Branson Courier

Is it still the “chamber tax?” Probably so but it doesn’t have to be!

At the July 7, 2003, meeting of the Taney County Commission, Mr. Ross Summers, of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, did his level best to separate the “Chamber Tax” from the Chamber and suggested that everyone start calling it a “Tourism Tax.”Based on the reaction of those present, it appeared that he was about as successful, in this endeavor, as a gnat would be in separating buzzards from carrion they wanted to eat.

In its current form, if the “Chamber Tax” is to be called something else, it’s probably more accurate to call it a “Tourism Community Enhancement Tax” rather than a “Tourism” Tax.”As an example, the 10 percent for schools and 10 percent for community enhancement projects has nothing to do with the tourism marketing of our area and, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, was originally included by the “Chambers Secret Handshake visionaries” as a vote getting “carrot.”

What is necessary to make the transition to just a simple “Tourism Tax,” that can be debated on its own merits?The transition from a “Tourism Community Enhancement Tax” to “Tourism Tax” appears to be pretty simple.Just delete the “carrot provisions” and provide that “Ninety-seven percent of the revenues shall be used by the Districts Board for the marketing, advertising, and promotion of tourism as it deems appropriate to most effectively market the District [Branson area].”

The transitioning from the “Chamber Tax” to a “Tourism Tax” is a little more challenging.The first, and most critical step, is to eliminate the obvious bias in the original law toward just about guaranteeing that the proceeds from the tax will be administered by the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce.The wording suggested above is one way to accomplish just that and provides the Districts Board with the flexibility it needs to effectively market Branson in whatever manner they deem appropriate.

The second step is to insure that the Districts Board of Directors is either elected directly or appointed by, and accountable, to a governmental body elected by the voters.Doesn’t common sense dictate that Board members should not be selected by non governmental entities, such as the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, which may be competing for the very marketing funds that the Board they are selecting people for has the responsibility for administering?

The simplest way to accomplish this is to eliminate any provision in the statute that permits any entity other than a government entity, elected by the voters, to select Board members.A suggested composition would be a five member Board with three (3) members selected by the Branson Board of Aldermen, one by the Taney County Commission, and one by the Stone County Commission.

After the February 2002 election, a new “voter approval” section was added to the law that authorizes the tax.This section appears to authorize the flexibility to accomplish the above but must be done so by the voters at the same time they vote on the sales tax.To an Ole Seagull, it is a cumbersome and legally dubious process, but it at least provides a mechanism for needed changes.

Could it be that a better approach would be for the community to agree on a new law and commit to getting it through the legislature?Is it unreasonable to expect the Chamber that created the problem to step forward and provide the leadership to give the voters the law they should have had in the first place?

Will the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce take the lead and say, “Whatever it takes let’s get it fixed?All we want is for Branson to be marketed in the most efficient manner possible and if that means that someone else does it that’s all right with us?”Will the public accept that, forget the past, and work towards what is best for Branson’s future?An Ole Seagull’s prayer would be that they would but his fear is that they will never get the chance.

On March 3, 1836, Colonel William Barret Travis, the Commander of the Alamo, wrote to Texas Governor Smith, “…victory will cost the enemy so dear, that it will be worse for him than defeat.”In the early predawn hours of Sunday, March 6, 1836, after 12 days of almost constant bombardment and siege, the soldiers of General Santa Anna, numbering in the thousands, made their final assault on the Alamo, overwhelming its 189 defenders.The immediate cost to the Mexican Army was over 600 killed and countless wounded.The cost to the defenders of the Alamo was the life of each and every one, 189 souls.

The prophetic words of Colonel Travis, the spirit of the Alamo, and the actual cost of the Mexican “victory” at the Alamo manifested themselves, only 46 days after its fall, at the Battle of San Jacinto.The Mexican army, under General Santa Anna, outnumbered the Texas army, under the command of General Sam Houston, by over a two to one margin. In spite of these odds, the Texas Army, inspired by the sacrifice of the Alamo defenders and shouting the battle cry, “Remember the Alamo,” defeated Santa Anna’s army.The short brutal battle lasted only 18 minutes, resulted in the deaths of over 630 Mexican soldiers, the capture of General Santa Anna, and won the independence of Texas.

What is it about the Alamo that so inspired the Texas army at the Battle of San Jacinto and has touched the hearts and souls of generations since?What are we to remember? Was it their courage?Was it that they spent their lives for a noble cause?Was it the fact that so few stood against so many for so long?Is it a combination of these factors?Is it possible however, that the true inspiration of the Alamo draws its strength from the fact that the defenders of the Alamo could have elected not to give their lives in a battle they knew they could not win?

History records that on the first day of the Siege of the Alamo, Santa Anna had a blood-red banner, signifying “no quarter,” surrender or die, run up on San Fernando Cathedral within the sight of the Alamo defenders.It was answered with cannon fire from the Alamo and the siege began.

Eleven days into the siege, after receiving messages that no further help would be coming, Colonel Travis, explained the hopelessness of their situation and gave them a choice of either escaping or surrendering and perhaps living, or staying and the certainty of death.The chances of escape were pretty good as people had been going through the Mexican lines all during the siege.These brave men had already brought General Sam Houston 12 precious additional days in which to gather, organize, and train his Texas army.They could have left as heroes for what they had already done.

Why, as James Bowie said, would they ” … rather die in these ditches than give them up to the enemy?”Their individual reasons probably varied, the nobleness of the cause, loyalty to each other and their country, honor, duty, freedom from tyranny, and, for some, like Bowie, the defense of their homes.They were however, bound together by the common threads of their courage, their belief that it was right and necessary to fight the army of Santa Anna at that time, in that place, no matter what the price, and in their commitment to pay that price.

While declaring his own intent to stay and die for his country, tradition Travis unsheathed his sword and drew a line in the dirt. He asked all that would stay with him to cross the line.All but one, including Colonel James Bowie who, because of illness, had to be carried across the line, crossed the line into the face of certain death, and, although unknown to them at the time, into a special place in history.That special hallowed place where the spirit of honor, dedication to purpose, valor, and willingness to sacrifice all, for a noble cause believed in, is preserved.

“Remember the Alamo” and celebrate its spirit.It represents that which is courageous, honorable, and worthy of commitment in the hearts of individuals and nations.Born from the hearts of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, it guided their hands, on July 4, 1776, as they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on behalf of a new nation.It is the spirit of “the Alamo,” the “Let’s Roll,” heroes of United Flight 93, and of countless others who have committed “their all” for that in which they believed.

It is the “American Spirit,” the very lifeblood of our nation.May that Nation “Under God,” be eternally blessed with that spirit, for without it, She would not have been born and could not long endure.Happy Birthday America, Happy Birthday!

Seagull Musings Column for 06/22/03

Let’s go to the theatre, grab a beer, and complain about gambling in Rockaway Beach

At the outset the Ole Seagull would point out that he drinks on occasion and likes to play Blackjack and Limit Texas Hold’Em Poker.He could go on about why, because of personal failings, he probably should not be writing this column but he won’t.

The issues of expanded drinking and gambling in Branson go beyond the personal failings of one Ole Seagull.They go to the bed rock of the foundation upon which Branson’s success has been built.These are issues of what is right or wrong for Branson, her people, her guests, their families, and her economic future.As Abraham Lincoln said, “If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

Today, in a very competitive tourism industry, one of Branson’s main selling points is its “family friendly” atmosphere.It, perhaps more than any other one thing, is what differentiates Branson from other tourist destinations and gives our guests a clear choice to make in selecting a vacation or get away destination.Without it, Branson is but another “raisin” in a box of “tourist destination raisin bran.”

In making a list of the “Most Family Friendly Activities,” where would most people place gambling or the drinking of alcoholic beverages?If included at all, would they be near the top or the bottom?Similarly, in making a list of the “Least Family Friendly Activities,” where would they be?Unless, an Ole Seagull misses his guess, most of the potential “family value” or “family friendly” guests that Branson targets would leave them off the “Most Family Friendly” list and have them near, or at, the top of the “Least Family Friendly” list.

Of these two “Least Family Friendly Activities,” which one, gambling or the drinking of alcoholic beverages, is the least family friendly?Is one of the two a leading cause of deaths on Americas’ highways and roadways?Of the two, which do you believe is responsible for more instances of spousal and child abuse or has damaged the greatest number of lives and families?An Ole Seagull’s personal life’s experience convicts him that the answer, to all the above, is the drinking of alcoholic beverages.

Between 1983 and 1996 only three Branson theatres had received liquor licenses.Since 1996 eight theatres have received Liquor Licenses.Of these eight, five have been granted during the years 2002 and 2003. Is there a trend developing here?If so, is it a trend that adds to the friendly atmosphere that Branson is allegedly so concerned about?

In a Pontius Pilate self fulfilling prophesy sort of way, the Branson Board of Aldermen and City Administration seem to say, “Oh hum, we can’t do anything about it because it’s the state that issues the liquor licenses.”But the state also issues Driver Licenses.

Doesn’t the City have ordinances that restrict how the privileges permitted by that license are exercised within the Branson City limits?Similarly, couldn’t Branson have ordinances restricting how the privileges authorized by state Liquor Licenses are exercised in its theatres, theme parks, amusement parks, and amusement parlors?

Can Rockaway Beach’s proposed gambling damage Branson’s family friendly atmosphere anymore than expanding the drinking of alcoholic beverages into its theatres, theme parks, amusement parks, and amusement parlors would?An Ole Seagull doesn’t think so.Aren’t both “family unfriendly?”

The Branson Board of Aldermen has passed a resolution against the expansion of gambling in the Branson area.All rhetoric and excuses aside, as an initial measure of Branson’s true commitment to “family friendliness,” the Branson Board of Aldermen could pass a similar resolution regarding the expansion of the serving of alcoholic beverages in its theatres, theme parks, amusement parks, and amusement parlors.

Will they?Not without the commitment, involvement, and action of those allegedly opposed to the expansion of the drinking of alcoholic beverages into Branson’s theatres, theme parks, amusement parks, and amusement parlors.If the apathy of the past is any indication, let’s get our beers and belly up to the show as we complain about how gambling coming to Rockaway Beach will harm our family friendly atmosphere.

Here’s an Ole Seagullisim, “Newspapers report what those who control them want them to report exactly the way they want to report it.”Some might say, “Well I can see that happening at the national level but it doesn’t happen at the local level, does it?”Of course it does.

For the last two years the Branson City Administrator has been deeply involved with bringing the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center to Branson.Just as the state approves the TIF, which enables the Convention Center, and the project is getting ready to break out of the starting gate, the City Administrator goes to Naples, Florida to interview for a new job.

In most cities the size of Branson, particularly under these circumstances, that’s a news story. Evidently, not in Branson!Were it not for the fact that this paper reported the story in its June 6-7 edition, there would have been no newspaper coverage of this event.Why, quite simply, because either those having the responsibility to report the news, their editors, or their publishers decided not to report it.

In another situation, the Ole Seagull made a presentation to the Taney County Commissioners on June 2, 2003, about establishing a committee to see what the County could do regarding the 1% Retail Sales tax guillotine that is currently hanging over the heads of those living in Taney County.A guillotine placed there largely thanks to the actions of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and the votes of Commissioner Herschend and Ex Presiding Commissioner Chowning.

There were two reporters at the meeting and the tax represents millions of potential tourism marketing dollars to the area.But, were it not for the fact that the Taney County Times and its sister publication, this paper, reported on the event, the public would have had no practical way of knowing what took place or that the matter was currently under consideration by the Commissioners.Why, quite simply, because either those having the responsibility to report the news, their editors, or their publisher decided not to report it.

How about the case of the local entertainer who was arrested and charged, by the Branson Police Department, for “Leaving the Scene of an Accident,” “Driving While Intoxicated,” and “Assaulting a Police Officer,” a few months back?At the time all the local papers, except this one, published a short article on the arrest.Was it an illusion?What is the current status of the case?Is it being handled any differently than a similar case would be handled for those who are not celebrities or have no clout or influence?

How bad can it get?As bad as advertising, personal pettiness, clout, and personal relationships are permitted to influence whether or not, and how, a story is written or published.It adds real meaning to what the newspaper industry means when they herald “freedom of the press.”Could it be that what they really mean is the “freedom for them to decide what the news is and then control how and when it will be presented?”

Why the Ole Seagull has even heard reports that there is the possibility that, in one or more small communities around our area, the publisher of the local paper has actually prohibited the publication of anything involving the names of one or more persons within the community in their paper.Now there’s a “cockamany” idea that sets new standards of journalistic professionalism and ethics!

The June 2, 2003, “Ozarks Business” column entitled, “Branson needed its againners for better deals,” written by Springfield News Leader Columnist Paul Flemming, was about “againners” and “visionaries.”The column appears to be based on the unsubstantiated opinions of long time Branson insider, Smith Brookhart, who obviously considers himself a “visionary.”

The column starts with the banality, “The Branson againners lose, and the visionaries are victorious anew, without an ‘I told you so’ yet.”Brookhart later states, “There are seven critical junctures we’ve had since 1970.”In referring “to such fights as construction of the Ozark Mountain High Road,” Brookhart opines, “In every case there’s been a group of people four-square against it and they’ve never won.”

It seems like there’s only two dogs in this fight, the “good guys,” the “visionaries” who are opposed by, the “bad guys,” the “againners.”More telling however, is the elitist arrogance of the statements and the cute subtlety of their attempted intimidation.One might even get the impression an “againner” will never be invited to learn the “secret handshake.”

Interestingly enough, one of the two illustrations used to show Brookhart’s “visionary” idea of victory is the High Road. At first blush one wonders if the word “visionary” is being confused with “hallucination?”Hum, maybe not.A “visionary” is defined as, “one who is given to impractical or speculative ideas.” Sure sounds like the High Road. And it gets even more “visionary.”His second illustration was the Branson Landing and Convention Center.If nothing else, he sure is consistent.

Exactly what victory is the High Road?How does it help alleviate the alleged economic emergency the “visionaries” touted as the justification for its building?Oh well, its $100 million dollar plus cost does add new “visionary” meaning to the term, “Look for the ‘silver’ lining.”

In May of 1996, the Ole Seagull wrote about ‘Position Paper/Highway 765,’ dated April 20, 1992.This paper expressed the apparent willingness of some of the “High Road visionaries,” to put the economics of their vision ahead of the safety and lives of those traveling on Highway 65.

Among other things, the paper supported giving the priority to the building of the High Road and “the concept of transfer of Highway and Transportation Department construction funds from the planned use of four-laning of Highway 65.”In true “visionary” fashion, in what could be the understatement of the decade, the paper later said, “we are supportive, in the long run, of four-laning Highway 65.”

The Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission held their meeting in Branson on June 5, 1996.At that meeting, while addressing the Commission, the Pied Piper of the High Road asked those in the room who supported the High Road, to stand up. Hundreds of “High Road visionaries,” like lemmings being lead to the sea, sprang to their feet.

One of the very few that did not stand up, a lowly Ole Seagull, addressed the Commission shortly thereafter. He asked them not to build an economic road while people were bleeding and dying on roads that were not safe.He also presented the Commission with documentation, from the Missouri State Highway Patrol, showing that during the years 1992-1995, the number of accidents, between the Christian/Greene County line to Taney County at the interchange of Missouri Highway 248, had gone up 73% as compared to the years 1988-1991.

History testifies that the “againners” didn’t win the battle that day but, it also shows why the battles must be fought.Soon, Mr. Brookhart, and the rest of the “High Road visionaries,” will celebrate their $100 million dollar plus “victory” as the High Road opens.This while the city of Hollister and Taney County are trying to get another $500,000 to come up with their half of the $19 million dollars it is going to cost to four-lane Highway 65 south through Hollister.

Now here’s a true “visionary” idea from an “againner.”How about all you “High Road visionaries,” donating just a small portion of the $50 million plus dollars you didn’t have to contribute for the High Road, only about $500,000 or so, to help your community with the four-laning of Highway 65 south of Branson.A project that can help save lives, increase the traveling safety of our citizens, as well as benefiting the entire area economically.

What could the High Road have to do with gambling and drinking?Could it be that it was championed under the banner of “economic necessity or emergency?” That many of the benefits touted to get its approval will fail to materialize, and that its primary benefit will accrue to a “vested few,” while its “price” will be paid by the whole community?

At the outset the Ole Seagull must point out that he drinks and gambles on occasion.Too, during the campaign for the building of the High Road, in the mid 90’s, he was unalterably opposed to giving priority to the building of the “High Road,” a purely economic road, while people were bleeding and dying, on highways, like US 65, that needed safety improvements.

“Fast tracked” through as a solution for an alleged “economic emergency” in 1996, the $120 million dollar plus High Road will be opening very soon.Exactly what was the “economic emergency” that the building of the High Road was to solve?How will its opening help the majority of businesses and residents of Branson?Will one, or, possibly, a few, businesses, clearly benefit from its opening more than all others?

Won’t the whole community “pay” its price?Of course it will!Not just as taxpayers but, on a daily basis, as it sits in traffic jams at the Taneycomo Bridge and on Highway 65 south, from Branson to Highway 165 and beyond.One can only speculate as to the economic and “traveling safety” price our area has already paid, and will continue to pay, because of the priority given to the construction of “worlds longest driveway” instead of improving our areas main traffic artery to and from the south, Highway 65.

There are those who would expand drinking within our community into theatres and attractions and bring casino gambling into our community. Like the High Road before them, the justification is one of economics and allegedly meeting the needs of the new “demographics” that some tell us we need.One thing is as sure as there is a God in the heavens, as with the High Road, there is a better chance that their figures and logic will be wrong than right and, one way or the other, right or wrong, our whole community will pay the price.

Was it drinking in theatres and attractions and casino gambling that developed the crowds that drew the performers and developers that flocked to Branson in the early 90s? Will they be the salvation of Branson in its future?The answer is, “No!”

Branson, as a community, is a special place.Those of us, not having the privilege of being born and raised here chose to move here.Why?The reasons may vary but, unless the Ole Seagull misses his guess, in the majority, at least pre 1990, the reasons will center on the community, its people, spirit, natural beauty, and “uniqueness.”

In terms of a “profession” America‘s future does not lie in the hands of Presidents, politicians, lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. Her future lies in the hands of the profession that will be teaching those who will become the Presidents, politicians, lawyers, doctors, or accountants, America‘s Teachers.

A “teacher” is “One who teaches,” a professional who has accepted the awesome challenge and responsibility of helping to prepare our children and grandchildren to fully realize their individual potential, create the desire to fulfill it, and equip them with the skills necessary to achieve it. It is an awesome challenge because America‘s destiny and future depends upon the realization and fulfillment of that potential.

Oh sure, there are those, professing to be teachers, who do the minimum and simply go through the motions. They could be characterized as those who perform the mechanical function of providing instruction from prepared lesson plans without a personal commitment to their students or accepting the responsibility and accountability for their results.They are teachers in title only.

The true “Teacher” has a personal commitment to their students. A commitment to not only teaching the necessary information and skills that their students will need but to make learning an experience they will want to continue for the rest of their lives.They fully realize and appreciate that “how” they do what they do is as important as “what” they do and dedicate their professional lives to equipping, helping, and motivating their students to recognize and reach their full potential.

To a large extent true “Teaching” is an art form. It requires the same type of dedication, commitment, and skill that a painter would use on a great canvas, a music composer would use on an opus, a lawyer on a jury, or an entertainer on an audience. What makes the successful musician, singer, comedian, painter, or author? Is it the mere application of “the mechanics” of what they are doing or their ability to communicate and relate what they are doing to their audience?

Even as the success of an artist is directly linked to their ability to relate what they are doing to their audience so too is the success of a Teacher, only more so. Although the professional entertainer wants and desires to reach every member of their audience, they can still be very successful if they reach a substantial majority of their audience.

A Teacher however, does not have that luxury. For them, success and failure is measured in the eyes, minds, and hearts of each individual student. The Master Teacher said it best. “If any man has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying?” He was not willing to lose even one.

The Teachers heart and spirit transcends mere “mechanics and basics” and goes to the concern and commitment of dedicating themselves to their students and their individual ability to effectively apply what is being taught. It is a task that, in a lot of cases, is made more difficult by influences outside of the Teachers direct control such as the physical or mental challenges of individual students, school funding issues, child abuse, and dysfunctional families to mention a few.Fortunately, for America and Her children, in spite of these additional challenges, there are those who feel a calling to become, in the truest sense of the word, “Teachers.”

Where then is the nobleness of Teaching? It is obvious that it is not based on factors such wealth, title, or power and yet, it is nobleness in the truest sense of the word.Nobleness based on the character, honor, generosity, dedication and commitment of those who are true Teachers and the quest they have chosen, preparing our children and children for the rest of their tomorrows.There’s not much that is nobler or more important than that, not much at all.

Gary may be contacted via email at editor@bransoncourier.com

Could a recent article, about the Wonders of Wildlife Museum (WOW), appearing in the Sunday, April 27, 2003, edition of the Springfield News Leader, entitled, “Outlook dire for wildlife museum” contain a dire warning for the development of Branson Landing?If reality and learning from history have any place in the process, it would appear so.

“Dire” is defined as “urgent” or “desperate” in one context and as a “warning of or having dreadful or terrible consequences” in another.But wait, how could anything “dire” happen to a world class attraction that is located within a stones throw from the Mother Of All Bass Pro Shops, one of Missouri’s best attended tourist attractions?Can things be “dire” even though WOW has the opportunity to tap into the millions of tourist coming to Branson?In a word, “Yes!”

The article reports that Mr. John Moore, WOWs Board Chairman, said, “We’ve got some significant challenges ahead.”WOWs Director of Finance, Peggy Smith, said, “In December, we will face challenges unless we can get greater attendance, reduce expenses, or identify other revenue streams.”

“OK Seagull, so WOW has some financial challenges.Don’t we all?”Sure we do but, in this case, it is the depth of the financial challenges and their cause that make the situation dire, for WOW and serves as a warning for the future of Branson Landing.

According to the article, WOW is expected to draw 242,000 visitors this year which is about a third less than the 350,000 visitors needed this year to make just the payment on WOW’s indebtedness.In what could be the understatement of the decade, the article goes on to point out that the 242,000 visitors is “far short of the 927,000 visitors officials once anticipated the museum would draw this year.”

As most attraction and theatre operators know, “visitors” or “patrons” translate into potential revenue or, in the alternative, its lack.The depth of the problems at WOW can better be appreciated when one considers that, according to the article, WOW “had an overall operating deficit for the first three months of 2003 of $1.97 million. It had budgeted to lose $289,523.”In Ole Seagull math that’s a loss that’s about six times greater than projected.

Does common sense indicate that the projections and estimates made for the Branson Landing project are going to be anymore accurate than those relied on for WOW?Were the people making the projections for WOW any less intelligent than those making similar projections for the Branson Landing Project?

What’s really scary is that Bass Pro Shops and an aquarium are two of the three touted main anchors of Branson Landing.If WOW is having these problems, located right next to the Mother Of All Bass Pro Shops, what impact is a smaller Bass Pro Shop, located about 50 miles away from it, going to have on Branson Landing?How many people will it draw to Branson Landing, especially when one considers that there are Bass Pro Shops in, or committed to, Okalahoma City, Dallas, St. Louis, N. Little Rock, etc.?

People have all sorts of ideas why WOW is having problems such as you can’t find its front door, poor marketing, no central theme that appeals to the public etc.To an Ole Seagull it appears that WOW’s house was built on a “foundation” of projections, estimates, and most important of all, anticipated “visitor” needs, wants, and desires for a “product” that were, quite simply, wrong.That foundation is now crumbling around a project it was never capable of supporting.

President Harry S. Truman said, “The only thing new in this world is the history you don’t know.”The American philosopher, George Santana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”WOW’s history is known.An Ole Seagull can not help but believe that we ignore its dire warning at our own peril.

In a news paper article appearing in the April 18^th edition of this paper it was reported that both the City of Branson and the Tri Lakes YMCA are considering building, what would be, competing fitness centers in the Branson Hills area.The article indicates that they would be built on donated land, would cost in the neighborhood of $5-6 million dollars each, and would be located within a mile of each other.

In reading the article one gets the distinct impression that the YMCA is trying to work with the Branson Parks and Recreation Department to avoid the building of two similar competing facilities.Further, the desire of the YMCA to work with the City of Branson in meeting the recreational needs of the citizens of our community seemed apparent.

Although the article indicated that there is some scheduling co ordination between the City and the “Y,” Mr. Scott Deckard, the YMCA Executive Director, indicated that “the strained relationship between the YMCA and the park board has been going on for nine months.”He pointed out that the YMCA is scheduling their programs around Branson’s, offering programs that the Branson Park District does not offer, and is “not duplicating programs that you [Branson Park District] offer.”

For years, the Branson Parks and Recreation Department has been providing recreational programs, not only for the children and citizens of Branson, but the surrounding area as well.In large part, these programs are similar to programs run by other cities of a similar size, softball, base ball, soccer, basketball, tennis, golf, an outdoor pool, parks, etc.It did not include the operation of a fitness center!

Herein, the Ole Seagull thinks lays the “strain.” The YMCA is striving to build a multi purpose fitness center facility, similar to that which they have been building and operating for decades.On the other hand, the Branson Parks and Recreation Department wants to expand into an area that it has not operated in before and, apparently, with as little involvement from the YMCA as possible.The question is why?

Do they, collectively, have as much experience in building and operating multi purpose fitness centers as the YMCA does?Will they use less tax payer dollars to build and operate such a facility than the YMCA or by working with the YMCA to build and operate such a facility?Do they have a program support system and personnel available, from the local to the national level, to provide the types of programs that will maximize the use of such a facility by the community?

Considering that the YMCA would be able to invest substantial private funds in such a facility would it be a better investment on the city’s part to partnership with the YMCA in the building of such a facility or, at least refrain from building a competing facility with tax payer dollars?Is there the possibility that this could free up tax dollars to be used in other areas where the investment of tax payer dollars could better serve the recreational and economic needs of our community?

One, of many areas, that might be considered is the “fast tracking” of the City’s Master Trail Plan.This Plan provides for the development of an 89 mile net work of hiking and biking trails.These trails will not only provide a unique outdoor recreational experience for locals and visitors alike, but also has the distinct potential of providing an environmentally friendly economic stimulus to the “soft adventure” side of Branson’s economy.

One can only wonder what could be accomplished if the Branson Parks and Recreation Department decided to work in partnership with the YMCA for the benefit of our community.Like the community he serves, the Ole Seagull can only hope that the Branson Parks and Recreation Department is not all “shook up” over building a “kingdom” or visions of a fitness center “profit center” and will consider the total value that such a partnership could be to our community.

On April 8, 2003 Branson’s Voters went to the polls in an election that was billed as a “referendum on the Branson Landing Project.”At the end of the day, if the city wide mayoral race was any indication, approximately 58% of the vote went to candidates that supported the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center and 42% to candidates that opposed it.

An “Our View” editorial piece appearing in the Springfield News Leader in their April 10, 2003 edition covered the election results and their apparent support of the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center.It quotes Mayor Lou Schaefer as saying, “There’s no question in my mind about that because that’s what the whole race was about. It’s a vote of confidence.”The piece then goes on to say, “When we [News Leader Staff] look at the tea leaves of the election, though, a mandate is much more difficult to find. Schaefer won less than half the vote to top a five-candidate field.”

In discussing the aldermanic races however, they point out that in Ward I, David Edie, who favors delaying the project, “took 50.3 percent of the vote to defeat an incumbent strongly in favor of the project.It goes on to point out that in Ward II, a five candidate race, “the two candidates backing the lakefront project got 49.8 percent of the votes. The three candidates opposed to the project took 50.2 percent.”

Things really get interesting when the piece gets to their analysis of Ward III where it states, “Only in Ward III was there anything that looked like a mandate. Project backer Beverly Martin won 57 percent of the vote in defeating Larry Taylor, the lone incumbent who consistently opposed lakefront proposals.”

Now granted that the Ole Seagull isn’t the brightest bird in the Branson sky and, at this stage of his life, confusion is easier to come by than it was a few years ago, but alas, he must admit, he is confused.If a 14% margin in Ward III looks like a mandate what is different about the 16% margin in the City wide mayoral election between candidates that very actively either supported or didn’t support the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center?

Of more importance however is the “selective manner” in which the piece chose to analyze the election results.It appears that, in the mayoral race, it was not statistically significant to point out what percentage of the vote supported candidates in favor and against the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center but it was in the case of the aldermanic races.Why?

Is it to support the conclusions and recommendations that the piece makes?Conclusions and recommendations such as “When an election indicates the community is divided down the middle, the town’s leaders need to take heed. This is a time to listen, to make sure all residents, not just two new board members, have all the information they need — and every opportunity to have their voices heard before next year’s election.”

What’s wrong with the results of this year’s election?Using the same analysis and logic that the piece uses, and applying them to the mayoral race, it appears that, city wide, 58% of the voters want the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center while 42% do not.There is absolutely nothing in the piece supporting the proposition that these voters didn’t “have all the information” they needed to make a decision and to imply otherwise does them a disservice.

Now here’s a “Seagull’s View.”Using the “Our View” criteria and applying it to the city wide mayoral vote, the 16% majority in favor of the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center candidates appears to be a significant victory.

Will City and developer STIF indiscretions cause the Governor to “slobber” in his cornflakes too?”

By Gary J. Groman

In last weeks column entitled, The MOAT, “Mother of All TIFs,” vs the STIF or “Whoops, someone slobbered in their corn flakes,” the Ole Seagull asked a question regarding the STIF, State TIF financing, for the Branson Landing project.The question was, “How could anyone, sign an affidavit specifying that the redevelopment area could not be reasonably anticipated to be developed without the State TIF?”

Well, it didn’t take too long to get an answer.On Monday, March 17, 2003, via email, Mr. Rick Huffman, one of the “members” of “HCW Development Company, L.L.C., said, “The reason I have signed an affidavit is because what I said is true.”

“Truth” is defined as, “Conformity to fact or actuality.”In “fact” and “actuality” the law, as applies to the Branson Landing Affidavit, is very simple and straightforward.It does not appear to require either the wisdom of a Solomon or the legal expertise of a lawyer to read and apply.

The statutory requirement for getting State Tax Increment Financing, the STIF, requires that the municipality submit an application to the state.In it, the “municipality shall include,” among other things, an affidavit, signed by the developer, “specifying that the redevelopment area would not be reasonably anticipated to be developed without the appropriation of the new state revenues” [the State TIF].

The “truth” appears to be a simple and straightforward “yes” or “no” determination.Is it reasonable to anticipate development within the redevelopment area without the State TIF or not, “Yes” or “No?”

Mr. Huffman continues on, “Without the TIF the convention center is Questionable at best.”Hum, this must be “developereese” for agreeing with the City’s apparent logic of, “‘synergy rhetoric’ aside, surely no one thinks we are ‘dumb’ enough to build a Convention Center in downtown Branson without $23-$80 million dollars from the state.Do they?”

He then points out that, “Without the convention center the lakefront retail and entertainment becomes a lesser project because the tenets we are working with will not come. We can still develop the lakefront, it just won’t be the project that everyone would be proud of.”

In “fact” and “actuality,” Mr. Huffman states specifically and currently, what has been stated by the City all along.Without the TIF there will be no convention center but that “We can still develop the lakefront, it just won’t be the project that everyone would be proud of.”Is that consistent with an affidavit “specifying that the redevelopment area would not be reasonably anticipated to be developed without the appropriation of the new state revenues” [the State TIF]?Not to an Ole Seagull.

He then asks, “Don’t you think it is fair, that if the City and the developer are willing to spend about 250ml, the State can let us have half of the tax revenue that we generate from it.”What an Ole Seagull may or may not think is “fair” has nothing to do with either what the statute pertaining to the affidavit requires or whether or not it could reasonably be anticipated that the redevelopment area would be developed without the State TIF.Those are matters of objective fact.

However, using that logic, wouldn’t it be “fair” to let those, who invested about $40 million dollars in “Celebration City,” keep half of the tax revenues it generates?Hey, we’re on to something here, think about all the money that might be invested in Branson, or the State of Missouri, if the State behaved in such a “fair” manner.

Like the rest of the states citizens, even the Governor and his Director of the Department of Economic Development are constrained by the requirements of the law.Had the City and the Developer had the discretion to restrain themselves from public comments about developing the Redevelopment Area without the State TIF they could have used the old “see, hear, and do nothing routine” and granted the TIF.

But, alas, the indiscretion of the City and the Developer has placed both the Governor and his Director of the Department of Economic Development in a very unenviable position.Will they too slobber in their cornflakes?Will they too apparently violate state law?Only time and an investigation by an appropriate state law enforcement agency will tell.