Each day the students and staff traveling to the Branson High School are exposed to a “time bomb” that is ticking down. When, not if, it finally goes off we will all grieve and mourn our loss, wring our hands, and, incredulously, knowingly shake our heads and say, “Well it finally happened, maybe now someone will do something about it.” The sad thing is that those having the power to either diffuse the time bomb or mitigate the effects of its explosion are well aware of its existence and are simply, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, failing to take the appropriate actions to eliminate or control the threat.

What is the “time bomb?” It is the unsafe conditions that exist on Buchanan Road and in, what the Ole Seagull refers to as, the “Corridor.” The corridor is the area running west from the southeast frontage road, located immediately east of the northbound exit ramp from Highway 65 at Highway F, west to the southwest frontage road located immediately to the west of the south bound Highway F entrance ramp to Highway 65.

How does one know they are unsafe? Just drive them! Drive Buchanan Road from the high school to Highway 248 as the Ole Seagull did this week.Observe first hand the narrowness of the road, its sharp curves, steep drop offs, virtually non existent shoulders, lack of guard rails, and the danger posed by its intersection with Highway 248. In an Ole Seagulls opinion, from a safety perspective it’s just a matter of when the next accident is going to occur, how serious the injury will be, and when one of them will be fatal.

Drive up the northbound exit ramp from Highway 65 to Highway F at the height of the morning “school rush.” Or, more appropriately, creep up the ramp because there will be a large traffic backup waiting to enter the corridor which, at times, extends down the ramp and back out onto the lanes of Highway 65 itself. To enter the corridor each driver must make a left hand turn to the west as they cross three lanes of traffic, with two of the lanes containing traffic approaching from opposite directions at a posted limit of 45 miles per hour. Like Buchanan Road, it too is just a matter of when the next accident is going to occur, how serious the injury will be, and when one of them will be fatal.

Even as this is being written the time bomb is ticking and time is crucial. Who can do the most, in the quickest way, to buy time while an effective solution is found? From an Ole Seagulls perspective, in order, it is the parents, the students and staff members that drive to and from the high school, and the Taney County Commission.

Some might say, “What about the school board and school administration?” It’s an Ole Seagulls opinion that their primary mission and authority is to educate our children not build or maintain public highways and roads or control the traffic traveling on them. At the very least, they are not the ones that can do the most the quickest.

That responsibility falls first squarely on the parents who must take whatever steps are necessary to insure that their teenage driver(s) do not use Buchanan Road, between Highway 248 and the high school. Obviously the next step is for those driving to and from the high school, be it students, faculty or parents to avoid Buchanan Road, between Highway 248 and the high school. Next would be the commitment of those driving to school, from the south on Highway 65, to patiently wait to turn west off the Highway 65 Highway F exit ramp and, once the turn has been made, their further commitment to drive, from that point, cautiously and in compliance with all posted speed limits and other traffic regulations.

The County Commissioners have control over F Highway and Buchanan Road. Outside of the parents and drivers themselves, they are in the best position to provide a temporary quick fix to mitigate the situation until a more effective solution is found and take the lead in coming up with such a solution.

In an Ole Seagulls opinion, at a minimum, this temporary quick fix should include the immediate assignment of a traffic control officer at the junction of the northbound exit ramp from Highway 65 at Highway F during the morning school rush hour, the installation of appropriate guard rails on Buchanan Road, particularly at its intersection with Highway 248, and the establishment of a “blue ribbon” committee, appointed by the commission, consisting of all the parties necessary to reach a permanent solution of the problem with a 30 day deadline to recommend its solution.

The Ole Seagull realizes full well that there are those who will say that this proposal is too simplistic and that much more study must be done before any action can be taken. From an Ole Seagull’s perspective he must handle the complex, if at all, in simple, understandable, manageable, and prioritized parts. He will leave it to others more qualified to add the complexity and excuses but meanwhile the time bomb is ticking, tick, tick, tick….

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

On August 23 the Springfield News Leader published an “Our View” piece entitled, “Rockaway citizens deserve better than silly, half-baked ideas.” Sadly however, while ridiculing the specific ideas presented at a recent meeting between the Taney County Commission and Rockaway Beach, the unnamed editorial gurus who wrote the piece didn’t suggest any ideas, let alone one, that in their opinion, was a better idea or met what they allege is the “key” to what Rockaway needs.

The last paragraph of the piece said that the “ideas all missed the need for full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal. And that’s unfortunate because Rockaway citizens are still enamored with the idea of a casino, a bad fit for the Ozarks. There are better answers. The key is to help Rockaway find them, not to draw laughs with outlandish proposals.”

Well golly gee whiz, so the key is to help Rockaway Beach find “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal.” An Ole Seagull would suggest one additional criterion, the “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal” should also be “good paying.” Let’s go up the road, about 18 minutes and 11, miles to our area’s economic epicenter, the city of Branson. Surely its economy is based on a foundation of good paying “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal.” Isn’t it?

Not really. Doesn’t history testify to the fact that the economic engine driving Branson is a cyclic tourism based engine? Are the majority of the jobs that are vital and necessary to drive and service that engine good paying “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal?” Isn’t the basic cycle the same today, as it has been for decades, people work during the “tourist season,” for relatively low wages, minimal or no benefits, and, when the season is over, collect unemployment during the off season?

Now hold on Seagull, there are lots of people making big money in Branson, and many more who have good paying “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal. True enough but how much of that “good money” and how many of those jobs are not dependent on Branson’s tourism driven economic engine? An economic engine fueled by the labors of those who do not have good paying “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal.”

Are there not seemingly daily reports of the increasing national trend of employers to “outsource” and otherwise take advantage of the cheaper labor outside of the United States? Is it any different in Missouri and particularly in southwest Missouri? In an Ole Seagulls opinion, that in conjunction with our areas topography, weather, and tourism based economy create an environment where the opportunities for good paying, “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal” will be few and far between.

Absent one of those “few and far between” opportunities “the Lord and the twelve apostles” could have walked into that meeting with ideas and ended up with the same result. Why? Because, according to the piece, “Rockaway citizens are still enamored with the idea of a casino, a bad fit for the Ozarks.”

And why shouldn’t they be “enamored?” Given the economic base and the job market in the Ozarks can anyone realistically name another idea that has near the same potential of providing good paying “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal” as that provided by casino entertainment in Rockaway Beach?

An added advantage with casino entertainment is that Branson doesn’t want it. Does anyone really think that if an opportunity presented itself that provided 500 to 1,000 good paying, “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal,” particularly one that could generate between 300,000 to 800,000 new tourists a year, that Branson, the economic “pac man” of our area, wouldn’t do everything in its power to “gobble it up.” Need one look any farther than the Branson TIF for Branson Hills to see what happens when Branson wants the same thing that its neighbors want?

It’s enough to cause an Ole Seagull to wonder if maybe the piece wasn’t right when it said, that “the idea of a casino” is “a bad fit for the Ozarks.” After all, a casino would provide good paying, “full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal.” Wouldn’t that be “a bad fit for the Ozarks” because it would increase the cost of the “fuel” that drives Branson’s economic engine?

But Seagull, does everything have to revolve around what Branson’ wants? With that type of rationale what hopes are there for good paying, full-time jobs with benefits that aren’t seasonal? To quote the old song, “The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind.” Just don’t be standing “downwind” when it blows in.

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

The other day as the Ole Seagull was sipping his coffee in a local restaurant, located in beautiful historic downtown Branson, he noticed one of the owners picking something up off the floor that looked like a bird feather. When asked about it, the owner said that they are constantly sweeping the restaurant and picking up feathers blowing in the door because of bird activity in the Bradford Pear tree located not ten feet from their front door. She also pointed out that when “bird droppings” from downtown trees are bad that people walk through them and then track them, not only into their restaurant but into other businesses and restaurants in the downtown area.

As one makes their choice of where to eat, how appetizing is it to think of a feather from a “birds tail section” or bird dung dust either drifting across your table before or as you are eating? Flitting across serving and other food preparation surfaces within the restaurant? Think of how ones culinary experience would be enhanced as a bird feather gently drifts down and settles in the middle of the yolk of your sunny side up eggs.

The Ole Seagull asked why they couldn’t do something to get the tree taken down. One of the owners said, “We have been trying but we are getting the runaround from the City and DBMA (Downtown Branson Main Street Association).” As a way of explanation she gave the Ole Seagull two letters to read. The first was dated August 11 and sent Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Don. D. Stephens, director of planning and development for the City of Branson.

It very concisely and politely asked Stephens to confirm, within seven days, four specific items, “1) That your office intends to resolve the matter within a reasonable amount of time and what that timeframe is; 2) That we will be notified in a timely manner when a resolution is reached; 3) Your assurances that there are no administrative steps or procedures required by us to facilitate the removal of the tree ) i.e. appeals, variance requests, hearings, etc.); and 4) Which ordinance specifically prevents the removal of the tree.” Stephens responded on August 24.

As the Ole Seagull read Stephen’s reply he was astounded to read “Because the landscaping in downtown Branson was an area project, your concerns should be directed to the Downtown Branson Main Street Association (DBMA)” and the verbiage “The ultimate solution to your concerns falls under the immediate discretion of DBMA.” Since when has DBMA been a part of city government? Health issues aside, why would the director of Branson planning and development and the City of Branson not take the trouble to immediately consider the concerns of one of their newest businesses, purchased in the fall of 2003, and help them resolve the issue?

The Ole Seagull talked with Gayla Roten, the director of DBMA, who said words to the effect that “DBMA did work with the City on a downtown improvement project years ago and is seeking to work with them currently on a new ‘Cityscape Project’ to tie the downtown in with the Branson Landing but that DBMA has no direct control over the trees. They are city owned, maintained, and located on city property controlled by the city.” She also pointed out that DBMA was fined by the city once because they trimmed them.

So now the circle is completed, the city to DBMA and DBMA back to the city with a local business, having a business and potential health problem in the middle. Do we all sit around, hold hands, and sing “kumbaya” or is someone going to step up and address the problem?

To an Ole Seagull the answer is as simple as the city permitting those businesses desiring the removal of the trees, that the city mistakenly planted about 12 years ago, to request their immediate removal by the City. Hopefully before any potential health problem manifests itself in a downtown restaurant. It might also be appropriate to incorporate the lessons that should have been learned from the previous project into the planning for the new Cityscape Project currently under consideration. Hum, another thought just came to mind. With Stephen’s letter in hand, why not just let the wood chips fly where they may?

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

Seagull Musings Column for August 22, 2004

Seagull Musings Column for August 15, 2004

The Ole Seagull has the pleasure of attending a men’s prayer meeting every Tuesday morning. Among other things, the group has been praying that “Gods perfect will be done” as regards the Rockaway Beach casino and the sanctity of marriage issues that were on the August 3 ballot. “Wait a minute Seagull, with your views on the casino in Rockaway Beach, they still let you in?” “Sure, all who want to pray, even an Ole Seagull, are welcome.”

With this group of men, it’s not the one being right over another, where they go to church or don’t, how they might individually feel about an issue, political or social standing within the community, or the political/economic aspects of an issue that matters. What matters is that they care enough about their God, each other, and their community to humbly gather together each week and ask His blessing on each other, their families, their community, and the issues that they face together.

In any event, on the night of August 3, although perhaps not in the manner that some had hoped, prayers were answered. “Come on Seagull, prayers “schmayers,” wasn’t it Peter Herschend who defeated it!” “Not really. He provided the clout, funding, and brilliant leadership without which an effective campaign against Amendment 1 could not have been waged.” But, an Ole Seagull would suggest that, in the final analysis, without two things happening, one of which was not only beyond the control of the opponents to Amendment 1 but controlled entirely by its proponents, the results, in all likelihood, would have been radically different.

The first was the choice of the ballot language that the proponents of Amendment 1 chose. In October of 2003 and again June of 2004, the Ole Seagull wrote, “Unfortunately for Rockaway Beach’s casino gambling hopes, the petition itself provides the very ammunition that those opposing a casino in Rockaway Beach could use to attempt to shoot their casino down. Is it much?No, but it could be enough to make a ‘decent bet’ into a bet that is ‘at best, even money.'” In the June 2004 column he added, “the ‘at best’ scenario might be overly optimistic.”

The Ole Seagull will never forget his amazement the first time he “read” the Initiative Petition for Amendment 1 in October of 2003. As he read the provision providing for “gambling facilities,” plural instead of singular as in “One,” multiple issues in the Petition, and its verbiage relating to “priority school” funding he thought, “Wow, does this give the opposition ammunition that they shouldn’t have.” Although the opposition never zeroed in on the fact that the very Amendment itself authorized more than one gambling facility, the multiple issues on the Initiative was raised in the judicial challenge, and the priority schools issue, which finally surfaced in the final weeks of the campaign, was, in the Ole Seagulls opinion, a major factor in the defeat of Amendment 1.

How major? In an article in the August 4 edition of the Springfield News Leader it was reported that both Robert Low, a partner in the proposed Rockaway Beach Casino, and casino opponent, Peter Herschend, said, that “the education component of the initiative may have been the weak point.” In what could be the understatement of the year, Low is reported to have said, “I think the school issue hurt us.”

The second element was when Amendment 2, defining “marriage,” was placed on the same ballot as Amendment 1. In an Ole Seagulls opinion, when the extraneous verbiage of the Amendment 1 was combined with Amendment 2 being on the same ballot all the elements of a “perfect defeat” were in place.

How differently might this election had turned out if the Petition had simply read, “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to authorize a floating gambling facility on or adjacent to the White River in Rockaway Beach Missouri” or if Amendment 2 had not been on the same ballot. Why did the proponents include the extra language? How did Amendment 2 end up on the same ballot? Is it totally inappropriate to suggest that God works His perfect will according to his timing for His purposes?

“Hold on there Seagull, I thought that you supported a single casino in Rockaway Beach?” “Sure did and do, but, if it is to come, it will come in God’s way and time or, not at all.” “Do you think that a casino in Rockaway Beach is dead?” Not if Robert Low really meant what he said, that the fight’s not over and that “If you are right, you fight.” “But is it a fight that is right and one that can be won?” For a lot of reasons an Ole Seagull believes that it is a fight that is right and can be won.” After all, isn’t it a good bet that God works His perfect will according to His timing for His purposes.

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

Seagull Mussings Column for August 4, 2004

Recently, as the Ole Seagull entered a local church he was handed a church bulletin for the service. One of the items stuffed in the bulletin was a “muck sheet” announcing, in bold type, that “The word of God is clear about gambling violating many scriptural themes.” As the Ole Seagull read the “muck sheet” he thought to himself, “The people that wrote this are either intentionally trying to deceive people or are reading a different ‘word of God’ than he was reading.”

In the Ole Seagull’s research regarding the scriptures and gambling he didn’t find anything specifically declaring gambling a sin, prohibiting it or warning against it. Not so with adultery (Matt: 5:27), lusting (Matt: 5:28), immorality, impurity, and sensuality (1Gala: 5:19), enmities, jealousy, anger, disputes, dissentions, and factions (1Gala: 5:20) envyings and drunkenness (1Gala: 5:21), sodomy (Gene:19:1-26), greed (Luke 12:15), judging others (Matt: 7:1), and, hypocrisy (Matt: 23:25).

“Hey Seagull, did you list hypocrisy last because you wanted to save the best for last?” “No because it is consistent with 1 Corinthians 13:13 and I wanted to save the ‘greatest’ for last.” “But Seagull, doesn’t 1 Corinthians 13:13 read ‘But now abide faith, hope, love, but the greatest of these is love?'” “Sure it does.” “Well what does that have to do with ‘hypocrisy’?” “Oh, about as much as the scriptures cited in the “muck sheet” have to do with casino entertainment ‘violating many scriptural themes.'”

The “muck sheet” asks three “like duh” questions about “your neighbors.” Questions designed so that 99.99 percent of a sane population would have to answer “No.” Each was followed by a baseless conclusionary statement allegedly supported the scriptural reference that immediately followed. Not one of them, in the Ole Seagulls opinion, “clearly,” logically, or honestly supported the baseless conclusionary statement it followed.

As an example, the first of the three questions on the “muck sheet” asked, “Do you want your neighbors to destroy their families?” What other answer is there except “No.” That was immediately followed by the statement “Gambling breaks marriages and homes of many families due to deceit, addiction, alcoholism, and violence.” Coherency aside, exponentially what has broken up more marriages, homes, and families “adultery,” or “casino entertainment?

How much would one bet on the proposition that “alcoholism” is caused by “gambling” rather than the abuse of alcohol? That “deceit” is caused by casino entertainment rather than lack of character and dishonesty or that “addiction” or “violence” is caused by casino entertainment rather than by the lack of self control?

The scripture listed as supporting the statement is “And the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together let man not separate. (Mark: 8:9)” Can any responsible person, Christian or otherwise, honestly look anyone in the face, let alone those whom they go to church with or those who have come to their church seeking the love, comfort, and salvation of Jesus, and say that the passage “is clear about gambling violating its scriptural theme?”

The “muck sheet” further states that scripture “guides us to not walk with the wicked nor stand with sinners.” Unless Romans: 3:23 is wrong when it says “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” wouldn’t our churches be “mired” in loneliness without us sinners? Did Jesus come to call the righteous or the sinners?

Sadly, although the “muck sheet” quotes Matthew 22:39, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” it is devoid of any attempt to show that love and ignores the admonition contained in Matthew 7:5 which says, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” It appears hypocritically “mired” in the muck of ignoring the “logs” of adultery, greed, drunkenness, hypocrisy etc. and the havoc they reap while, comparatively speaking, condemning the “speck” of casino entertainment.

How is the love of Christ shown in the “muck sheet?” How does it further the work of God’s kingdom? “For Pete sake Seagull, get real, do you think that the people who wrote the “muck sheet” cared one iota about anything except not having the people who read it vote ‘YES’ for Amendment 1 on August 3?” “Well, if they did they hid it well, very well indeed.”

“But Seagull, your headline says that ‘the word of God is clear- He loves those that will vote YES on Amendment 1.’ Won’t He also love those that don’t vote YES on Amendment 1?” “Of course He will, ‘For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life.’ (John: 3:16) It’s an unconditional gift that applies to all who will accept it, those that vote YES on Amendment 1 as well as those that don’t vote YES.” “But now abide faith, hope, love, but the greatest of these is love.”

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

Editorial By Kurt Lewis, Publisher Branson Daily Independent and Taney County Times

Republished from Editorial Page of the Branson Daily Indpependent with Permission

Whether you are for or against Amendment 1 you have to admit the residents of Rockaway Beach have proven that nothing is impossible if you pull together as a community and work toward a common goal. Three years ago when two Rockaway Beach businessmen said they would like to revitalize their town with riverboat gaming, most people laughed, thought it was a pipe dream and said it would never happen. Like most of you I never thought the idea would go very far and certainly never expected it to achieve a statewide vote.

During my 25-year tenure in the newspaper industry I have never endorsed any type of gambling issue. Editorializing against riverboat casinos and the lottery. (The worst form of gambling in my opinion. I have bought two lottery tickets, both on the first day of sales and absolutely can not stand getting behind people purchasing and scratching tickets at a convenience store.) Those issues were approved by voters and on my four or five visits to St. Louis area boats I have not been impressed.

However after traveling to a handful of tourist destinations with gaming, I now have a much different opinion. And that’s what this is, my opinion which is worth the same as your opinion. I have taught classes at my home church on gambling, heard all of the horror stories and have a close friend who is addicted to gambling. After taking the time to see just how tourist based gaming operates in various parts of the country, I believe Amendment 1 would not only revitalize Rockaway Beach, but would benefit Taney County and the surrounding area in general.

What I was unable to find in tourist destinations with gaming is the huge increase in crime, drugs and other illegal activities those opposing Amendment 1 claim. I asked people from various walks of life in each community, including law enforcement officials. Like one police chief said, if you had two burglaries before gaming and had four after gaming, then those opposing gaming will claim crime doubled. What they fail to consider is that after gaming a million more people came to town and obviously if a million more people come to any town there will be an increase in common crimes that occur with or without gaming.

Amendment 1 would create 1,000 full time year round jobs with benefits in Taney County. That fact is hard to deny or destroy by tossing misleading figures into the air. Unemployment in Taney County averaged 7.7 percent in 2003 and 8.2 percent in 2002, but the monthly rates ranged from highs of 22.5 percent to lows of 3 percent. Amendment 1 means jobs for area residents. It means jobs with benefits and above average starting wages. The average casino industry wage nationwide is $26,000 per year, plus benefits.

Amendment 1 would allow private businesses to invest over $100 million in Rockaway Beach, without a TIF or any government funds. Rockaway Beach would be improved and that improvement would spill over into other parts of Taney County. The main investor-owner in the Rockaway Beach riverboat casino will be Robert Low of Springfield. Low owns Prime, Inc. in Springfield (the largest refrigerated trucking company in America) and the Palace Casino Resort in Biloxi, Miss. Low is a top notch individual who operates his businesses in a way that I only wish all businesses could operate. He is the real deal, a self-made Missourian, who from all accounts I have heard and from talking with many of his employees in Springfield and Biloxi, that does what he says and keeps his word regardless of the cost. Rockaway Beach could not have found a better combination than Southwest Casino & Hotel Corp, and Robert Low to develop and revitalize their community.

Gaming in Rockaway Beach will not damage Branson or its family friendly image. You have to want to go to Rockaway Beach to get there. Gaming would not be rubbed in the noses of our visitors, but it would give them another entertainment choice close to Branson, yet far enough away that they clearly have to want to gamble in order to visit Rockaway Beach. Remember there are a number of Branson visitors who enjoy gambling as a form of entertainment. Many of the bus tours stop at casinos on their way to and from Branson. If they stop at Rockaway Beach in the future, it could add a day to their stay locally, increasing hotel revenues and taxes.

We believe a "yes" vote on Amendment 1 will be good for Taney County and Missouri.

Regardless of your position, and I respect everyone who shares a different opinion on Amendment 1, exercise your right and privilege to vote by casting your ballot Tuesday, August 3.

It were not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion that makes horse races. — Mark Twain

Courtesy of Branson Daily Independent

Seagull Mussings Column for July 25, 2004

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

Seagull Mussings Column July 18, 2004

The lies listed in a “world’s greatest lies list” obviously depends on whose list it is and the current environment in which it is being complied. The first two on the Ole Seagull’s current list would be, “If gambling comes to Rockaway Beach abortions will increase” and “The check’s in the mail.”

This week, a local paper published a piece by a person espousing reasons for not voting “Yes” on Amendment 1.As the Ole Seagull read one of the reasons, to “give Branson and Rockaway Beach a chance to accomplish a better solution together,” he suppressed a chuckle because it caused him to recall the third “greatest lie” on his list, “Hi, we’re the City of Branson and we’d like a chance to work with you for the mutual success of our areas economic development.”

In light of the way Branson has been helping Hollister, the YMCA, and some its own businesses lately, just the thought of Branson offering to help should strike fear into the hearts those involved with Rockaway Beach’s redevelopment effort. How much help did Branson give Hollister with the improvement of Highway 65 south from Branson toward the Arkansas line? One can only wonder what Hollister and probably, some of Branson’s own businesses, think of Branson’s timing and use of a TIF in the Branson Hills area as “a chance to accomplish a better solution together.”

“Hey Seagull, I have one that I want to nominate for the “world’s greatest lies list.” “What is it?” “Amendment 1 provides fairness for southwest Missouri and benefits us all.” “Actually, although a close call, that statement might be less a lie than calling Branson, a town that permits the expansion of alcohol, into its theaters and attractions, ‘family friendly.'”

“Fair” can be defined in more than one way but two seem particularly appropriate in this situation, “equitable” and “superficially true or appealing.” It’s ironic isn’t it, one term that has two opposite meanings? It’s similar to the way Branson uses the term “family friendly.” The expansion of alcohol into the theatres and attractions within Branson is “family friendly” but casino entertainment in Rockaway Beach, miles away from Branson, is not.

It would be hard for anyone to say that Rockaway Beach’s redevelopment story is not, at a minimum, at least “superficially true or appealing.” On the other hand, is it “equitable” for Rockaway Beach to base its redevelopment plan on the possible diversion of up to $135.8 million dollars in potential Branson revenues and the interception of millions of Branson’s visitors?

From an Ole Seagulls perspective “but for” Branson a casino in Rockaway Beach would be too big a “gamble” for investors and there would be no Amendment 1. That aside however, in the same spirit that words like “family friendly,” “blighted”, and “world class” are interpreted within our community, and although not in the context of the way that most people would interpret it, one would be hard pressed not to admit that, technically, it meets the definition of “fair.”

“All right, so that one doesn’t make the list but wait, I have another one, how about, ‘I’m being totally unbiased.'” “Maybe but let me think about it and ‘I will call you right back.'”

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

Seagull Mussings Column July 11, 2004

Seagull Mussings Column July 4, 2004

Seagull Musings Column for June 13, 2004

The Sunday June 20 edition of this paper contained a letter to the editor from local Santa Claus impersonator and Highway 265 resort owner Greg (Santa) Winters, containing comments and questions about the June 13 Seagull Musings column entitled “Look, up in the sky, it’s the ‘secret handshake clique’ – no wait, it’s the ‘Branafia!‘” For those readers who might have missed the column and to provide a perspective for this column, that column, and a hyperlink from it to the article “Did Ashcroft Take the Lowroad on the Highroad?,” published in the January 15, 2001 edition of “The Nation” magazine, can be found on line at “www.bransoncourier.com” under “Editorials.”

For whatever reason, a lot of Winters’ statements and questions appear to indicate a fixation on the Herschends and relate to the reality of what the column actually said about as much as “Santa Claus” relates to reality or the true meaning of Christmas. Interestingly enough, although he uses the words “crap,” “sewers,” “rat” and “droppings” in his letter to create the illusion that he wants to create not once did he cite an instance in the column where the information was not true but then “truth” is “truth,” “droppings” are “droppings,” and the public is wise enough to know the difference.

As Winters advises the Ole Seagull to “crawl back into the sewer where a rat belongs” he also advises him to “look at the bright side, all the riff-raff that follows the arrival of any casino would be in there to welcome you.” To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “Riffraff happens.”

Why, in addition to casinos, “riffraff happens” in connection with other local things such as the Highroad, Branson Landing, TIFs, what some call the “Chamber Tax, and the “Branafia” to mention a few. The Ole Seagull would bet that as one’s eyes adjusted to the darkness, after crawling into the sewer from the sunlight, and they met their fellow inhabitants that they would recognize more than a few “local faces. Why they might even hear a hearty “Ho! Ho! Ho!” coming from out of the depths of the darkness.

Winters asks, “What did the Herschend’s do to you to deserve these attacks, kick you off the pony ride??” The term “attack” is relative but the column did not refer to the “Herschends” just a “Herschend,” Peter Herschend. One such reference was necessary because he was “the agenda” for the June 1, meeting of the Hollister City Council cited in the column. Two other references were contained in quotes from the article “Did Ashcroft Take the Lowroad on the Highroad?” published in the January 15, 2001 edition of “The Nation” magazine.

Those quotes were used by the Ole Seagull because, in his opinion, they provided an outsider’s perspective, that illustrated what he meant by the term “Branafia.” The term was defined in the column as “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 the Branafia receives.” As to the context and manner in which Peter F. Herschend was mentioned in the column, “truth” is “truth,” “droppings” are “droppings,” and the public is wise enough to know the difference.

Winters states “Mr. Seagull Dropping seems to think it’s OK to hurt my business as long as it hurts the Herschends!!!” ” Even the Ole Seagulls most ardent detractors would have to admit that it is highly unlikely that anyone, including Winters, with all his “Santa like powers,” could “seemingly” or otherwise knows what either the Ole Seagull or anyone else is “thinking.” Because there is nothing in the column that discusses hurting any business, Winters’, Herschend’s, or otherwise, one can only wonder whether or not his comment in that regard was a “Freudian Slip.”

Winters use of the word “dropping(s)” is kind of ironic because the “Ole Seagull” developed his brand from a speech given by Jim King, past National Transportation Board Chairman, when he described his position in the political hierarchy of the day as that of, “a lowly seagull walking along after the horse in the parade picking at the droppings.” Even as it gave Jim perspective at that time so too does it keep the Ole Seagull’s roll in perspective today although, it appears, he’ll be picking at “reindeer droppings” for a while.

Seagull Musings Column for June 20, 2004

This week the Ole Seagull received a slick multi colored mailing piece ostensibly “From the Desk of Virginia Ferguson.” The front contains pictures of “Rockaway Beach Then …and Now.” The back contains text and the picture of a lovely lady that almost anyone would just love to reach out and hug and say, “I’ll do whatever you want me to do if it will keep that beautiful smile on your face.”

Virginia tells us that she remembers “Rockaway Beach the way it used to be” and asks for our “YES vote on Amendment 1” so that they will have the opportunity to revive their community. She then shares some of her memories about the way it used to be with “little shops and restaurants.We had an arcade and go carts for kids. At night, a band would play.Some people would dance; others would just enjoy the music as they sat by the camp fire.”

She then tells us how the government changed it all by building Table Rock Dam which turned their “warm water beach into an icy cold lake” and that “eventually tourists stopped coming, our businesses had to close down, and now, part-time seasonal work is all that people can find. It’s just not fair.” Virginia closes by saying, “We can’t bring back the past, but I hope you will do the neighborly thing and vote YES on Amendment 1 so that we will have the opportunity to revive our community.”

As the Ole Seagull read it and looked at Virginia’s smiling face he sadly thought, “Virginia, you’re right, ‘It’s just not fair'” but what “isn’t fair” is the very piece itself. Is it “fair” that the piece did not point out that the dam was built over 40 years ago or that seasonal work is not unique to Rockaway Beach and is, in fact, a way of life for a lot of families living in Taney County?

An Ole Seagull thinks that “It’s just not fair” that the piece didn’t even contain the word “casino” or “gambling.” Particularly telling is the “fairness” involved with the statements “We take care of our neighbors. We don’t want to ask for handouts or government giveaways.” Most people would have a tough time reconciling those statements with a plan to revive their community that relies, to a large extent, on intercepting the traffic that their Branson “neighbors” have developed over the last 40 years or so and spend millions of dollars a year to market.

It is estimated that about 3 million people a year will go to Rockaway for casino entertainment if Amendment 1 is approved. Although no one has said, unless an Ole Seagull misses his guess, about 500,000 to 800,000 of those people will be first time visitors coming to Branson because of casino entertainment being available in Rockaway Beach. The rest of the three million estimated visitors a year to the “revived” Rockaway Beach and its casino will be at the potential expense of their “neighbors.” It sure seems like a funny way to take care of ones neighbors and, at the very least, some in Branson could also say “It’s just not fair.”

From an Ole Seagulls perspective it really doesn’t make a lot of difference. Whether you’re from Branson or Rockaway Beach, “fairness” has about as much to do with the financing, power, and clout being used both for and against casino entertainment coming to Rockaway Beach as “family friendly” does. Why an Ole Seagull might actually bet that their primary motivation has more to do with economics than “fairness,” “neighbors” or being “family friendly” combined.

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

Seagull Musings Column for June 13, 2004

Among other things Summers said, “We don’t use the words family friendly and safe and patriotic lightly.” He stressed that “We can’t allow an activity to enter our area that doesn’t conform to what we’ve built over the past few decades.”

“Boy Seagull that’s like mom’s apple pie, motherhood, and waving the flag but, who was the ‘we’ he referred to three times?” Who really knows for sure, but were an Ole Seagull a betting Seagull he would bet that the “we” referred to is the “Branafia.”

“What is the ‘Branafia?” It’s a term that the Ole Seagull has semi affectionately concocted based on the control and influence characteristics of a lesser used definition of the term “family.” The “Branafia” is 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 the Branafia receives.

As an example, the January 15, 2001 edition of “The Nation” magazine contained an article entitled, “Did Ashcroft Take the Lowroad on the Highroad?” The article stated, “But there is no question that the new highway was beneficial to several key political contributors to Ashcroft, most notably Peter Herschend, an owner of the Silver Dollar City amusement center. The road–US Highway 465–would skirt Branson and swing by Herschend’s Silver Dollar City.”

In describing the land that the state purchased from Herschend for $2.2 million the article said that the land “was to be used for building an interchange that would handle traffic to Herschend’s Silver Dollar City.””Wow Seagull, it would be hard to get much more ‘family friendly’ than that.”

From an economic perspective, particularly labor costs, what, if any, Branson area family, or families, would consider it “family friendly,” as to their family’s economic interests, if casino entertainment, with its estimated 1000 year round, good paying jobs with health care coverage, paid vacation time, and 401k plans did not come to Rockaway Beach?

“Well it certainly wouldn’t be those families who are struggling from pay check to pay check trying to make ends meet. Those who need health care coverage and would appreciate the relief that paid vacation time and a basic retirement plan could provide.” Who does that leave? “The Branafia, those who would have to pay millions of dollars more in wages, health care coverage, paid vacation time, and 401k and other retirement plans to compete with Rockaway Beach for labor.

Here in “family friendly” Branson, the Branafia continues to add new meaning to the term “family friendly” as it serves its own interests. Most recently it has “decreed” that the expansion of the serving of alcoholic beverages into Branson’s family friendly shows is with maintaining Branson’s “family friendly” image but that casino entertainment coming to Rockaway Beach does not.

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

Seagull Musings Column for June 6, 2004

On Tuesday, June 1, Hollister held a special council meeting at the request of Peter F. Herschend, one of the founders of Silver Dollar City. The only item on the agenda was a presentation by Herschend entitled “Municipalities for Gambling Choice.” The major thrust of his presentation was to request a resolution from the council making the City of Hollister a party in a lawsuit “to enjoin the Missouri Secretary of State from including the White River Gaming Petition on the August 3, 2004 election ballot.”

“Hold on there Seagull, isn’t this the same Peter F. Herschend, who supported SB 787, which would have required a vote of all the people in the county before casino gaming could take place?” It appears so. “Isn’t there something just a little inconsistent in supporting SB 787, which would let someone vote on an issue, and using a lawsuit to prevent someone from voting on an issue?”

Although it is inconsistent with SB 787, the lawsuit suit is actually very consistent with the philosophy of those who really control what goes on in Branson. To the maximum extent practicable “they” want to control what the voters get to vote on and how and when they get to do it. Was there any public vote on the “Highroad,” Branson Landing, or the formation of a non-elected “chamber controlled tax district” or the legislation that spawned its grotesque birth?

“Isn’t Herschend’s statement at the meeting and in the written material submitted to the council, that Rockaway Beach’s White River Gaming petition excludes all other cities and villages that are also on the White river from choosing to adopt gambling inconsistent with the way the petition actually reads?” In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, if the official “Official Ballot Title,” as certified by the Secretary of State’s office on July 11, 2003, means anything, absolutely!

The “Official Ballot Title” states “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to authorize floating gambling facilities on or adjacent to the White River in Rockaway Beach, Missouri, to be licensed and regulated consistent with all other floating facilities in the State of Missouri.” The original constitutional amendment permitting gaming in Missouri included only those locations on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Obviously it did not exclude Rockaway Beach, or any other location, from petitioning for gaming even as the Rockaway Beach petition does not exclude any other location, on the White River or otherwise, from petitioning for a similar amendment.

“Isn’t the filing of a lawsuit based on the supposition that it keeps casino gambling from other cities and villages on the White River inconsistent with Herschend’s stated opposition to the expansion of casino gambling?” Although, to an Ole Seagull, the position might be ludicrous, the methodology is very consistent and should bring fear into the hearts of those who believe that government shouldn’t be controlled by those with money, power, political clout and influence.

“Isn’t it inconsistent that Herschend made the presentation to the Hollister council requesting their participation in the lawsuit suit yet the KSPR TV report of the meeting reported that Herschend said that his ‘name is not going to be on the lawsuit?'” No, actually it’s pretty consistent. His name isn’t on the Highroad either but local folks are smart enough to know whose “road” it is.

“What do you think the chances are that casino entertainment will come to Rockaway Beach?” In October of 2003 the Ole Seagull wrote, “Unfortunately for Rockaway Beach’s casino gambling hopes, the petition itself provides the very ammunition that those opposing a casino in Rockaway Beach could use to attempt to shoot their casino down.Is it much?No, but it could be enough to make a ‘decent bet’ into a bet that is ‘at best, even money.'”

After reviewing the lawsuit that was filed, in detail, an Ole Seagull would have to say that the “at best” scenario might be overly optimistic. Regardless of the way this lawsuit ultimately ends up, the heart of an Ole Seagull is saddened. Saddened both for the citizens of Rockaway Beach because of the economic revival of their community that might be further delayed and for the citizens of Branson because of the price they were willing to pay to deny their neighbors that opportunity.

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

Seagull Musings Column for May 30, 2004

Ah yes, the age old question, “Will crime and Viagra sales increase if casino entertainment comes to Rockaway Beach? If what the Ole Seagull heard at a recent meeting is true, “that casino gambling is controlled by the ‘mafia,'” one could reasonably expect an increase in crime.

“But Seagull, who would believe something like that?” How about some of the same people who believed that the Branson Board of Aldermen was going to seriously address the issue of the expansion of the drinking of alcoholic beverages into theatres and attractions at their May 24, meeting?

The first casinos authorized by Missouri’s voters started operation in May of 1994. In the ten years they have been providing entertainment to Missouri residents and visitors, has there been any credible evidence presented by anyone that either the “mafia” or “organized crime” is controlling that entertainment? Indeed, the credible evidence would seem to suggest that Missouri’s casino entertainment industry is controlled very closely by the Missouri Gaming Commission, not the “mafia” or “organized crime.”

“Now hold on there Seagull, are you saying that there would be no increase in crime if casino entertainment came to Rockaway Beach?” No, not at all, but if there was any, he’d bet that, proportionately speaking, it would be about the same as the rate of increase in the sales of Viagra.

“Are you seriously comparing an increase in crime to increased sales of Viagra?” Why not, doesn’t it make as much sense as the Branson Board of Aldermen and the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce condemning the expansion of casino entertainment on family value grounds with one hand while supporting the expansion of the serving of alcoholic beverages into Branson’s family friendly theatres and attractions with the other?

“Not really.” Well let’s try it this way. If there is an increase of hundreds of thousands of visitors coming into the Branson Area and an increase in our areas permanent population for any reason, a casino in Rockaway Beach, Branson Landing etc., wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect a proportional increase in crime, church enrollment, traffic accidents, meals served at restaurants, heart attacks, sales of tickets to shows and attractions, rental of hotel rooms, increased retail sales including Viagra, etc?

“Well it sounds logical but wouldn’t the increase in crime be greater because of the type of people that casino entertainment brings in?” Not really. Send a survey team from the Chamber of Commerce to Tunica, Mississippi, to look at the average person being entertained in their casinos. An Ole Seagull would bet that they are the very types of people that Branson is spending millions of marketing dollars trying to attract.

In July of 2001, the Mark Twain Casino opened in LaGrange, Missouri. In a letter dated October 2, 2003, the Mayor of LaGrange, said, “There has been no increase in crime what so ever.”He went on to point out that “There are residential houses within one half block of the Casino and there has been no complaints filed against or about the casino” and that “we could not ask for better neighbors.”

Recently, in citing the justification for the expansion of the serving of alcohol into Branson’s theatres and attractions, one of the owners of a theatre serving alcohol said words to the effect that “we are just giving our customer what they want.” It is estimated that a casino in Rockaway Beach would provide an “additional attraction” that an estimated 3 million visitors a year would visit because it provides a form of entertainment that they want.

What’s more likely to cause someone to travel three to four hours to come to Branson, the serving of alcoholic beverages in theatres and attractions or the desire for casino entertainment? To an Ole Seagull the only “crime” he sees in this situation is Branson’s willingness to compromise its “family values,” in the alcohol situation while blithely ignoring the entertainment desires of an estimated three million visitors a year to our area. Now that we know what we are, can’t we at least renegotiate the price?

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

Seagull Musings Column for May 23, 2004

It has been said that “An army travels on its stomach.” Ten years in the United States Marine Corps convinced an Ole Seagull that an “army’s” stomach travels best when that “army” is traveling on good roads. Is it any different for a destination city like Branson? It’s at its best when residents and visitors alike travel on good roads.

Many can remember how it was trying to get around Branson back in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Basically there was Highway 76, a poor imitation of what the Shepherd of the Hills Expressway is today, and some “secret back routes.” On most days during the season, it was difficult and frustrating for residents and visitors alike to get from point A to point B within Branson.

Think of the traffic and congestion problems we would have today without the expansion of Highway 248 to four lanes from Highway 65 to its junction with Shepherd of the Hills Expressway, the extension and improvement of Gretna Road, improvement of Shepherd of the Hills expressway, Epps Road, Roark Valley Road, Green Mountain Drive, etc. Thanks to the planning, coordination, and efforts of the City of Branson, MODOT, and Taney County, citizens and visitors alike travel on a road system that relieves traffic congestion, provides for the public safety, and enables Branson to service the large influx of visitors that are its economic life blood.

“But Seagull, there are days and weekends during the season when traffic is horrendous?” That’s true, but the good news is that, because of Branson’s transportation planning and infrastructure improvements, it happens so infrequently and that, on average, Branson’s citizens and visitors can get anywhere they want to go within Branson safely and conveniently.

The transportation infrastructure to put Branson in this enviable position is not without cost however and has cost the city tens of millions of dollars. The major source of these funds has been a one half percent retail sales Transportation Tax which has been collected over at least the last ten years. One obvious benefit of a retail sales tax, in a tourist destination city like Branson, is that it shifts the tax burden for the transportation infrastructure needed to service Branson tourists from the shoulders of local residents onto the shoulders of the tourists that infrastructure is designed to service.

Branson’s current Transportation Tax is set to expire in November of 2005 unless the voters of Branson extend the tax.The vote on that extension is set for August. “Why vote so far in advance?” Were an Ole Seagull to hazard a guess it would be a combination of timing the election so that it had the best chance of passage, provide time for resubmission to the voters if the tax fails, and, most important of all, to provide a continuous source of financing so that vital transportation infrastructure construction, maintenance, and planning continues unabated.

“So it won’t be a new tax, just the extension of an old one?” That’s right. “With all the roads etc. that Branson has built over the last ten years why do they need more money?” Does anyone really believe that as Branson expands to the west and the north that new roads, bridges and related infrastructure will not be required? What about the maintenance and improvement of the current transportation infrastructure? How much longer can Branson go without some form of effective public mass transportation?

“I’ve heard a rumor that they want to pass this tax extension for infrastructure improvements for Branson Landing?” Give an Ole Seagull a break, won’t the vast majority, if not all, of the public transportation infrastructure for Branson Landing be paid for by the bonds being issued to finance the public portion of Branson Landing?

It’s not a Branson Landing issue! It’s an issue of continuing to meet Branson’s expanding transportation needs during the coming decades.The good news is that in determining whether or not to extend the Transportation Tax, the community can actually look back over the last ten years and evaluate how their investment of the Transportation Tax has affected our community. Indeed, the chances are excellent, that this very day they will be driving over a road or bridge that was built because of it.

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

Seagull Musings Column for May 16, 2004

At the outset the Ole Seagull would point out his basic belief that the “created” have no power or authority to change the laws of the “Creator.” The created either follow the laws of the Creator or live with the consequences of not doing so, not the least of which is being left to their own devices.

In this scenario, it is apparent that who or what the “Creator” is plays a critical role. To an Ole Seagull, even one in the winter of his years and with all his glaring faults, the obvious answer is contained within the words, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” That “Creator” is God.

“Come on Seagull, do you really believe that God created everything?” Absolutely! Through the spring, summer, fall, and into the winter of his years, from the sun coming up every morning to its setting every evening, and all that naturally transpires in between, he has observed an orderliness to the universe that continually testifies of the certainty of God’s creation and His blessing.

“Next you’re going to tell us that you believe that “the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” From an Ole Seagull’s perspective it sure beats the alternative of a Godless “inbreeding evolution” left to itself without God’s hand to direct it.

“Well, God didn’t create this country?” Actually He did. Relatively speaking, it just took a “few years” for Columbus, to “discover” that which God had created and which, at the time of his discovery, was occupied by “Native Americans” who had discovered it centuries before.

“Come on Seagull, what I meant is that God didn’t fight the Revolutionary War which established us as an independent nation or write the U.S. Constitution upon which its government is based.” As an Ole Seagull understands it, that war like all others before it and since, was fought by beings that God created as they exercised their option of free choice. In like manner the U.S. Constitution was written.

“If the U.S. Constitution, the document upon which our government is based, says there should be no prayer in schools, no nativity scenes on public property, that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public buildings, Christmas should be called “Winter Solstice,” etc., shouldn’t that be the law of the land?” Absolutely, and if a frog had wings it should be able to fly but a frog doesn’t have wings and the Constitution contains no such language!

“Gotcha there Seagull, how about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says, among other things, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ ” Are we talking about the same First Amendment that Congress proposed, as part of the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789? “That’s the one.” Was that same Congress still in session, not two months later, on November 16, 1789? “Sure it was.Why?”

On November 16, 1789, the First President of the United States, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation.In that proclamation he stated, “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.’ “

Can any reasonably thinking person really believe that the same Congress that encouraged the “people of the United States” to acknowledge “with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God,” intended that the First Amendment they had proposed, not two months prior, be used as a tool to take prayer out of schools, remove the ten commandments from the walls of all public buildings etc.? It flies in the face of logic.

“Well, the Supreme Court of the United States says it does!” Is that the same “Supreme Court” that issued the Dred Scott Decision? “Ah, yeah I guess so. What was that decision about?” The fallibility of mans law and those who interpret it and a testimony to what can happen when the created change the laws of the Creator.

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

Seagull Musings Column for May 9, 2004

At the close of a public meeting on April 29, 2004 Terry Dody, Branson’s City Administrator, was reported to have said words to the effect that “Senator Childers and Representative Wood didn’t ask the council their opinion regarding the legislation [SB 787] on countywide voting for gambling.” According to the report, he went on to point out that “Instead they worked with the Chamber and a few other businesses.”

In addition, the report indicates that Dody made it very clear in the meeting that “the city council and the city administrator are against this legislation.” It continued, “One hotel owner suggested that the city should have contacted those state leaders when they learned of the legislation that was being drafted. Terry said it was too late by then because the legislation had already been introduced for consideration to the House and Senate.”

“Hey Seagull, didn’t something like this happen in the past?” It sure did. It seems that the more things change the more they remain the same.

Back in 2001, the “Chamber” and “a few other businesses,” which the Ole Seagull called the “Secret Handshake Clique,” drafted a piece of legislation to impose a one percent general retail sales tax to be used for the marketing of Branson. ” The legislation was developed, snuck out of our community, and slipped through the legislature by the Secret Handshake Clique and selected chamber allies before most chamber or community members knew what was happening. That coupled with the obvious chamber bias of the legislation is why, to this day, some people within our community refer to the tax as “The Chamber Tax.”

“Doesn’t Branson need more marketing funds? In an Ole Seagulls opinion, it did then and it does now. “Then what’s the problem?” To paraphrase what Clara used to say in an old Wendy’s Ad, “Where’s the additional marketing funds?” Here it is over two and a half years after the “Chamber Tax” legislation was passed and not one additional dollar of marketing funds has been raised by that legislation to market our community.

The sad thing is that because of the Chamber Tax legislation itself, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, the voters have not really been given the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want to authorize the marketing tax. “Whoa now Seagull, didn’t the voters vote on the issue in February of 2002?” They sure did and it was turned down but the question is why was it turned down?

Was it turned down because the community did not support increased marketing funds to market Branson or because of other “chamber” related problems, perceptions, and issues caused in large part by the legislation itself? Is it possible that many of the voters couldn’t get past the obvious “chamber bias” of the legislation? Or, for whatever reason, lacked faith in the chamber and or its ability to effectively market Branson? Could some have had a problem with a non elected chamber controlled board of directors, managing upwards of ten million dollars of tax payer money with no accountability to any elected government entity, etc.

“Well, when it failed in February of 2002 why didn’t the community work together to develop new legislation correcting the problems and work to get it through the legislature. In an Ole Seagulls opinion the answer is pretty simple.It didn’t happen because the “Secret Handshake Clique,” “They,” “Them,” those who really wield the power in Branson, didn’t want it to.

“Why wouldn’t they want to?” Could it be because those who built the “chamber bias” into the legislation, were unwilling to give up the control that it provided and were willing, as ironic as it sounds, to “gamble” on a “shock and awe” campaign, at their time and choosing, to get both the tax passed and the control of its proceeds?

“Couldn’t something be done to force the issue?” Sure, if the County Commission rescinded their order establishing the Tourism Enhancement District things would get interesting very quickly. “Couldn’t the districts board of directors initiate action to dissolve the district?” They could but they won’t.

“Why?” They appear to be content to sit in their “little chamber controlled cocoon” playing with their bylaws, RFPs, contracts etc. while they wait for some “mystical omnipotent entity” to give them resources and direction. “Does that ‘mystical omnipotent entity’ have a name?” Surely that’s a rhetorical question? Isn’t it?

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

Seagull Musings Column for May 2, 2004

As the Ole seagull was driving into Branson on the morning of Saturday, April 24, he tuned in Springfield talk Radio on KWTO, 560 AM.He caught the end of a phone conversation between the shows host and a caller identified as “Fred from Branson.” He was surprised on two counts.

First, he was surprised to hear the lilting melodious sound of one of his favorite radio personalities, Bonnie Bell, who does not normally host on Saturday mornings. Secondly, he was surprised because he thought he recognized the voice of the caller she was talking to and it wasn’t much of a “feat” to realize that the name he associated with the voice didn’t have a first name of Fred.

It was obvious that they were talking about Senator Doyle Childer’s legislation, SB 787. The “Current Bill Summary” for SB 787, as posted on the states official website for “House and Senate Joint Bill Tracing,” states that “if the voters of a city adjacent to a river other than the Missouri River or the Mississippi River approve the licensing of gambling boats within the city, then the voters of the county in which the city is located must subsequently approve the licensing of gambling boats within such city.”

One can therefore understand the surprise and confusion of the Ole Seagull when the Fred said words to the effect that the bill was about much more than gambling, “It was about the right of local people to vote about the major issues that affected them.”

As he heard those words the first thing that came to the Ole Seagulls mind was “How intentionally misleading could a statement be?” Saying that the very narrow scope of SB 787 is about the right of the people to vote on anything except the licensing of gambling boats is about as accurate as saying that the building of the Highroad solved Branson’s alleged ‘economic emergency’ and eliminated traffic congestion in Branson.”

“Come on Seagull, what’s the Highroad have to do with gambling in Rockaway Beach?” Do you mean besides the fact that if they do get gambling in Rockaway Beach everyone will be slapping themselves on their foreheads with the palm of their hands saying “why didn’t we build it east instead of west?”

“Get serious Seagull.” All right, because it appears that the same elitist, arrogant, political and deceitful, clout used to get the highroad and the legislation authorizing the one percent retail sales tax, that some call the “Chambers Tax” pushed through state government is being used in the Rockaway Beach situation.

“But Seagull, doesn’t SB 787 enjoy more popular support than the Highroad or the Chamber Tax legislation?” Like duh, what wouldn’t? “Well then, doesn’t that make it right?” No, it just makes it popular. “Well, doesn’t the majority rule?” Not really, “They” that determine what and who the majority is and, more importantly, when it should be heard, “rule.”

In the case of gambling in Rockaway Beach, “they” are confident that the vote will turn out their way so a county vote is all right, even desirable. In the case of the high road and the tax that some call the “Chambers Tax,” “they” were confident that a vote of all county residents wouldn’t go their way so a county vote was to be avoided at all costs. Does anyone seriously believe that “they” want everyone living in Taney County to vote about the major issues that affect them?

Well Fred, as misleading as the Ole Seagull believes your show boating statement was, whoever you are, may you always celebrate in cities of silver and may the roads that you travel be as traffic free as the highroad currently is. “Oh Fred, while we’re talking,” the Ole Seagull just has to ask, “Do you know a waitress named Mabel?”

Seagull Musings Column for April 25, 2004

In terms of pure economic benefit, what would bring more revenue to Branson, the expansion of drinking into theatres, attractions, and other venues where alcohol has traditionally not been served or having one of the largest casinos in Missouri, located as either an anchor in the Branson Landing Project or in a location about midway down the 76 strip? Which would provide better paying jobs and benefits? Which would make a better “anchor” for Branson Landing, the casino, a Belk department store, or a miniature Bass Pro Shop? Bring more new visitors to Branson?

Interestingly enough, in a March 29 email to State Representative Maynard Wallace, Mr. Rick Huffman, in his role of Chief Executive Officer, of Grandvista LLC said, “I would like to encourage all of you to not let a bill that was submitted to you requiring a countrywide vote to approve gaming in our State get out of committee.” He went on to say, “The current proposed casino in Rockaway Beach, Missouri, if passed in November, will add an additional attraction to southwest Missouri which will bring in much needed revenue to the State…along with an attraction that our current visitors would like to have.”

“Is that the same Rick Huffman that is a principal in HCW, the company that is the City’s developer for the Branson Landing project? A current Board Member of the same Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce that is trying to stop the very casino Huffman supports from coming to Rockaway Beach?” You can “bet” it is!

Huffman goes on to say, “I know many of you have heard from Mr. Ross Summers of the Branson Chamber of Commerce saying that our Chamber is in support of this, although there has been no polling of our membership indicating this.” “Hold on there Seagull. Isn’t that the same Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce that was instrumental in getting legislation passed permitting the imposition of a one percent retail sales tax that some call ‘The Chambers Tax?'” Isn’t it a tax that would be imposed, on certain Taney County residents without a vote of all the residents of Taney County?” As “taxing” as the answer is, you are absolutely right.

Peter F. Herschend, as the Vice Chairman/Co-Owner of Silver Dollar City, Inc., responded to Huffman’s email in a letter saying, “Rest assured Mr. Huffman does not represent the view of the Board of Directors of the Branson Chamber of Commerce, the City of Branson nor any other significant segment of the business community.” He went on to say, “Residents of any Missouri County should be given voice to vote up or down on whether casino gambling should be licensed in their home county.”

“Is that the same Peter Herschend that is not a member of the Board of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce? The person who endorsed the imposition of, what some call, ‘The Chamber’s Tax’ without giving a voice to vote it up or down to all Taney County who would have to pay it?” It sure is. “Seagull, did Herschend even hint that the residents of Taney County be given a “voice to vote [the High Road] up or down?” Are you kidding!

It’s an interesting concept, this letting people “vote up or down on” the issues affecting “their home county.” Wonder how the vote would have worked out for the jail in Forsyth, the building of Branson Landing, the High Road, improvement of Highway 65 south to the Arkansas line, who gets Branson marketing funds, the City of Branson working with the YMCA to avoid duplication of facilities, the expansion of drinking into theatres, attractions, and other venues where alcohol has traditionally not been served, etc.?

Of course that’s not the way the system works so we’ll never know but, it sure would have been interesting. “But Seagull, why are they changing the system for gambling in Rockaway Beach?” In an Ole Seagulls opinion, because “they” feel a need to do so and “they” can!

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

Seagull Musings Column for April 11, 2004

In the Seagull Musings column for March 21, the Ole Seagull confessed that he did not know how much in incentives Bass Pro Shops had been paid to come to Branson Landing. The column said, “According to information received from City Administrator Terry Dody and HCW’s Rick Huffman on March 15, the details of the incentives are now part of a confidential agreement between HCW and Bass Pro that is not available to the public or the Branson Board of Aldermen. When the Ole Seagull asked Huffman if the details of the agreement will be released to the public he said, ‘No.'”

One could therefore understand how shocked he was to walk into a business in downtown Branson early on Wednesday morning and hear a customer say, “Bass Pro is not getting an incentive to come to Branson.” When asked where he’d heard that the customer replied, “My wife read it in the Springfield paper this morning.”

Well, what’s an Ole Seagull to do but plop $.50 into the paper dispenser to see exactly what was said. The article entitled, “Shovels set to dig May 15 at Branson Landing” by Kathryn Buckstaff, appearing in the April 7 Springfield News-Leader, started out on a bouncy note by reporting that when Gayla Roten, the Director of the Downtown Main Street Association, learned of the ground breaking date she shouted “Yea! Yea!” and “It’s a “Wow!” On a less bouncy note, the article also reported that Branson City Administrator Terry Dody said that “City tax revenues will not pay for the retail project nor has the city offered incentives to the retail tenants.”

“Well there you have it Seagull, straight from the horses mouth, Bass Pro is a tenant and Dody says that the city has not offered incentives to the retail tenants. Therefore Bass Pro is not getting an incentive.” Well, not really. Gleaning the “truth” from what the city says is somewhat like an Easter Egg hunt for those plastic eggs that contain prizes. That one has an “egg” is obvious but it has to be opened up and examined to see if it contains a “prize.”

May an Ole Seagull suggest that Dody’s statement, “nor has the city offered incentives to the retail tenants” was the “egg” calculated to get just the response that it did by giving the impression that Bass Pro was not getting an incentive for coming to the Branson Landing. But to see if it contains the prize, in this case the “practical truth” as to whether or not Bass Pro is in fact getting an incentive for coming to the Branson Landing, the egg has to be opened and examined.

Not too many weeks ago in a public meeting, it was pointed out that the developer of Branson Landing would form a Transportation Development District (TDD) that would impose a one percent TDD tax on retail sales within the Branson Landing project. It was further pointed out that because TDD taxes could not be used to pay incentives that the city of Branson, would exchange, on a dollar for dollar basis, other city funds that could be used to pay incentives.

If the Ole Seagull were a betting Seagull he’d bet that the “practical truth” in the Bass Pro “Incentive Egg” is that Bass Pro is getting $15-18 million in incentives. Those incentives will be paid by the developer with TDD tax revenues that can’t be used to pay incentives.The TDD funds will be “laundered” through the city of Branson for funds that can be used to pay the incentives.

“But Seagull, you’ve got to give it to them, the city of Branson hasn’t been involved in the offering of any incentives for retail tenants to come to Branson Landing.” Yeah sure, and Yea! Yea! It’s a “Wow!”

On a more important note: On this Easter Sunday, let us reflect on the One who loved us so much that He came to earth, lived as a man, suffered and died for our sins. One so blessed of God that He arose from the dead, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.Praise God, He has risen.He lives and because He does we have the promise of eternity.He “is the light of the world, he who follows Him shall not walk in the darkness but shall have the light of life.”The Ole Seagull, the Groman family, and our entire BDI family wish you and yours a blessed Easter and a special relationship with the One whose resurrection we celebrate this day.

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

Seagull Musings Column for April 4, 2004

Seventh District Congressman Roy Blunt recently announced that $65 million in federal funds had been approved for 10 southwest Missouri highway projects. In announcing his rationale for the funding Blunt said, “These projects will create jobs and make improvements to some of the heaviest traveled roads in southwest Missouri. The aim is to make these thoroughfares safer and more efficient.”

One can therefore understand the Ole Seagulls confusion as he read that one of those projects, the only one directly affecting those who travel in the immediate Branson area, is a $6.8 million extension of the Ozark Mountain Highroad. As he read Blunts rationale the Ole Seagull thought to himself, “Blunt must be getting his information on the Highroad from the same source that furnished the information to President Bush about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

But wait, that couldn’t be the case because Blunt goes on to say, “These projects were the consensus choices of elected and community leaders … for immediate upgrades.” It is beyond the comprehension of an Ole Seagull that, given the situation on Highway 65 between Branson and the Arkansas state line, any “community leader,” elected or otherwise, could even think about giving the Highroad priority over the “upgrading” of Highway 65.

Besides, what’s to make “safer and more efficient” on the Highroad? Are more people dying or involved in accidents on it than on Highway 65 between Branson and the Arkansas state line?

A school bus carrying your child or grandchild is traveling at 55 miles per hour and is being passed by an 18 wheeler and a steady stream of oncoming traffic going in the opposite direction also traveling at 55 miles an hour. Which road would you rather have that bus traveling on, the Highroad with its extra lane in each direction and meridian strip separating the bus from oncoming traffic or on Highway 65 south of Branson with nothing but a few feet of “spitting space” separating the school bus from the on coming traffic? Which road needs to be made “safer?”

In terms of the “heaviest traveled roads in southwest Missouri,” the only person that is lonelier than someone traveling on the Highroad is the Maytag repairman. By what kind of warped logic does the Highroad qualify as one “of the heaviest traveled roads in southwest Missouri?” What kind of creative imagination is necessary to even hint that an extension of the Highroad should take precedence over the upgrading of Highway 65 between Branson and the Arkansas state line?

How about the same logic that our “community leaders” use to fight gambling in Rockaway Beach on family value grounds while doing nothing to stop the expansion of the serving of alcohol in Branson’s theatres and attractions? What about the creative imagination of “elected leaders” who call Branson Landing, with its current anchors and “pimple” fountain, a “world class” attraction?

Here’s the Ole Seagulls favorite because, in his opinion, it illustrates the economic “false God” that a lot of this community’s leaders appear to pay homage to, “Do you really think that improving Highway 65 to the Arkansas line will bring more traffic to Branson?” In reply an Ole Seagull would suggest, “Who cares! Shouldn’t our priority be that whoever travels on Highway 65, tourists and local residents a like, travel on the safest road possible?”

Instead, what appears to be happening is that some of Branson’s “elected and community leadership,” is trying to make “lemonade” out of the “prune” called the “Ozark Mountain Highroad.” “But Seagull, you can’t get lemonade from a prune.” They know that but at least it’s “their prune juice.”

“Is that where the rational and logic for the Highroad getting priority over the upgrading of Highway 65 comes from, drinking their prune juice?” Hum, don’t know for sure but that could help explain the “stench” that an Ole Seagull, and others in our community, associate with the Highroad and its philosophy of economics before safety, for the benefit of the powerful and influential few, at the expense of the traveling public.

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

Seagull Musings Column for March 28, 2004

In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, Mayor “Lou,” the Branson Board of Aldermen, and City Administrator Terry Dody should be commended for the leadership they have provided our community. If the participation in city meetings, elections, public reaction or inaction, and business investment in our community are any indication, it’s pretty obvious that the citizens and property owners of Branson seem pretty satisfied with the way things are going.

That’s a remarkable accomplishment in view of the major changes that are taking place within our community. An accomplishment that is made even more significant when one considers the diversity of egos, opinions, economic interests, and personalities of the individuals, organizations, and businesses that make up our community.

“Hold on Seagull, haven’t you written columns, as recently as last week, that were critical of certain actions that they have either taken or failed to take and the way the actions were taken.” Sure, in discussing the issues facing this community there have been all sorts of columns about a lot of things, some critical some not but then that’s what this column does. It provides an Ole Seagulls opinion and perspective, such as they are, on specific issues that affect our community.

“But how can you commend them?” It’s really not too hard. At the end of the day, with all the news, columns, and cartoons that have been published about the major issues facing our community over the last couple of years, one would have to say, based on the recent public record, that the majority of Branson’s citizens, businesses, and property owners have little or no problem with either the direction the city is heading or its leadership.

“What do you base that on?” It’s based on a very simple concept, the lack of public reaction or action which, for all practical purposes, amounts to an endorsement of the status quo. “What do you mean?” How about elections? If people weren’t satisfied with their elected leadership why are two out of three candidates for alderman running unopposed? Why wasn’t a new mayor elected last year?

How about participation in public meetings? Has anyone noticed anything except scattered individual opposition to issues like Branson Landing, the expansion of alcohol into theatres, the convention center etc. over the last year or so?

“Gotcha there Seagull, wasn’t that a pretty good group that showed up last summer for Alderman Purvis’s expected “no expansion of alcohol into theatres” resolution?” Sure was, for one night, but when it turned out to be the “Purvis Ain’t No Alcohol Here Resolution,” they all “disappeared” except for Chuck Pennel and John Logan who have steadfastly persisted week after week. “But aren’t those who ‘disappeared’ praying for Chuck and John to succeed?”If they are they better pray harder.

“Well, what about the public opposition to the Branson Landing and the convention center?” What about it? Where is it? The Ole Seagull has attended just about every public meeting held on both.He hasn’t seen any sustained viable opposition to it in over a year. Again, based on the recent public record it appears that the majority of Branson’s citizens, businesses, and property owners are satisfied with the city’s leadership in this area and that the Branson Landing and its convention center is a done deal.

“But Seagull, you don’t support the building of a convention center downtown, the selection of Bass pro as an anchor, the expansion of the serving of alcoholic beverages into Branson’s theatres and attractions, etc.”That’s true but so what! It’s but the opinion of one tired Ole Seagull whose opinion is worth no more than anyone else’s and, based on the recent public record over the last year or so, is obviously in the minority.

Besides, what’s not to like? Branson has an outstanding police and fire department with a road, sewer and water system and professional city staff that would be the envy of similarly sized cities. Look at the building that is going on, restaurants, office space, and even a new theatre. Is it logical to assume that this type of investment would be made without faith in Branson’s potential and its leadership?

“Does this mean that you won’t be writing columns critical of the city, its administration, policies, or Board of Aldermen anymore?” Give me a break! The Ole Seagull’s not suggesting “sainthood” just that we keep things in perspective and acknowledge the truth of what the public record shows the community thinks of their leadership. “But couldn’t the public record be wrong?” It is what it is.

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

Seagull Musings Column for March 21, 2004

A “blue light special,” an Ole Seagull “kisses the pooch” as Branson Landing incentive process prostituted!

With the announcement of Bass Pro as the major anchor for Branson Landing recently, it seemed like an appropriate time to see if the city’s announced incentive process was being followed. Why? Because, it appears that the selection of Bass Pro as “the anchor” has triggered a process that could lead to the City of Branson issuing $40 million dollars in bonds for its “free” Convention Center and related infrastructure.

“Seagull, why would they do that, has HCW obtained a binding commitment for the financing of its portion of the projects cost?” According to the information presented at a special meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen on March 15, held to begin the process of issuing the bonds, the answer is “No!” “Does HCW have binding commitments from 50% or more of the projects anticipated tenants?” Again, for the same reason, the answer is “No!”

“Is there any chance that the Branson Board of Aldermen would approve the issuance of a $40 million dollar bond issue, guaranteed by the citizens of Branson, without HCW having a binding financial commitment and the commitment of at least 50% or more of the projects anticipated tenants?” What do you think?

“Won’t this be the fourth Bass Pro serving Missouri and its smallest Missouri store?” Yes and at between 40-60,000 square feet, the Branson Landing Bass Pro will be the smallest store in Missouri. “Are there any Bass Pro Shops anywhere that are smaller than the one that is being built in Branson?” Yes, as near as an Ole Seagull can determine, out of the 26 Bass Pro Shops currently operating and anticipated to be opened in 2004, there is one smaller, a 25,000 square foot store in Islamorada, Florida.

“Is there any other Bass Pro Store that has been built within 45 miles of an existing Bass Pro?” Not that the Ole Seagull is aware of. “Are there other Bass Pro shops located within Branson’s target marketing area?” Many and they continue to announce new stores. Just this week they announced a new one to be built in the Tulsa, Oklahoma area.

“Why build another one on Branson Landing within about 45 miles of the ‘Mother of all Bass Pro Shops’ in Springfield?” In an Ole Seagulls opinion, because “they” needed an anchor real bad to get their “free” convention center and “anchors” weren’t exactly lining up begging to come in.

The March 14 edition of the Springfield News Leader reported that “The Dallas suburb [Grapevine, Texas] offered Bass Pro about 2 million dollars in incentives- about $1.7 million of that was in road and bridge improvements, and $300,000 of it was in marketing assistance.” It further reported that the store, which opened in March of 1999, has 200,000 square feet.

“How much in incentives is Branson paying for its 40-60,000 square foot store?” The Ole Seagull must confess that, although the rumor mill says about $15 million dollars, he doesn’t know.

“Why don’t you know?” According to information received from City Administrator Terry Dody and HCW’s Rick Huffman on March 15, the details of the incentives are now part of a confidential agreement between HCW and Bass Pro that is not available to the public or the Branson Board of Aldermen. When the Ole Seagull asked Huffman if the details of the agreement will be released to the public he said, “No.”

On that same date Dody told the Ole Seagull that it was “not a public transaction” but “A confidential agreement between HCW and Bass Pro with no city dollars used for the incentive.” He further stated neither he nor the Board of Alderman had seen the agreement or the specifics of its incentive provisions.

“Wait just a minute Seagull, didn’t you write a column a short while back pointing out that no incentives would be paid unless the Branson Landing Project generated enough tax revenue to pay the indebtedness on the Branson Landings primary bonds and the entity receiving the incentive met specific pre determined performance and revenue incentive criterion?” That is true.

“Why did you write it if there was going to be no way to verify it?” Quite simply, because the Ole Seagull “kissed the pooch.” He trusted the integrity of the process and the city officials he got the information from and failed to ask the right questions. For that he sincerely apologizes.

An Ole Seagull’s failings aside however, in the last paragraph of that column he asked the rhetorical question, “Could the incentive process be prostituted?” His answer said, “Of course it could but, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, the citizens and businesses of Branson are best served if the process is honored.”

“Seagull, do you feel that the incentive process described to you by Branson City officials has been prostituted?” Absolutely! In terms of the incentive process that the city described previously, the situation has the potential to develop into one that will make Martha Stewarts problems seem like a “blue light special.”