Branson “declines,” an Ole Seagull’s prayer would be that the lamp of past experience would light the way as Branson moves into the promise of its future.

Gary Groman, aka The Ole Seagull, is an independent columnist living in Hollister, MO. He may be contacted by selecting “Ole Seagull” from the drop down menu reached through the “Contact Us” hyperlink at “BransonCourrier.com” Click here to go to the Ole Seagull’s Blog at Ole Seagull.Com.

In a July column, entitled “One casino in Rockaway Beach does not a Las Vegas or Atlantic City make,” the Ole Seagull “bet that within a relatively short time after the August 3 vote on Amendment 1, whether it passes or not, that the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, the Branafia^*, and a lot of the others who are fighting Amendment 1 will try to get a one percent retail sales tax, that some call ‘The Chamber Tax,’ imposed on all those who shop in Branson. What will be the justification for this tax? Branson needs more money for marketing to bring more people to the Branson area.”

The term “Branafia” is a term that the Ole Seagull has semi affectionately concocted. He uses it to describe those families, businesses, and individuals who appear to exert a disproportionate amount of influence and control over the affairs of the Branson area and the quality of life of its citizens all the while maintaining an innate ability and desire to have others “pay” for the benefits that it receives.

“But Seagull, wasn’t it estimated that Amendment 1 and the casino it would have permitted in Rockaway Beach would have brought hundreds of thousands of new visitors to the Branson area?”

“That depends on whose estimates were used. Although the estimates ran from 500,000 to 1 million new visitor’s one thing is a good bet, more new visitors would have come to the Branson area if it had been approved than will come because it was defeated.”

If it wasn’t so ludicrous it would be funny. With one hand the Branafia actively worked against an attraction that would have brought hundreds of thousands of new visitors into the area even while they were getting ready to present the Branson community with the Christmas gift that just keeps on giving, a regurgitation of the one percent retail sales tax that some call the “Chamber Tax.” What’s the purpose of this tax? Its purpose is to provide funding for more marketing to bring more visitors to the Branson area.

“Whoa now Seagull, why would anyone want to bring more visitors to Branson?”

“What do you mean?”

“Didn’t the opponents to gambling in Rockaway Beach bring in experts that said that more visitors meant increased crime?”

“Hum, come to think of it they did but they must have been referring to another kind of visitor.”

“What kind of visitor is that, one who spends their money where they want them to?”

“That would be the percentage bet.”

Sometimes it seems as if the Branafia has eaten one Burger King too many. They appear to have a dominant belief that they can have what ever they want, their way, whenever they want it. For instance, the very law that authorizes the new tax provides relief from the tax, and perhaps even a windfall, to the very theatres, attractions and lodging establishments who will benefit most from the tax.

“Surely you jest Seagull. Are you saying that the Branafia developed a law that would impose up to a one percent retail sales tax on locals and visitors alike for things like clothes, school supplies, toys, diapers, and “Pampers” etc. while putting in a provision reducing their own liability for the same tax?”

“Not really, that’s what Section 67.1971 of the Missouri Revised Statues authorizing the tax says.”

If it stopped there it would be sad enough but it doesn’t. The Branafia designed the legislation for the tax so that the millions of dollars in tax proceeds it generates is administered and controlled by a board of other than elected officials. Even that wasn’t enough however because they designed the legislation to require that the tax proceeds for marketing be awarded, not to the entity and in a manner that can most effectively market Branson, but to a one “not-for-profit organization” described in the legislation.

“Seagull, does the reason some people call it the ‘Chamber Tax’ have anything to do with the organization described in the legislation that must get the tax proceeds or that has the authority to appoint more people to the board that will make the actual decision on who will get the tax proceeds than any other?”

“That was a rhetorical question, right?”

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, common sense dictates that something celebrated as “Thanksgiving Day” should be a “day” of “giving” “thanks.” How many times have you ever said “thanks” for something to “no one?” Generally, when we say “thanks” it is for something and the thanks is given to the person or entity believed to have provided that something.

Yet, even as some would take “Christ” out of Christmas so too would they take “giving” out of Thanksgiving. To whom are we giving thanks and for what? From Coronado’s 1541 Thanksgiving in Palo Duro Canyon, in what is now West Texas, through the 1600 Puritan Thanksgivings in New England, history testifies to the fact that our modern day Thanksgiving is based on giving thanks to God for blessings bestowed. One of the “First Thanksgiving Proclamations,” issued in 1676, by the Governing Council of Charlestown, Massachusetts proclaimed, “a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favor.”

On November 16, 1789, the First President of the United States, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation stating, “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.'”

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln, in his 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation said it best. “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things.They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

“It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”

Particularly at this time in our Nations history, it would seem appropriate, during our Thanksgiving celebrations, to stop and give “thanks” to Almighty God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon this Nation and its people. As Lincoln so beautifully said, “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things.They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God.”

Some say that Branson does not have enough money to market effectively and still others say that it is a matter of using the funds that are available in a more effective manner. For what it matters, an Ole Seagull would suggest that the amount of marketing money available for a unified coordinated marketing and promotional campaign to market Branson is totally insufficient to do so effectively. And, that’s the good news; the bad news is that even if there was enough money, based on past performance, there is a reasonable doubt that it would be used effectively.

“Whoa now Seagull, what do you base that on?” Well, as an example, let’s look at one of the most dynamic marketing tools to come along in the last one hundred years, the World Wide Web (WWW) of the internet. There were commercial Branson web sites promoting tourism in Branson on the internet by February of 1995. When did the agency receiving millions of dollars from the City of Branson for tourism marketing and promotional purposes finally have a web site up on the internet promoting tourism in Branson? Was it 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, or later?

Was it before or after, the majority of those providing the marketing expertise and advice to that organization had web sites on the internet and were using them to promote the businesses that they owned, worked for, or represented? If it was “after” does that say anything about either the priorities of those giving the marketing advice or that organizations ability to adapt and change in a timely manner?

“But Seagull, what about the much vaunted marketing expertise of those giving the marketing advice to that organization?” In his 63 plus years of life an Ole Seagull has learned that a person’s title, knowledge, ability, and the organization they work for is one thing and the results achieved in a given situation involving that person is another.

On October 26, Austin McGhie, representing the Sterling Group, the firm hired to conduct a branding study for the Branson Tri-Lakes Area made a presentation to the Branson Board of Aldermen. The study was commissioned by the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and CVB, the chamber, and paid for by the City of Branson. A chamber press release on the presentation quoted McGhie as having said, “Our research discovered that there is a Resistor group of people, who look like Branson’s current Loyal customers in ways such as lifestyle and demographics, but they are under the misguided perception that they know what Branson offers and that it’s just NOT for them.”

Some might wonder exactly what “misguided perceptions” people might have about Branson in the summer of 2004. A news article on the meeting, published in the October 29 edition of this paper reported, “Marketers say the tourist driven town of Branson must shake its image of out of date country music shows and overall-clad hillbillies to increase tourism in the city.”

“But Seagull, the need for Branson to change that very image has been common knowledge and discussed publicly for at least a decade. Hasn’t tens of millions of marketing dollars been spent over the last few years trying to change that image and bring more first time visitors to Branson?” Exactly the point and, regardless of who did it, what their expertise was, or how much has been spent, the chambers own study testifies as to the effectiveness of that marketing.

Isn’t the answer more money? Eventually, but for now an Ole Seagull would heartily endorse the recommendation of McGhie at the meeting when he said words to the effect that “If it cost ten dollars a person to get the message across spend ten dollars per person at one destination, get it right at that location, and then move on. Don’t spend two dollars at five different destinations and never get the message across because you are just wasting your money.”

What a refreshing concept, make sure your marketing strategy will accomplish what it is you want it to accomplish before you spend millions of dollars on advertising. In an Ole Seagulls opinion, Branson is running out of time to get it right. Those potential misguided first time visitors that Branson so vitally needs are saying to various destinations vying for their business, “Can you hear me now?” The destinations that hear them best and let them know it will get their business. Said another way, it all depends on whether or not, Branson, the town with “entertainment you can touch, entertainment that touches you” can “reach out and touch” them.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor and publisher of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Historian Lord Acton’s warned that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It applies to individuals, institutions, and governments and is as applicable today as it was when he said it in 1887. In terms of the United States of America, a government, “by the people and for the people,” that has stood as a bastion of freedom to the world, and is allegedly a democracy, one would not expect to find absolute power and the corruption it brings but, never the less, it is there.

Not only is it there but it is enabled by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This article establishes the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. It states, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

When most think of the words “power” and “corruption” in connection with government they immediately think of the type of corruption that involves those in power being paid money in exchange for political and other favors. Although that could happen within the federal judiciary it would probably be discovered and prosecuted. Unfortunately, the type of corruption that the federal judiciary is involved in, although it affects the very moral fabric and value system of our Nation, is so subtle and shrouded in the shadow of “Lady Justice” and the authority of the U.S. Constitution that it is hard to recognize and even harder to do anything about.

At its basic level the word “corrupt” can be defined as, “to ruin morally, to destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of,” or “to change the original form of” something. Interestingly enough, with the country divided on the issue of the war in Iraq and the economy, most are attributing Presidents Bush’s reelection on November 2 to his stands on conservative social values related to God, abortion, guns, and gays. It is a stand that appears to transcend geographic, social, and economic divisions while, at the same time, flying in the face of the corruption of some of those values by the federal judiciary, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court.

As an example, is it the legislative or executive branches of our government that is trying to remove any mention of God from government? Removed prayer from our schools? Prohibits nativity scenes or the mention of Christ or the story of His birth even as it pertains to the teaching of the meaning of Christmas? The answer is, “No,” it is the unelected and unaccountable federal judiciary. What is their basis for such actions? In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, a judicially invented doctrine called the “separation of church and state” based on the corruption of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by the federal judiciary.

Left uncorrupted, the language of the First Amendment, as is the case with the rest of the Bill of Rights is relatively simple and straightforward. It reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Does it take a legal Solomon to read and understand that the “Congress” referred to is the Congress of the United States not the legislature of a state, a school board, or a sports team that wants to have a prayer before a game?

Is it hard to understand the specific act that Congress may not do? Make a certain type of law. Is anyone aware of a law that congress has passed saying there must be prayer in school or that a high school cross country team must say a prayer before it competes or establishing a national religion? The Ole Seagull isn’t.

Do not most people understand what it means to “establish” something? How can any reasonable person make the transition from the actual wording of the First Amendment to the doctrine of the separation of church and state without changing the original wording of the amendment?

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective it simply can’t be done. The reason the Supreme Court, and its federal judiciary, gets away with what they do has nothing to do with reason or logic. It is because they are not elected, serve for life, and are without accountability to those they serve or anyone else on this earth. To an Ole Seagull it is it is the perfect example of what Lord Acton meant when he said, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor and publisher of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

One of the definitions of war is “an active struggle between competing entities.” One would be hard pressed to deny the reality of the active struggle going on between Branson and Hollister to attract “big box” stores like Target, Lowes, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, etc. to anchor retail developments in their respective areas. How about the struggle between Branson and the taxing entities that it wants to divert revenues from without their consent?

Branson Alderman Ron Huff has said that if the big boxes went to Hollister it would result in the loss of tax revenues and jobs to Branson, adversely affect Branson businesses in a manner similar to what happened when Lowes opened up in Hollister, and that there would be an impact of new families on the Branson school district regardless of where the big boxes went. From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, Huff is describing the reality of the situation and the reason why Branson declared war on Hollister by attacking it with a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) missile.

In terms of weapons Branson had two missiles developed and ready to use, the less powerful, Branson Single Tax Increment Financing Missile (BSTIF) and the more powerful Taney County Tax Increment Financing (TCTIF) missile. The less powerful BSTIF only had the destructive power of the taxes that the City of Branson imposed and derived no power from other taxing entities within the Taney County. The more powerful TCTIF had not only the destructive power of the taxes that the City of Branson imposed but the additional taxes diverted from other taxing entities within the county without their consent such as Taney County, the Branson school district, and others.

Branson realized that time was running out and that Hollister was about to get the big box stores because of, among other things, the combined efforts and investments of local developers in site preparation, improvements to Highway 65, and the fact that Lowes was already there. It appears that the tactical decision was made to declare war on Hollister through a preemptory strike using their most powerful missile, the Taney County Tax Increment Financing (TCTIF) missile.

And so far it appears that it has worked. If appearances and documents presented at recent public meetings recently accurately reflect the effect of the war so far, Branson has Target, Home Depot and possibly Wal-Mart surrounded and is about to capture them. In fact from an outsider’s perspective it appears that Hollister is ignoring the fact that it is involved in a war with Branson that could affect its very economic stability.

If the big boxes went to Branson wouldn’t it result in the loss of tax revenues and jobs to Hollister, adversely affect Hollister businesses, and impact on the Hollister School District as families who couldn’t afford housing in Branson located within the district? An Ole Seagull thinks so.

Aren’t Taney County, the Branson school district, and other Taney County taxing entities involved in an active struggle with Branson to protect their future tax revenues from Branson’s use in TIFs without their consent? To an Ole Seagull the answer seems obvious. Yet, it seems like Branson is going through Hollister, Taney County, the Branson school district and other taxing entities within Taney County quicker than Israel went through the Egyptian army during the Six Day War in 1967.

Although there might be moments of honor among warriors there is very seldom honor in war itself. In the final analysis, when the battles are over and the war decided, what was honorable and right is determined by the victors. Even on Halloween that’s a scary thought!

Historically, a lot of destination areas get a substantial part of the money used to market their destination from a room tax or surcharge on hotels and motels. It is commonly referred to as a “tourism tax” because the vast majority of it is paid by tourists, as opposed to local residents, and it is used to promote tourism. Although there are always exceptions to the general rule, typically, if this tax is expanded to other areas they are generally tourist specific such as tickets for attractions, shows, etc.

This acknowledges the reality of getting a tourism tax passed by the voters. It’s much easier to get voter approval if they are not paying the tax. A tourism tax on the lodging in hotels and motels is much easier to get approved than other tax proposals because most of those voting on it don’t use hotels and motels locally and won’t pay the tax.

There are some in Branson who would say, “Hold on Seagull, we have a tourism tax on meals purchased in restaurants.” Exactly the point, but it’s an exception to the general rule. That’s also why its rate is considerably less than the rate charged on lodging, shows, and attractions. Anyone want to take a bet on whether or not Branson’s tourism tax would have passed if it had contained a four percent tax on restaurant meals?

Unfortunately, 75 percent of the taxes collected from Branson’s current “tourism tax” must be used for infrastructure improvements, roads, water, sewers etc. Only 25 percent of the tax, on average, a little over $2 million per year, is available for marketing. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, no matter how efficiently it is spent, that is not nearly enough in today extremely competitive tourist environment.

A current Taco Bell ad to “think outside the box” is good advice, not only for eating but for coming up with innovative ideas to raise needed marketing funds. Branson’s idea of charging a tourism tax on restaurant meals is certainly innovative from a tourism tax point. In addition to sleeping, and all the other typical tourist activities that tourists do, they eat. That’s the good news. The bad news is that residents also eat out and have to pay the tax too. Where’s the good news for the residents? There’s a lot more tourists than there are residents.

Tomorrow morning two people, one a resident of Branson and one a tourist, each spend $5 for breakfast. If the tourism tax on food in restaurants was one percent, each would pay five cents for a total tax collected of ten cents. Insignificant by itself but, what if instead of just two people, 25 percent of the approximately six thousand residents living in Branson, decided to eat breakfast out and spend $5 each. That’s a little more significant because the total tourism tax collected would be $75 for the day.

How much more significant do things get if about 60 percent of the average daily visitors to Branson paid $5 each to eat breakfast? About 6.5 times more significant because it would result in a total tourism tax collection of $493 for the day. In this example, on this day, for every dollar of tourism tax that a resident of Branson pays “tourists” will invest 6.5 times as much.

Don’t most tourists shop? Isn’t shopping one of the big draws to Branson? What if there was a one percent tourism tax on the retail sales of most items except cars, boats, food and medicines? If each of Branson’s approximately six thousand residents spends $3 thousand per year on taxable items, the total tourism tax collected would be $180 thousand. On the other hand, if the average tourist spent $150 each, over $9 million in tourism taxes would be raised or about 50 times as much.

“Come on Seagull, statistics can be used to justify anything.” That’s true, but the reality is that there are many more tourists than residents and, exponentially, they are going to pay much more in sales taxes than the locals. It’s a reality that can be used to get the Branson area the marketing funds that it needs to effectively market all that Branson has to offer.

In that context, what is needed is a vehicle to insure that the proceeds of any such tax are used to market Branson, in the most efficient manner possible, for the good of all, by an entity that is directly appointed by and accountable to the voters through one or more elected government entities. To an Ole Seagull’s everlasting disappointment and continuing amazement, in spite of the long standing need for increased marketing funds, he has yet to see such a vehicle.