Branson Courier

In a move reminiscent of the “I think I can, I think I can” attitude of the little steam engine from the classic children’s story, “The Little Engine That Could,” Rockaway Beach just keeps chugging up the mountain, against seemingly insurmountable odds, on its quest to achieve its economic development dream of bringing casino gambling to its city. Recently it was announced that Rockaway Beach has received a proposal for a $144 million dollar casino project and that it will keep on chugging.

In a column entitled “What are the odds of casino gambling ever coming to Rockaway Beach?,” published on Mar. 19, the Ole Seagull said, “…that without substantial financial assistance from outside sources Rockaway Beach simply cannot mount another credible campaign to bring casino gambling to its city.” He asked, “In view of what happened last time and the fact that the resistance from Branson and other casino gambling destinations will not go away, what are the odds that Rockaway Beach can get the financial support it needs to try again?”

Actually, it was a little worse than that because he answered his rhetorical question by saying, “The odds of success are ‘too much to one,’ and only a masochist would put money into such an effort without having at least the support of Branson’s city government and Branson’s local movers and shakers.” The proposal Rockaway Beach received is from Barden Development Inc., a privately held company out of Detroit, Michigan. It operates a number of other casinos in Las Vegas, Gary, Indiana, Tunica, and Black Hawk, Colorado and is owned by Mr. Don Barden who, research indicates, is certainly no masochist when it comes to business decisions.

An article entitled, “Detroit casino firm enters city slots race” appearing in the Dec. 5, 2005 edition of the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette reported that “Mr. Barden’s casinos employ more than 4,300 and generate more than $500 million a year in revenues.” It continued, “Barden Companies is one of the largest African-American owned businesses in the United States” and went on to report the company’s, then recent, $253 million purchase of the Trump Casino in Gary, Indiana, and the firms $300-$350 million attempt to get the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania’s one slot license.

Unfortunately for Mr. Barden, but perhaps fortunately for Rockaway Beach, it seems that the Pittsburgh project has turned into a three way horse race for the sole Pittsburgh slot license based, not on factors relating to the gambling or casino operations, but which of the three firms trying to get the license will do the most for building the Pittsburg Penguins a new arena. Wow, the Ole Seagull thought that only happened in the city of Branson, where the location of its new convention center was based, not on factors relating to what would be the best for Branson’s existing businesses, shows, and attractions or its millions of visitors, but on getting State of Missouri TIF funds and building the new Branson Landing retail and entertainment complex.

On Jun. 2, the Pittsburgh Business Journal reported that, “The Pittsburgh Gaming Task Force said it is ‘not satisfied’ with the three applicants for the city’s slots license.” It pointed out that the Pittsburgh Gaming Task Force, in its report to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, which is expected to make a final decision on the Pittsburgh slot license by the end of 2006, said that dissatisfaction was based on the proposals “inadequacies in or failure to address several areas such as–but not limited to–traffic, the design of the facility, and the mitigation of the negative social impact of gaming.”

According to the article, out of the major categories that the Pittsburgh Gaming Task Force rated, financial, site, traffic, commitment to a new arena and diversity the Barden group, graded best only in the diversity category. But, with Pittsburgh’s apparent propensity for mixing Penguins and a new stadium for them with the casino slot license and the fact that one of the other two proposals has the endorsement of the Penguins, that is not surprising.

If they are unsuccessful in Pittsburgh that would be Pittsburgh’s loss and could be Rockaway Beach’s gain. Penguins and their arena aside, the Barden group appears to be on a tear in acquiring and running casinos. At least on the surface, it would provide the opportunity for the Barden group to concentrate its considerable resources and talents on the Rockaway Beach project without the dilution that a project the size of the Pittsburgh project could have.

Couple that with the factor that they rated best in the diversity category in Pittsburgh and you can see why the “Little Rockaway Beach Casino Engine” just might keep chugging along saying, “I think I can, I think I can, ….

A July 7, 2006 letter, from Branson City Attorney Paul D. Link to James Strahan, the Taney County Assessor, was purportedly sent to address specific concerns that Strahan had raised at a May 31, 2006 meeting about the current sewer agreement between the city and Taney County that was entered into on February 28, 2000. After addressing these concerns in a precise professional manner, and for reasons known only to him, Link, like the character Alice, in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” appears to fall down a hole into a fantasy world.

Link’s letter says, “My research has uncovered some interesting facts concerning sewer construction in Taney County.” The terms “research” and “fact” have a fairly objective meaning to most people, “Research” means a “close, careful study” and a “Fact” is “a truth as opposed to fiction or mistake.” On the other hand, the term “interesting” is a relative term meaning different things to different people. Unfortunately, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, the only “interesting fact” that Link’s research reveals, having relevancy in 2006, is just how low the unelected leadership of Branson will lower the bar on professionalism and ethics for their own purposes.

Link’s alleged facts and his conclusions are reminiscent of the discussion that Alice had with the Pigeon in Wonderland when she said, “But I’m not a serpent, I tell you!” The Pigeon said, “`Well! What are you? I can see you’re trying to invent something!” And try to invent something Link did.

One of Link’s interesting facts was a statement that in 1994, over 12 years ago, the Coon Creek Sewer Project included “sewer lines into undeveloped properties some belonging to elected officials.” The letter cites as one of these three lines “A 21″ line extended 2765′ into undeveloped property which to this day has no flow in it. (Strahan $82,970.)”

When one considers that the property mentioned above appears to belong to John Strahan, the father of James Strahan and Eastern District Taney County Commissioner Danny Strahan, who was a Taney County Commissioner in 1994, it doesn’t take a Solomon to see what Link is trying to invent. To an Ole Seagull the insidiousness of Link’s insinuation is as obvious as the mean spirit of a city’s leadership that condones and encourages such activity.

Unfortunately for Link and the quality, depth, and professionalism of his research, official maps of Taney County indicate that the sewer line in question does not go into the Strahan property. It’s not even close and stops about three quarters of a mile away from the Strahan property line. Said another way, Link’s stated fact is simply not true.

Another of the facts stated in Links letter was that, “If the county’s matrix would have been followed and these monies put to the top project, then the monies would have been spent correctly, lowering the overall cost to the project.” The “top project” being referred to is the Bee Creek Sewer Project but does the letter contain one iota of evidence to support, what the Ole Seagull believes is, his inane and baseless conclusions?

Interestingly enough the letter remains silent on two major points. The fact that, for whatever reason, the Coon Creek Project was only one of multiple Taney County sewer projects to be built between 1994 and the present even though the Bee Creek Project still remains to be completed. Even more telling, in view of Link’s insinuations, is the lack of an explanation as to why the city of Branson elected to enter into a new sewer agreement with Taney County on February 28, 2000.

Link’s logic, about the 1994 costs for the Coon Creek Sewer Project lowering the overall cost of the Bee Creek Project in 2006, makes about as much sense as saying that the $5 million dollars that the city of Branson paid to the Australians for their participation in the early stages of the Branson Landing Project lowered the cost of the Branson Landing Project to the city of Branson by $5 million. But then if the city says it’s so it is. Isn’t it? Sure, and if you believe that you probably believe that Pointe Royale drive will remain a public street and that Branson will support the Rockaway Beach casino gambling effort.

It is legal for a person to park their car in the parking lot of Branson Landing, take a six pack of cold beer out of their cooler, pop the top on one, and drink it as they walk down the Landing’s promenade, hopefully crowded with people, including families and children all having fun. Yet it would be illegal for that same person to park their car in downtown Branson, take a six pack of cold beer out of their cooler, pop the top on one, and drink it as they walked down Commercial Street, hopefully crowded with people, including families and children all having fun. The difference in the two results is the difference between public and private property.

With the appropriate permits, it is legal for vendors in Branson Theatres to sell cups of beer to be consumed in an area filled with people, including families and children, as they watch the show. With the appropriate permits, it is legal for vendors on the “public square” in Branson Landing to sell cups of beer which are to be consumed in an area filled with people, including families and children, as they listen to a band concert or watch a show being presented. In both instances, the beer is being served on private property legally.

Now there are those that might be quick to say, “But Seagull, the city of Branson owns the land so that makes it public land not private land?” The part about the city owning the land is right but, as part of the private public partnership that was used to develop Branson Landing, the city negotiated and entered into a 99 year Master Lease for the land with Branson Landing’s developer, HCW Development Co.

The net result of that lease is that Branson Landing, its promenade, “Public Square,” stores, and restaurants, condos, parking lots, etc. are treated as private land not public land. Said another way, for about the next 99 years, subject only to applicable laws and to restrictions negotiated into the lease, HCW has full control of the property and can use it and sub lease it for any lawful purpose in any manner it chooses.

Does this mean that the city has no more control of the promenade, public square, parking lots, etc. at Branson Landing than it does the Wal-Mart parking lot? That’s exactly right, for all practical purposes it is private land controlled by HCW.

Could the city have negotiated provisions into the Master Lease restricting how alcohol is served, specifically prohibiting the sale or distribution of any pornographic or obscene performances or materials as defined by Missouri Law, restricting new theatres, requiring prior city approval of tenants or their activities to ensure their consistency with Branson’s value system, or requiring that purple petunias be planted in pots at each public entrance into Branson Landing, etc.? Whether or not they would have been successful, the city could have tried to negotiate whatever it wanted into the lease.

Of course no one will ever know exactly how much effort was expended in this area because the negotiations were closed to the public under an exception to the Sunshine Law. Unless an Ole Seagull misses his guess however, about as much effort was spent on negotiating the planting of purple petunias at the entrances to Branson Landing as was spent trying to protect Branson’s value system.

The good news is that HCW has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in Branson Landing and has a very real interest in preserving a family friendly environment at the Landing. In a conversation with Mr. Rick Huffman, the CEO of HCW, he expressed HCW’s intent to strictly control open containers of beer and alcohol on the promenade, public square, and other public access areas of Branson Landing. Huffman further indicated that, to the maximum extent practicable, it was HCW’s general intention to prohibit open containers of beer and alcohol in Branson Landings public access areas except for special events, held in the evening hours, and restricted to areas deemed appropriate for the event by HCW.

The wisest man that ever lived said, “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?” As the “New Branson,” currently being built by the City of Branson and its developers with taxpayer dollars, emerges from “Branson,” the Branson that private entrepreneurs built with their own money, it would behoove us to consider a paraphrase of that question, “For what does it profit a community to gain a few bucks, and forfeit its values?”

Why? The very family value based system of Branson that makes our community such a great place to live and is the bed rock upon which its economic success rests is being gambled on the New Branson. A Branson based on family values and community interest is being wagered on a New Branson where anything is all right as long as it raises revenues to salve the seemingly insatiable appetite of the City of Branson for revenues and puts dollars in the pockets of its developers.

The amazing thing is that the vast majority of the very families benefiting from Branson, both those who built it and those who live in the community because of it, their leaders, associations, churches, etc. are taking no action, are standing idlely by, and letting it happen. What if the Lord appeared this very night and asked the question, “What have you done with the Branson that I entrusted to you?” If the public record is any indication, there would be a lot of people, churches, organizations, and elected officials who would be mute while the City of Branson’s unelected leaders and their developers just smirked.

A front page article, in the July 12-13 edition of this paper entitled, “Alderman urges Huffman to ‘reconsider’ alcohol sales” indicates how little control even the City of Branson’s elected officials have over the changing value structure of the New Branson. The article reported that Branson Alderman Jack Purvis gave an enthusiastic report on a recent visit to Branson Landing, Branson’s $400 million dollar New Branson icon, at the July 10 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen.

It also indicated that Purvis, based on his observations, was concerned about the mix of alcohol and children in the public square and asked the developer to please reconsider the way alcohol is served at Branson Landing. The article reports that although Rick Huffman, developer of Branson Landing, addressed the issue of open container sales during the regular Branson Board of Aldermen meeting on June 26 he made no comments in response to Alderman Purvis’ request.

As was the case with the question of potential pornography being brought into Branson Landing by the Hilton Hotels, which was brought up by City Administrator Terry Dody at their June 26 meeting, the City of Branson’s elected leaders, for whatever reason, again sat mute. There are those who might ask, “Don’t we need a new demographic in Branson and won’t this help us to get it?”

To that an Ole Seagull would reply, “Not really.” A recent branding study paid for by the City of Branson showed that the majority of the people who come to Branson love the experience, will come back repeatedly, and that one of the primary identifiers with the Branson experience is values.

Now let’s see, the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars spent on the New Branson will bring how many new visitors to Branson over the next five years? One can only wonder how that number would compare to the number of new visitors that $10 million a year, spent on expanding the range and penetration of marketing what Branson currently has to offer, over each of the next three years, would bring in.

Interestingly enough, the New Branson can not only survive, but can thrive, on Branson’s existing value system; but Branson, both from a quality of life and economic perspective, will suffer tremendously without it. Does it make more sense for Branson to gamble its value system against the New Branson concept of anything for a buck or for Branson to fight to preserve the family value system that has worked so well for it up to this point? To an Ole Seagull the answer is pretty simple, for what does it profit a community to maybe gain a few bucks, and forfeit its values?

At the Jun. 26 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, Branson City Administrator, Terry Dody made a report to the board regarding the issue of pornography coming to the Hilton Hotels at Branson Landing. In that report Dody said, “So I want to make it clear that we are not talking about pornography because pornography is illegal.” To an Ole Seagull that statement makes about as much sense as saying we are not talking about speeding because the car was going 65 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone and speeding is illegal.

At the outset, let’s make one thing clear, very clear, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Miller v. California said that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and that such material can be regulated by the States. The court said, “In our view, to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom.”

It should also be stressed the issue is with the commercial exploitation of obscene material not with the morality of any individual or what they do with pornography for their own private use. The issue facing Branson is the growth of the commercial exploitation of obscene materials within the community and the potential impact of such growth on the character of our community.

What was the basis of Dody’s statement? According to Dody it was that movies containing content similar to the content contained in the movies that Hilton Hotels wants to bring into Branson Landing, adult movies rated for mature audiences, are found in a number of pay for view type things in a number of our hotels here in town and that “you can also get it off your cable TV if you want.”

What an interesting legal concept, the Hilton hotels are not showing pornography because a number of other places in town are also showing movies with the same type of content. Using that logic, could someone traveling at 65 miles an hour, in a 45 mile per hour speed zone, that is being passed by other cars traveling faster, be charged with speeding if it was the car that the police pulled over for speeding? Would it be a defense at trial to say that other cars were also speeding?

The good news is that Dody has gone on record as acknowledging that pornography is illegal. In fact he used the same language earlier in his presentation in discussing the alleged suggestion “that the city council, both the elected and the non elected officials, have allowed the creation or existence pornography” in Branson Landing. He said, “First of all that the city can’t do that wouldn’t do that. Pornography is illegal and were we aware of any such thing we would have to take the appropriate legal action or notify the appropriate legal authorities to take care of that.”

If one can take Mr. Dody at his word, all that has to be done is make him aware that the movies the Hilton Hotels wants to bring to Branson Landing are pornographic and the city will “take the appropriate legal action or notify the appropriate legal authorities to take care of that.” Here’s a simple test that could resolve the issue.

Have the management of the Hiltons of Branson set up a special showing of any of the current movies, chosen at random, from the “Adult Collection” of the LodgeNet pay for view service that Hilton Hotels currently offers. Invite Dody, his City Attorney, the Branson Board of Aldermen, the Mayor, the President of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, the Chairman of the Branson Theatre Association, the Chairman of the Lodging Association, a couple of our areas pastors, the principals from our areas elementary schools, Rick Huffman, anyone else they wants to invite AND, here’s the most important part of all, their families, except for minor children, to a night of family fun at the movies.

Show the movies and after each one, or as people leave during the movie, have a simple three question questionnaire filled in by answering either “Yes” or “No” to the following three questions, (1) The movie is inordinately interested in sex, (2) The movie depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and (3) The movie lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Legally precise, probably not but from a community standard point of view, if it contains sex like pornography, offends like pornography, and has as much social value as pornography, it is pornography.

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 Mexican General Santa Anna, numbering in the thousands, made their final assault on the Alamo, overwhelming and killing everyone of its 189 defenders.

The prophetic words of Colonel Travis and the spirit of the Alamo manifested themselves, only 46 days after its fall, at the Battle of San Jacinto. The Mexican army, under 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 the Mexican army and captured Santa Anna.

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 or that they spent their lives for a noble cause? Was it the fact that so few stood against so many for so long, 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, or a combination of these factors?

History records that on the first day of the Siege of the Alamo, Santa Anna had the scarlet flag of “no quarter” run up on San Fernando Church within the sight of the Alamo defenders. It meant surrender or die. Despite the odds against them, instead of surrender, it was answered with cannon fire from the defenders of the Alamo.

Days into the siege, after receiving messages that no further help would be coming, Colonel Travis, explained the hopelessness of their situation. He gave the Alamo’s defenders a choice of escaping, surrendering and perhaps living, or of fighting on 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.

All, but one, chose to fight on. Unknown to them at the time however, was the special place in history where their choice would be forever enshrined. That place where the spirit of honor, dedication to purpose, valor, and willingness to sacrifice all, for a noble cause, is revered and preserved.

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.

The spirit of “Remember the Alamo” represents that which is courageous, honorable, and worthy of commitment in the hearts of individuals and nations. It was in the hearts of the signers of the Declaration of Independence as, on July 4, 1776, they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on behalf of a new nation. From July 4, 1776 to July 4, 2006, from Valley Forge to Bagdad, and countless places in between, America’s greatness, and very existence has depended on that “spirit” and those willing to commit and sacrifice their all for it.

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 would not long endure.Happy Birthday America, Happy Birthday!

The song, “Ya Got Trouble,” from the musical “The Music Man,” has a line, “Well, ya got trouble, my friend. Right here, I say trouble right here in River City.” With a little adaptation to “We got porn my friend, right here, I say porn right here in Branson City,” the line could describe what we currently have in a couple of Branson hotels and may soon have in the Hilton Hotels at Branson Landing on land owned by the City of Branson.

At the outset, it should be pointed out that this is not about the morality of any individual or what they do in the privacy of their own hotel room or home. It’s about the character of our community. the family friendly values that make Branson such a wonderful place to visit or live and underpin its economic foundation, and the contemporary community standards that will determine whether or not something within that community is obscene.

Recently the Ole Seagull heard that the Hilton Hotels in the Branson Landing would definitely be offering sexually explicit movies through their pay per view movie program at one or both of the two hotels they would be operating there. Both of those hotels are located on property that the City of Branson owns and a lot of the amenities and public infrastructure of Branson Landing is being financed with public tax dollars.

Because of the incongruity of sexually explicit movies with the character of our community and the values upon which its basic economic foundation is built, the Ole Seagull sent an email to Mark W. Hartman, General Manager, Hiltons Branson about the situation. When asked, if under the typical Hilton scenario whether a person would “be able to turn on their tv, select pay for view, and access a selection of adult movies that will show naked or semi naked people performing sexually explicit acts?” Hartman replied, “They will be able to choose MA rated movies.”

An Ole Seagull would point out that the rating “MA” is not even on the rating guide for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). It would be a good bet that the majority of the current films with an “MA” rating would meet the definition of “Explicit sexual material” “nudity,” and, based on what he hopes is Branson’s current contemporary community standard, “obscene” as defined under Missouri’s pornography statutes.

In response to the question as to whether or not any consideration was being given by Hilton to changing their typical scenario at Branson Landing “to be more consistent with the family values that Branson is noted for” Hartman replied, “Not that I am aware of.” Taken in total, the responses add new meaning to what Conrad Hilton meant when he said, “It has been and continues to be our responsibility to fill the earth with the light and warmth of hospitality.”

A reasonable person might ask the question, “How in the world, in Branson, Missouri, America’s home of family values and entertainment, can anyone use City of Branson owned land to promote sexually explicit acts whether legally obscene or not?” The answer is relatively simple. The non elected and elected leaders of the City of Branson led the city into a long term lease of the property to the developer of Branson Landing without including conditions limiting or prohibiting these and other acts that are inconsistent with Branson’s entertainment heritage and value structure.

It’s kind of ironic, the very community that got so aroused about the alleged moral depravity that would occur in it if a casino went in at Rockaway Beach, over ten miles away from Branson, did nothing as the serving of alcohol expanded into its family friendly entertainment venues right in Branson. Is there any reason to believe that, without the economic issues that really powered the Rockaway Beach gambling issue, our community will rise up and fight this latest encroachment against the value system that has made Branson what it is today? If history is any indication the answer is, “We got porn my friend, right here, I say porn right here in Branson City.”

The Ole Seagull’s Jun. 11 column, entitled “Will the City of Branson be coming for your customer list next?” evoked an email response from Branson City Attorney Paul Link. In addition to the Ole Seagull, Link sent the response to Branson City Administrator Terry Dody, the Mayor, and the Branson Board of Aldermen. (Note: the Jun. 11 column and is available on line at www.bransoncourier.com under editorials.”

The column was prompted by a letter that Link recently mailed to a lot of Branson businesses demanding that they furnish their customer lists to the city within 30 days and stating that the “City Code” required them to do so. Specifically the column responded to, among other things, the fact that the City Code contains no such requirement and the Attila the Hun like tactic the letter tried to use to coerce compliance with a non existent legal requirement.

In the response Link says, “I would venture a guess that you are getting your information from the handful of individuals that tend to be against virtually everything the City does.” His guess is as wrong as was the statement in his letter implying that the City Code required businesses to submit their customer lists as the letter demanded.

Even a cursory reading of the column indicates that it is based on documentary evidence. That evidence includes Links original letter, Dody’s response to an email inquiry the Ole Seagull sent him regarding the letter, and a review of the City Code sections that Dody referred to in his response. The documents speak for themselves and the only “individuals” furnishing information used in the column were Link and Dody. Does that equate to a “handful of individuals that tend to be against virtually everything the City does?”

Link goes on to say, “It surprises me that you would be in favor of allowing businesses to get by without paying taxes when those very taxes go to the improvement of Branson through infrastructure, marketing and subsidized utility services for the whole community.” Well Link wasn’t the only one surprised because the column contained as much mention of “allowing businesses to get by without paying taxes” as the City Code does authorizing the City of Branson to use a mass mailing to require Branson businesses to send their customer lists to the city so that it can go through them on a “fishing expedition” to determine the tourism tax compliance of the businesses in the lists.

Now things start to get almost laughable. The tax Link talks about has been in effect for over ten years and the City of Branson has the responsibility for collecting that tax. Exactly how many dollars has the City of Branson lost over the last ten years because of its failure to fulfill its responsibilities in this regard? Indeed, a good argument could be made that the city’s failure to fulfill its responsibilities appears “to be in favor of allowing businesses to get by without paying taxes when those taxes…”

Link said, “I must state that I am very surprised that a person I have heard is a lawyer would have such a shallow and lack of understanding when it comes to reading ordinances.” For what it’s worth, that “shallow and lack of understanding” is based on 25 years of experience in interpreting, and teaching Federal Regulations involved with the safe transportation of Dangerous Goods, both domestically and internationally, giving compliance advice to companies, and defending companies that had been charged with violations of those regulations.

In this case however, legal experience has nothing to do with the situation. It is simply a matter of reading. The City Code either contains a provision requiring the submission of the information as demanded in the letter or it does not.

Links own words say it does not! In the email response he says, “Obviously the Tourism Tax Code does not have a provision that states that Paul D. Link is authorized to send out letters to all theaters and hotels to obtain lists of people engaged in the process of selling admission to said entities.”

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, the city’s typical smoke and mirror show aside, the letter sent to Branson’s businesses demanding that they submit their customer lists to the city within 30 days because the City Code required it, when it was “obvious” that City Code did not, was deceptive. Even worse however, is not simply the shallowness of the professionalism and integrity involved with the attempt but the fact that Branson’s elected leadership, its Mayor and Board of Aldermen, tolerate the very businesses that have made Branson what it is being treated in this manner.

When will it stop? Just about the time one thinks that it is impossible for the City of Branson’s unelected leadership to get any more arrogant or heavy handed with its citizens or businesses it manages to exceed expectations and achieve the seemingly impossible. It gives one pause to wonder; where is Branson’s elected leadership, its Board of Aldermen and Mayor, while stuff like this is going on?

Recently a “To Whom It May Concern” letter, from, the City of Branson, signed by Paul D. Link, the city attorney, was mailed to a lot of the City of Branson’s businesses paying the city’s tourism tax. The letter demanded that the businesses furnish the city with “a complete and accurate list identifying all persons, firms, corporations, agents or entities whomsoever that engages in the sale, transfer, conveyance, exchange, barter, or by any means whatsoever for admission, rooms, meals, services, etc. to your establishment.” Said another way, the letter said “Send us a list of your customers.”

At the outset, the demands verbiage, “all persons,” “whomsoever,” and “by any means whatsoever,” creates a scope of applicability so broad that is an impossible condition to meet. Issues relating to that aside however, what was the justification for this intrusive demand on Branson’s private businesses?

Surely it’s a matter of national security or something of that importance isn’t it? Well not quite. The letter continues, “City Code requires that you provide this information so that a determination can be made on the amount of Tourism Tax that should be collected and remitted.”

Now there’s a scary thought, the City of Branson actually having laws on its books that permits it to use a general mailing to invade the privacy of Branson’s businesses and demand their customer lists. If that is the case what’s next, a letter to all the building supply stores demanding similar records to help the City of Branson enforce its various laws pertaining to everything from tax collection, to building permits, inspections, etc.

On Jun. 5, the Ole Seagull sent an email to Terry Dody, Branson’s city administrator, asking for, among other things, the “The specific section number of the City Code that requires businesses to provide “a complete and accurate list identifying all persons, firms, corporations, agents or entities whomsoever that engages in the sale, transfer, conveyance, exchange, barter, or by any means whatsoever for admission, rooms, meals, services, etc. to their establishments.” On Jun. 6, Dody replied saying, “Read Article VI. Tourism Tax in the Branson City Code, looking first at Sec. 82-151 ‘Definition’ and particularly the definitions of ‘Sale and Sales’ and ‘Sale at Retail’, and then read Sec. 82-157 ‘Examination of books and records.'”

On Jun.7, the Ole Seagull did just that. He could find no such requirement in the sections to which Dody referred and for good reason, it wasn’t there!

The sections to which referred contain requirements for businesses making “sales” subject to the City of Branson’s tourism tax to make their books and records available to the city during reasonable times during business hours for audit and to furnish reasonably sufficient work space, lighting, and working conditions for the conduct of the audits. They are pretty standard audit requirements but contain no authorization for the City of Branson to use a mass mailing to require Branson businesses to send their customer lists to the city so that, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, it can go through them on a “fishing expedition” to determine the tourism tax compliance of the businesses on the lists.

“Be still, be still, my beating heart;” it gets worse. The letter continues, “Compliance with this request overrides any concerns you have about divulging names of those you do business with.” Oh really and exactly how does compliance with the city’s demand “override” or even address the concerns that the businesses it is trying to coerce the information from might have? Through what omnipotent power does the writer of the letter profess to know the concerns of the businesses he is addressing?

Did the letter address any concerns, let alone the obvious concerns that most prudent businesses might have, such as potential legal exposure from furnishing the information to the city or how the City of Branson might use the information? Is it unreasonable for any business receiving the letter to have concerns that if the city used the information in the same arrogant overbearing manner in which it is attempting to coerce information from them that it could impact on the business relationships they have with their customers or, of equal importance, on Branson’s reputation within the tourism industry?

The last sentence of the city’s demand to its businesses reads “Be advised and govern yourself accordingly.” Would it be unreasonable for an Ole Seagull to ask Branson’s elected leadership, its Board of Aldermen and Mayor, to “please” exert influence on Branson’s unelected leaders to heed its own admonition and reconsider their demands before the situation escalates much farther? He prays not.

As Branson Landing opened last weekend it seems that everyone had an opinion about when it should have opened, why this feature wasn’t ready, why it doesn’t have this or that type of store, etc. Without getting into the merits, or lack thereof, of those opinions, may an Ole Seagull suggest that what is important is what Branson Landing is, not what it isn’t. Why?

The most obvious fact is that Branson Landing is built and is open for business. In terms of concept, design, anchors, structure, features, and initial tenants it is what it is. Like San Antonio’s River Walk, Seattle’s Pike Place Market, Bloomington, Minnesota’s Mall of America, Branson Landing provides visitors and locals with the opportunity to experience something that is unique not only locally but in the entire world.

The location of Branson Landing on Branson’s Lake Taneycomo’s lakefront, proximity to historic downtown Branson and all the rest that Branson has to offer, coupled with its design, public square, and street entertainment, combine to provide it with a uniqueness that is solely its own. When that is blended in with the soon to open fire and water show, the Lake Taneycomo Boardwalk, a condominium residential component, its own hotel, and the variety of shopping and restaurants available at Branson Landing the result is an exciting incomparable experience available only at Branson Landing in Branson, Missouri.

Trying to compare Branson Landing to a traditional mall serves no useful purpose simply because Branson Landing is an “unmall” hybrid life style project. This leading edge retail concept is currently replacing malls and their traditional multiple department store anchors all over the country. In the case of Branson Landing there is one department store anchor, Belk’s, an “alternative anchor,” Bass Pro Shops and a host of specialty stores and restaurants that are consistent with the developers vision for the project, space limitations, and what the Branson market can support.

The result is a shopping experience that offers customers everything from boats and fishing tackle to clothes, jewelry and accessories for just about all ages and demographics, shoes, candles, souvenirs of every type, and just about everything else in between. It is a shopping mix that offers an infinite choice that should appeal not only to Branson’s current visitors and locals, but to the younger visitor and their families that are so vital to the future success of Branson.

Its specialty sandwich, pretzel, ice cream, wrap, popcorn, coffee, gyro, pizza, and candy shops provide many different quick food choices for Branson Landing visitors. Factor in Branson Landing’s excellent selection of full service restaurants offering everything from general fare, to specialty restaurants serving Bar-B-Que, fine steaks, sea food, and Mexican food, all located within one convenient destination, and the result is an epicurean delight with a selection of food, drink, and pricing to fit just about every desire and budget.

Branson Landing is designed, consistent with the reality of the size constraints of the land upon which it is built, to maximize the beautiful Lake Taneycomo lakefront. Its center piece, the town square and fountain, is keyed to the lake and will provide direct access to the boardwalk. The design of the mile plus long boardwalk offers visitors to Branson Landing an opportunity to walk its length and experience the majestic beauty of Lake Taneycomo separated from the bustle and excitement of Branson Landing that is taking place just a few feet above them. A number of the restaurants have locations that feature views of the lake and its bluff from their dining room or patio.

Like Branson itself, Branson Landing is an exciting vibrant, entertainment experience. Street performers of just about every type help create an atmosphere of fun and excitement. The fire and water show on the lakefront at the town square will provide a spectacular show that will be unique and, like Branson Landing itself, will become an icon for Branson and a must see experience. Blend that with special events on the town square, a dinner theatre experience, and other specialty events that tenants will be sponsoring and the entertainment possibilities for Branson Landing become endless.

Branson Landing might not be a lot of things but this one thing it is, a unique exciting experience unlike anything else available in Branson. An experience that is, at one time, complete in itself yet blends in with, and compliments, the rest of what Branson has to offer. It is another reason to visit Branson for the first time or to come back again which can now proudly proclaim, “Our doors are open –come on in.”

The purpose of the original Memorial Day was to honor those who died in the Civil War. Its purpose today has evolved into remembering and honoring all who have died in the service of our country. What better way is there to honor and remember them than to honor and remember their living comrades, those men and women who have and are currently honorably serving in America’s Armed Forces.

Someone a lot wiser than an Ole Seagull said, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Since the earliest days of our history America’s Armed Forces and their families have paid the price for the freedoms and privileges that we, as a Nation, all enjoy and sometimes take for granted. Memorial Day gives us a unique opportunity to not only honor the dead but to pause, honor and say “Thank You,” to those who have and are currently serving and their comrades who are Missing In Action.

The very act of going into the Armed Forces puts one’s life at risk. Immediately upon being “sworn in,” members of the Armed Forces have given control of their lives to their military and governmental leaders. It is a control that is absolute and, from an honor point of view, irrevocable.

It could be exercised through an order “to take that hill,” in the face of withering machine gun or mortar fire, to patrol a neighborhood in Baghdad, or the assaulting of a terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan. Or, it could be an order to serve in a supply depot, training facility, or hospital thousands of miles away from the battle. Regardless of where or how one serves, the risk to their life is an inherent part of serving and is omnipresent.

History records that it is the politicians, and those in power, who start wars and that it is the men and women of their Armed Forces who pay the price of those wars. It is a price paid in separation, stress, blood, suffering, anguish, and, sometimes, death by those, who have and are currently, serving in our country’s Armed Forces and their families.

Theirs is not the job of judging whether or not the politicians and those in power are risking their lives in a noble or just cause. Their job is to do their duty. Some have served in conflicts that were “popular” such as World Wars I and II and Dessert Storm. Others served in conflicts that were not as publicly popular, such as Korea, Vietnam, and, if current polls are any indication, in Iraq. Through it all however, the men and women of Americas Armed Forces and their families have done their duty, sacrificed, and given unstintingly of themselves.

The eloquent words of William James remind us that “No matter what a man’s frailties otherwise may be, if he be willing to risk death, in the service he has chosen, that fact consecrates him forever.” Since the beginning of our Republic the members of our country’s Armed Forces and their families have assumed that risk, done their duty, and ensured that a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” For that we owe those who have and are currently, serving in the Armed Forces our undying gratitude, honor, respect, and support, not only on Memorial Day but, every day we as a Nation enjoy the fruits of their efforts, sacrifices, and service.

The recent publicity involved with the illegal immigration issue illustrates how hard it is to identify someone. In the case of illegal immigrants it is how to identify those that are in the United States legally from those who have entered the country illegally but identification is a problem that transcends just immigration.

How about the bartender who needs identification information to know if they can legally serve a drink to someone, a retail store clerk in terms of selling tobacco products to minors, the airline check in agent checking someone in for a flight, or other national security checks etc. Is not the most used form of identification document the state issued driver’s license with a picture on it?

Just this week, the Ole Seagull flew to Tampa. He had to present “a government issued picture ID” as he checked in for his flight. As is the case with most people, he presented his state drivers license. The ticket agent took it, looked briefly at me to insure that the smiling face standing before her was the same as was on the license and entered the name on the driver’s license into her computer, which printed the ticket.

He then walked up to a security check point where a security person again looked at the license and boarding pass, comparing the names on each, and passed him on to the screening point. He went through the physical screening and boarded the plane.

If the Ole Seagull was a betting Seagull he would bet that nowhere in the process was a check run to see if the driver’s license presented was a validly issued license. Even if that had been done what are the odds that the picture on the drivers license presented was compared to the picture on the actual driver’ license issued to make sure that the person presenting it was actually the person to whom it was issued?

How long does it take an underage teenager to come up with a false driver’s license if they want to drink? Would it take any longer than it would for terrorist or an illegal immigrant to do the same thing? If personal identification is truly as important as it seems to be, for everything from underage drinking and national security to eligibility for government benefits and preventing illegal immigration, doesn’t it make sense to have a system that at least uses a standard format for identification and makes an attempt to validate the identification when it is presented?

Specifically, isn’t it time for a standard verifiable “National Picture ID Card,” NPIC, issued by the Department of Homeland Security? The governing words are “standard” and “verifiable.” The NPIC would be standardized in format. At a minimum it would contain a unique identification number, the picture of the bearer, standard identifying information and the holders current “Citizenship Status.”

With one Federal Agency charged with the issuing of the National Picture ID Card and the current state of information and data transmission technology, verifying the NPIC upon presentation should not be a burden. Once the card is presented, the person using it for identification enters the unique identification number into the system and gets verification in the form of, what should be, a duplicate of the card they have in their hand. By comparing the two the appropriate identification determinations can be made.

Once the cards are issued, how they are used is dependent upon the identification problem being addressed. In the case of security that could be a verification of the fact that the person presenting the NPIC is who they say they are. In the case of underage drinking it might be identification verification plus age, and in the case of illegal immigration as a means of separating legal immigrants from illegal.

How many fewer illegal immigrants would there be if there was a national requirement that such a card be shown by EVERY job applicant and verified by EVERY employer with stiff criminal penalties for non compliance. If employment is the major reason for illegal immigration it would do no good to cross the border illegally because they would not have an NPIC to present for a job and even if they forged one it would not withstand the verification process.

Oh the Ole Seagull is not naïve and knows full well that there would be problems but he also believes that none of them would be insurmountable if there was a national consensus to solve them. The money it would cost for such a system would be pale in comparison to the money that would be saved if such a system helped prevent just one “9-11,” control the flow of illegal immigration across our boarders, or reduce fraudulent government claims, etc.

What’s the most exciting thing that’s happened in the Branson area over the last year? The Titanic Museum, the Great Exposition at Silver Dollar City, the highway 65 improvements to the south, Branson Landing, Branson Hills, voters approval of a marketing tax, etc.? All worthy candidates but, to an Ole Seagull, the most exciting thing that happened isn’t any of those. It isn’t even something that can be measured using the normal gauges of success that the Branson area loves to use, tax revenues, rate of first time visitors, theatre seats filled, occupancy rates, etc.

It is the completion and overwhelming success of the first school year of the FirstPLACE program. FirstPlace is a common sense program that uses a combination of our areas schools, the community, and family to fill the minds of our children with, and reinforce, positive character traits that can forever change their lives.

Each month of the school year the schools emphasized and intentionally taught one character trait. That trait was reinforced during the month not only at school but throughout the community as “partners,” and, hopefully families reinforced that trait by committing to demonstrate one visible action each month that tied into the trait.

The character traits covered each month were as follows: September – Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor; October – Responsibility – taking ownership of what you say and do; November – Citizenship – being loyal to your country; December – Compassion/Kindness – caring for others; January – Commitment – being true to your word; February – Honesty – being truthful in what you say and do; March – Cooperation – working together toward a common goal; April – Perseverance – demonstrating persistent determination; May – Self-discipline – training and control of yourself.

Some might say, “But Seagull, what’s exciting about that?” Quite simply, that it happened! What does that say about a community that has the honesty to acknowledge the importance of character education in preparing its children for their future citizenship and accepts the responsibility to meet that need? Its one thing to recognize a need, but our community had the respect, compassion, and kindness for its children to make the commitment to unite together in a spirit of cooperation to fulfill that responsibility.

Our actions say that we are a community that cares and has the wisdom, self-discipline, and perseverance to meet the needs of our children even as it faces the economic, environmental, quality of life, and other challenges of today’s ever changing and competitive reality. We are a community that is blessed with a myriad of people and organizations that recognize and respond to its various needs.

The College of the Ozarks, an institution where character is a foundational part of the educational process, recognized the need and accepted the responsibility for taking a leadership roll. The result was the FirstPLACE program, a partnership among The Keeter Center for Character Education at College of the Ozarks, Characterplus, and the public schools in Taney County to foster a community where character is highly valued and intentionally taught.”

It would be easy to say, “And the rest is history” but that really wouldn’t be accurate. The rest was a lesson in self discipline as people and organizations made and implemented the decisions necessary for them to fulfill their FirstPLACE commitments and responsibilities. The cooperation of all the elements required for the success of the program, businesses, parents, grandparents, the special efforts of our area’s teachers and educators, and the community perseverance so necessary to make the character traits being taught something our children can use for the rest of their lives was, to an Ole Seagull, exciting to behold.

A person can be no more than what is in their mind. A great book says, “Whatever is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, of excellence, or worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” How much more exciting can it get than to have the minds of our children filled with “these things,” not much, not much at all.

This column is humbly and respectfully dedicated to Sue Head and Sharon Friesz, from the The Keeter Center for Character Education at College of the Ozarks, the FirstPLACE “angels” of self discipline, respect, responsibility, citizenship, commitment, honesty, and perseverance but most of all, compassion and kindness.

Prior to the passage of the new eminent domain legislation by the Missouri Legislature recently, could the City of Branson take your home or business through the use of eminent domain, and give to another private individual or entity because it would generate more revenue and jobs for the city than it receives from your property? The answer was “Yes.”

After the passage of the new eminent domain legislation by the Missouri Legislature recently, can the City of Branson take your home or business through the use of eminent domain, and give to another private individual or entity because it will generate more revenue and jobs for the city than it receives from your property? The answer is “Yes.”

Recent media coverage of the new eminent domain laws passed by the Missouri legislature on May 5 trumpets the comforting thought that the homes and businesses of Missourians cannot be condemned using eminent domain for economic development. The changes were in response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court case.

In that case, long term residents had their homes taken by their city through the use of eminent domain and given to private developers for economic development because the new development would generate more revenue and jobs for the city than the taxes on the homes did. The Supreme Court said the use of eminent domain for that purpose was permitted by the U.S. Constitution but that it was up to the individual states as to how, if at all, that permitted use was implemented. The state of Connecticut, where the property in question was located, had a state law that permitted the taking of private property for economic development so the court ruled in favor of the city and the residents lost their homes.

In an effort to insure that the same thing could not happen in Missouri, various actions were instituted at the state level with the net result of that action being the passage of the recent legislation. The legislative mandate states, “No condemning authority shall acquire private property through the process of eminent domain for solely economic development purposes” and, at first blush, all seems well.

But wait, “Not so quick kemo sabe,” why is the word “solely” used if the legislative intent is to truly prevent government entities from taking the property of residents and business owners through the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes? In that context, why not use a more restrictive word such as “primarily” rather than “solely?”

The difference is dramatic. Using “solely” as the criteria if there is any other purpose involved, the use of eminent domain for the purposes of economic development would be legal regardless of the degree of the other use. On the other hand if a more restrictive word such as “primarily” had been used and the evidence showed that the primary purpose of the eminent domain was for economic development its use would not be authorized.

Why didn’t the legislature use a more restrictive term? Could it be because they wanted to permit the most flexibility for land to be taken by cities using the power of eminent domain for economic development while appearing to restrict its use? Unfortunately, the bad news gets even worse.

The legislation specifically defines the term “economic development” as the “use of a specific piece of property or properties which would provide an increase in the tax base, tax revenues, employment, and general economic health.” If only it stopped there but it does not; it goes on to exclude from the definition, among other things, “the elimination of blighted, substandard, or unsanitary conditions.”

Interestingly enough, the new legislation does not contain a definition of “blighted.” Instead, in a move reminiscent of the old bean under the shell trick, the legislation states that the blight determination in eminent domain cases will be determined “with regard to whether the property meets the relevant statutory definition of blight.”

The City of Branson has already proven itself to be the master of “statutory blight” which, according to recent ads recently published in local newspapers by the Mayor and Branson Board of Aldermen, consists of, among other things, “criteria which do not necessarily meet or follow the standard dictionary definition of blight.” In terms of the City of Branson using its eminent domain authority to take private property for economic development purposes, what is the net result of combining the City of Branson’s, seemingly, insatiable need for more revenues to pay for more and more government by giving taxpayer funds to developers to compete against their existing businesses and their propensity to use statutory blight? Repeat after me, “Our Father who art in heaven….”

During the week of Apr. 10, a full page ad appeared in local news papers entitled “The Truth About Branson’s TIF Projects.” It is a message “from “the Branson City Council about the city’s use of Tax Increment Financing” (TIFs) and states that it was “Paid for by the Mayor and Branson Board of Aldermen.” In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, if what they paid for the ad was based on the major truths contained in it they should have received a 50 percent discount!

Among the inaccuracies and half truths in the ad, a couple of things that almost everyone can relate to, illustrate just how little respect for the intelligence of the ad’s readers that those paying for the ad have. They also provide a perspective into their idea of “truth” and provide an excellent example of the fact that a conclusion is only as valid as the basis upon which it is based.

Among other things, the ad states “Our 7 million visitors arriving each year fuel our economy and none of those tourists choose to vacation in Branson because we have an outstanding school district.” The Ole Seagull doesn’t know if the number is zero or not; but, he’d be willing to bet that the number of those same seven million visitors who came to Branson, because a portion of it was located within the city limits of the City of Branson, TIF Districts, or Branson Landing, is the about the same as the number who came because of its outstanding school district.

Using the obvious truth of that sentence of the ad and the thought “we have an outstanding school district,” the ad transitions into a conclusion that is simply not true. The next sentence reads, “But we do have an outstanding school district because people choose Branson as their vacation destination.”

What a baseless, inane, and inaccurate statement. The truth as to the reason why Branson has an outstanding school district is very simple and is known by most people living within the Branson area except, evidently, those paying for the ad.

It is because the Branson School District is blessed with outstanding teachers and programs coupled with professional administrators, a board of education, and patrons dedicated to working together to provide the districts children with an outstanding educational experience. An obvious truth is that if none of the seven million visitors to Branson came because of the outstanding school district they probably didn’t come to teach, administer, or otherwise help educate the children of the district either.

Some might ask, “But don’t the tourists pay for it all?” Not hardly. In general tourists pay retail sales tax not personal property and real estate tax, the primary funding mechanism for the school district. In truth it is the businesses and patrons of the school district who pay the lion’s share of educating our children not our visitors.

The ad further states, “New residential and commercial construction outside the TIF Districts (either completed, underway, or already permitted) and directly caused by the districts will add over $6.5 million annually of new revenue to the school district.” Now there’s a conclusion but where is the basis? Could it be that a large part of that construction was directly caused by the millions of visitors who were already coming to Branson rather than TIF Districts? Indeed, how far along would the very TIF districts referred to have gotten but for those millions of visitors coming to Branson?

Now here’s an Ole Seagull truth, “The ‘Branson’ that seven million visitors came to visit in 2005 is the expectation of an enjoyable experience, not the City of Branson.” It is an expectation that has been created, met, and exceeded by Branson’s pioneers and entrepreneurs through their value systems, efforts, risk taking, personal investment, and involvement in Branson’s entertainment industry for over half a century. It is the bedrock foundation which drew the seven million visitors to “Branson” in 2005.

The basis for this “truth” is contained in the answers to three simple questions. Is Branson’s biggest attraction, Silver Dollar City, located within the City of Branson? Out of the 7 million visitors who came to Branson in 2005, how many cared whether or not the portion of Branson they wanted to experience was located within the city limits of the City of Branson, its TIF Districts, or Branson Landing? How many came simply to be entertained and experience “Branson?”

In terms of comparative history, the week of Apr. 10 2006, will probably do as much for the integrity of Branson’s unelected and elected leadership as the deceitful attack on Pearl Harbor did for the chances of the Japanese winning World War II. A lie can be either by commission or omission. Deceitful acts can be overt or covert and both lies and deceitful acts can be either legal or illegal.

In true “New Branson” style both the City of Branson’s elected leadership, the mayor and board of aldermen, and the head of its unelected leadership, City Administrator Terry Dody, seem to glory in their perception that they have met the strict legal definition of “blight” and the other legal requirements for the Branson Hills TIF. Slavery was once the law of the land and legal. Did that make it either ethical or moral? There are legal loop holes in laws that people find, exploit and abuse every day but that doesn’t make it moral or ethical, just legal.

The comments of Dody at the Apr. 10 meeting of the board of aldermen and the publication of an ad in local newspapers “Paid for by the Mayor and Branson Board of Aldermen” later that same week appear to be a continuation of a Branson Hills Development TIF strategy consisting of a mixture of truth spun in with a little deceit, the use of smoke and mirrors as needed, and apparent legality. The legality of the Branson Hills TIF might eventually be decided by a judge but the morality, ethics, and common sense involved with the City of Branson’s handling of the TIF, as applies to the entire Branson area, not just the City of Branson, is within the ability of each person living within the area to determine.

As an example, at the Apr. 10 meeting the Ole Seagull read a portion of a letter written by Branson’s primary unelected leader, City Administrator Terry Dody. It was part of a presentation to the board about, what he believes, was deceitfulness in the process that the City of Branson is using to take millions of dollars in tax revenues that the voters approved in Nov. of 2005 to market Branson and, instead, use it to expand the Branson Hills TIF.

The Ole Seagull made a simple request of the board regarding the marketing tax that the voters had approved. He asked the board to “take whatever action was necessary to insure that the proceeds of the Tourism Enhancement District retail tax that the voters approved in Nov. of 2005, AFTER both the Branson Hills and Branson Landing TIF Plans had been approved, goes 100 percent toward the marketing of Branson and not to pay off TIFs in Branson Landing and Branson Hills.”

The tapes of the meeting indicate that as the board and mayor sat mute Dody sprang into action. He said, among other things, “What Mr. Groman is referring to is that after the TIF law was put onto the agenda or onto the ballot before it was passed at the same time concurrently happening with that was a relocation of the foot print for the Wal-Mart Store.” Dody appears to use a combination of smoke and mirrors, truth, and deceit to arrive at a statement of fact that simply is not true. How could the Ole Seagull, or anyone else for that matter, refer to a TIF law that was never put on the ballot?

A few seconds later Dody says, “It just so happened that the TIF vote was put on the ballot at the same time that Wal-Mart was redesigning its foot print up there.” Even after this second reference to a TIF vote that never happened did even one member of the Branson Board of Aldermen question this obvious departure from truth and reality? No, not one!

Dody goes on to stress that “There was nothing done under the table there was nothing done deceitful” that “everything was done out in the open” and “fully disclosed.” A few seconds later Dody again states that “nothing was done under the table, nothing was misstated except your comments…” Oh really, it’s pretty simple, prior to the Nov. 2005 election by the voters to approve tax increases, to be used to market Branson and build a new Taney County judicial facility, the City of Branson was either actively negotiating to divert millions of those dollars to other uses or it wasn’t.

Those other uses either included the expansion of the Branson Hills TIF project or they did not. Most important of all, in terms of integrity or deceit, those discussions were either discussed “out in the open” or “fully disclosed” or they were not. That happened at what public meeting prior to the Nov. 2005 vote to increase taxes to pay for the marketing of Branson and build a new Taney County judicial facility?

Dody’s use of the words “under the table,” twice during his spontaneous response, was an interesting choice of words that was his and his alone. Branon’s prayer should be that this isn’t the Freudian slip of the century.

Perseverance is demonstrating persistent determination. At its simplest, perseverance is finishing what is started. It is the characteristic that separates life’s winners from its losers even as it makes winners out of those who appeared to have lost. It is to character what the heart is to the body.

Teddy Roosevelt, Americas 26^th President, described perseverance very poignantly and eloquently when he said, “The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly…Who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who have never known neither victory nor defeat.”

The credit belongs to the person who makes the decision to enter the “arena” for a purpose, does their best to achieve that purpose and preservers to the end. In a long distance race with 20 runners only one will win first place. Does that mean that the other 19 lost? No, it means they didn’t come in first.

Did they put forth their best effort and strive to the end to achieve what they wanted to accomplish during the race or, when things got tough, did they slack off or quit? If, at the end of the race a runner can echo the words of the new testament writer, Paul, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith;” they, regardless of their final position, have won.

Walter Elliott said, “Perseverance is not a long race; it is many short races one after another.” In a similar manner, the course of life is not one long race; it is many short races run one at a time. The winners in life are the ones who, regardless of the outcome of each race, on a daily basis, continue to fight the good fight, keep the faith and persevere until life’s course is finished.

However, perseverance is a two edged sword. A sword that can effect lives for either good or bad because, as sure as oxygen is necessary for life; our lives are going to reflect those things and people we persistently determine to think about and associate with.

That being the case, how does one put themselves into a position to have the right thoughts, friends, and associates? To paraphrase the words of new testament writer, Paul, by having the perseverance to think about whatever is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, excellent, and worthy of praise and associating with those who do the same.

The Apr. 5-6 edition of this paper contained an article entitled, “County, city remain at odds over new Branson Hills TIF.” The article reported that among others, Ed Akers, the president of the Branson/Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District (TCED) met with the Taney County Commission on Tuesday morning Apr.4 to discuss the county’s actions regarding the TIF (Tax Increment Financing) at the Branson Hills Redevelopment Project.

Akers said, “We are very concerned about the loss of the tax revenue for us to promote the area for tourism” and “Our board voted to advise the public about the consequences of losing these tax dollars.” Oh really, if the board is truly concerned about the loss of its tax revenues at the Branson Hills Redevelopment Project it has sure managed to hide it well up to this point.

The TCED has been in existence since before the first discussion of the Branson Landing TIF and years before any public discussion on the Branson Hills TIF. The Ole Seagull has been the Taney County representative on the TIF Commission for both of these TIFs. In all of that time, not once, has a representative of the TCED appeared in front of the Commission or has the TCED submitted any other documentation regarding any concerns it may have had, or requesting any abatement of the TIF, as to its tax revenues.

Is there just the possibility that both the city and developers, wanting millions of tax payer dollars to subsidize their projects, would have agreed to some accommodation with the TCED had it been requested? Why wouldn’t they when no tax had been authorized by the voters yet and the proceeds of such a tax, even if enacted, were not part of the specific financials used in the original TIF process?

For example, revenues from the TCED retail sales tax were not part of the original TIF Plan for the Branson Hills Project dated May 25, 2004. Then suddenly, in Dec. of 2005, the TIF Plan was amended to, among other things; add the TCED retail sales tax as a revenue source to pay off the TIF.

Interestingly, at the same time the TCED’s retail tax revenue was added to the plan, it appears that the reimbursable expenses that the developer received went up over $2 million. Where was the concern of the TCED board then, when timely action on their part might have saved them, at a minimum, hundreds of thousands in tax revenues and possibly millions?

“Seagull, is there a chance that that the city was negotiating with the developer and a big box store to TIF the TCED Retail Sales Tax prior to the election even as the voters were being told that the entire proceeds would go to marketing?” The chances of that happening are about as great as a city government that cares about public input from its citizens, scheduling a TIF public hearing for 6:00 p.m. on Good Friday evening of Easter weekend. “But Seagull, hasn’t the city scheduled a TIF hearing for 6:00 p.m. on Apr. 14, Good Friday evening.” Come to think of it that’s exactly what they’ve done.

After the voters passed the tourism tax in Nov. of 2005, and it became apparent that the City of Branson intended to take 50 percent of the TCED tourism tax the voters had just approved, the board among other things, voted to send a letter to the City of Branson asking the city not to collect the TIF in Branson Hills. When Akers and the board were asked to also include Branson Landing in the same letter the request was ignored.

It’s hard for an Ole Seagull to reconcile Akers stated concern “about the loss of the tax revenue for us to promote the area for tourism” with his action ignoring the potential loss of tax revenues at Branson Landing. Again, just how much in tax revenue is the district losing by not getting its full tax from Branson Landing?

It seems as if the TCED Board has the cart before horse. Shouldn’t it be addressing its concerns about losing tax revenue to the City of Branson, the entity that is actually taking the revenue from them, not the Taney County Commission to whom the City of Branson is doing the same thing?

To an Ole Seagull, the reality of the current situation is that, as a direct consequence of the TCED Board’s consistent pattern of failing to take timely, appropriate and effective action, millions of dollars in tax revenues, that the voters entrusted to them to use for the marketing of Branson, will, instead, be used by the City of Branson to pay off TIF obligations for Branson Landing and Branson Hills. What a pathetic travesty!

Rockaway Beach’s initial attempt to bring casino gambling to the Branson area a couple of years ago initially evoked a “Ho hum, they’ll never do it” attitude from a lot of people in the area. That attitude changed dramatically however, as the attempt gained momentum, financial support, credibility, and approval to be on the ballot for a statewide vote on the matter.

Little Rockaway Beach fought a gallant fight for that which they believed in as did their opponents and, at the end of the day, lost the fight. Some might say that it serves no useful purpose, at this point, to rehash why or how they lost because it can not change what happened or the impact on the future of casino gambling in Rockaway Beach. Although partially true, there are at a minimum, two reasons for its defeat and four present realities that might be of value in determining the odds on whether or not casino gambling will ever come to Rockaway Beach.

The first and most important thing that defeated Rockaway Beach’s chance of getting casino gambling was the opposition of Branson. Under the leadership of Peter Herschend, and with the full support of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, the City of Branson, the majority of the Branson tourism industry, and a lot of members within the community, that opposition out maneuvered and out politicked the better funded Rockaway Beach effort at every turn.

Another formidable factor that contributed to the issues defeat was that the other casino gambling destinations, for obvious reasons, did not support Rockaway Beach’s efforts. A local news paper article appearing at the time reported that Boonville residents wanted to protect their casino from competition and for that reason, the Boonville Chamber of Commerce voted to oppose Rockaway’s efforts. It’s not very likely that the voters in Kansas City, St. Louis, and other areas that have casinos felt very much different.

The first present reality is that without substantial financial assistance from outside sources Rockaway Beach simply cannot mount another credible campaign to bring casino gambling to its city. For its’ initial effort, Rockaway Beach didn’t have a lot of its own money to gamble in the effort but it was able to obtain sufficient financial support from outside sources. It’s hard to imagine that Rockaway Beach today, has any more of its own money available to gamble on another try than it had for its original attempt.

In attempting to obtain that outside financing the two reasons discussed above for its defeat become present realities two and three. In view of what happened last time and the fact that the resistance from Branson and other casino gambling destinations will not go away, what are the odds that Rockaway Beach can get the financial support it needs to try again? In an Ole Seagull’s opinion the odds of success are “too much to one,” and only a masochist would put money into such an effort without having at least the support of Branson’s city government and Branson’s local movers and shakers.

As to the government of the City of Branson itself, can any reasonable thinking person, after watching the price it has been willing to extract from its neighbors, Taney County, and its school district for its own economic growth, possibly believe it will do anything that might put a dollar in another taxing entities pocket? Absent economic disaster to the economy of Branson what are the odds that Branson’s movers and shakers would support casino gambling in Rockaway Beach? Probably about the same as the tenants at Branson Landing paying for and supporting a trolley or other public transportation to take people from their businesses and restaurants up the Main Street hill to businesses in Historic Downtown Branson.

Some might ask, “But what if the “new Branson” decides that it needs gambling to be successful, won’t it support casino gambling in Rockaway Beach then?” That involves the fourth present reality. The “new Branson” is only interested in making a buck for itself without regard for much else such as Branson’s history, traditions, quality of life, values, existing businesses, the financial health of the school district, and particularly, the economic development of areas other than itself.

If the “new Branson” decides that casino gambling is needed, the odds of it being in Rockaway Beach are about the same as Target being built in Hollister. “But Seagull, Target is already built in Branson.” So the odds of it being built in Hollister are how much? In an Ole Seagull’s opinion about the same as Rockaway’s chance of ever getting casino gambling.

The number one question the Ole Seagull is asked is, “Do you think that Branson Landing will be a success?” The answer depends on how “success” is defined but, in the final analysis, Branson Landing cannot fail! The politics, egos, money, and City of Branson support that have been, and will continue to be, invested in Branson Landing virtually assure its success. The only question is how that success is defined and obtained.

Success can be defined as “Having a favorable outcome or achieving a desired or intended result.” Whether or not something is successful depends on what outcome or result is desired and the level of expectation.

There are those who will define the success of Branson Landing strictly in terms of itself and its financial success or failure, can it pay its indebtedness, and are its tenants making a profit, etc. From an Ole Seagull’s perspective however, it is how that financial success or failure is achieved that counts.

For what it matters, the Ole Seagull defines the success of Branson Landing in terms of what it does for Branson’s “stake holders.” They are the people currently working and living in and around Branson and the non tax payer financed businesses theatres, attractions, lodging establishments, restaurants, retail, and other businesses that are operating in Branson outside of Branson Landing.

The measure of that success or failure is simple. If on Dec. 18, 2010, Branson’s stakeholders are enjoying a better quality of life and economic success because of Branson Landing then it is successful. If instead, Branson Landing has impacted the stakeholders quality of life or chances for economic success in a negative manner then it is unsuccessful.

What are the chances of Branson Landing being successful under that definition? Pretty good if the results of a recent 24 hour on line poll mean anything. The poll asked the question, “Will the addition of the Branson Landing development make you more likely to visit Branson?” The results from 595 respondents were that 73 percent of the respondents said “No” and 27 percent said “Yes.”

At this point some are probably thinking, “Why the old bird has finally lost it. How can about a three to one margin against something end up positive?” That logic is consistent with the comments that the Ole Seagull received this week about the poll. Yet, the actual marketing and statistical value of the poll aside, could one not use the same results and, comparing apples to apples, say that Branson Landing has the potential to be very successful for Branson.

All this marketing stuff is confusing to an Ole Seagull but he was very impressed by the 2006 marketing program that the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and CVB, the marketing agency for the City of Branson, is pursuing this year. It continues the proven methodology of coordinating various marketing tools, the internet, TV, radio, and print media with other marketing strategies into an effective integrated marketing plan that, if continued, will in and of itself be successful for Branson’s stakeholders.

Let’s assume that a total of at least 50 million potential Branson Visitors are reached through that marketing each year. Applying the results of the poll literally, and without consideration as to its validity as a statistical marketing tool, about 73 percent of them will not be more likely to come to Branson because of Branson Landing. That leaves 27 percent that will. Isn’t 27 percent of 50 million about 13.5 million?

If Branson Landing is even a small factor in 13.5 million plus people a year deciding to eventually come to Branson, let alone one that would make it more likely that they would come, doesn’t that put Branson Landing in a position to be one of the biggest successes in Branson history? Now there’s a great question for a poll!

It was a horrible dream the Ole Seagull was having. Bobblin Hood and his merry band were running the Branson City government. It was kind of surreal because the merry band and their leader, Bobblin Hood, were at a meeting that, if were not a dream, could have been mistaken for a Branson Board of Aldermen meeting.

They were talking about some Ole Seagull who had sat on the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Commission with them. They were not pleased that he had not only voted against the TIF but had gone back to the Taney County Commission that he represented and recommended, in an open and public meeting, that they consider filing a lawsuit against Bobblin Hood and his merry men.

Friar Tuck, one of the merry men, reminded the merry band that the Ole Seagull said that he voted against it because he did not believe that the land covered by the TIF was blighted, that the expenditure of about $49 million in taxpayer funds to “big box” stores that would be locating within the county anyway made sense, or that the ratio of taxpayer funds reimbursed to the developer, as compared to the developers cost, was appropriate.

At that time Maid Marion spoke up and asked, “Didn’t he also say that he believed that there is something inherently wrong with the City of Branson using taxpayer funds, and the future tax revenues of other taxing entities, without their approval, to constantly feed its own economic growth at the expense of its neighbors and the orderly and efficient development elsewhere in the county? Then, to everyone’s surprise, Friar Tuck said, “He just might have a point, if the City of Branson wants to obligate its own future tax revenues that’s one thing, but when it does so at the expense of other taxing entities, without their consent, that is something else.”

Bobblin Hood came out of his seat incensed and pointed out that the City didn’t even have enough money to make sure that the access to the city’s only emergency room was maintained as they built their new $400 million dollar plus project in down town Branson. He asked, “How else are we going to get enough money to keep neighboring communities, and the county itself, from developing and having economic independence from the City of Branson if we don’t confiscate the county’s future tax revenues and use them for our own benefit?

Little Jon, who in stature is not little at all, got all red faced as he agreed and said, “If we don’t do this those businesses will go to Hollister and we can’t have that.” With Bobblin Hood bobbing his head in agreement, Little Jon went on to point out that if that happened there was the potential that revenue, businesses, and opportunities for economic growth might trickle down to other areas of Taney County besides Branson. He then asked, “If that happened, Branson would no longer be able to tell everyone else in the county how dependent they were on Branson?”

Bobblin Hood chimed in and asked, “Besides, how could the county and the rest of the area govern itself without the omnipotent overseeing of this merry band and, of course, its very humble leader? What would the masses do without us? It’s for their own good that we must confiscate their future tax revenues.”

In terms of daily living, the word “honor” does not come up much and yet, in one form or another, it influences just about every aspect of daily life. As an example, what would happen if people did not honor traffic laws, traffic lights, and stop signs? Wouldn’t that make the drive to work or school a little more exciting than it should be? What happens to people, families, and businesses when they fail to honor their commitments and obligations? Generally, not much that is positive.

Each of those situations represents a different definition of “honor.” The case of the stop sign illustrates the “respect for” definition. Honesty doesn’t play a big part in why people stop at stop signs or obey traffic laws; rather it is the respect for, among other things, the law, personal safety, and potential fines and penalties that influences their decision.

The failure to honor commitments and obligations relates to the “personal integrity” definition of honor. Honesty, being truthful in what you say and do, is an integral and necessary component of this type of honor, in fact, without honesty there is no personal integrity or honor.

Now here’s the tricky part, except for the one person who taught us the meaning of honesty when He said, “Let your ‘yes’ be yes and your ‘no’ be no,” all have been dishonest. At one time or another, for good reason or bad, to protect themselves or someone else, or for the convenience of the moment, all have, to some degree, lied or failed to do that which they said they would do.

Does that make them a dishonest person? Absolutely not, any more than committing an occasional honest act makes a dishonest person an honest person. It’s not the fact that a person has done something dishonest or honest, it’s how they do it that determines whether or not they are an honest person.

That is determined by what they honor, have respect for, in the living of their daily life. Do they have a respect for the truth and keeping their commitments? Do those that know them say, that’s a person that can be trusted and depended on? Or, are they a person who has little or no respect for truth and keeping their commitments? The type of person that people say can’t be trusted or depended on?

Most would have no trouble equating the term honor with honesty while they might find it a bit like an oxymoron if used in connection with dishonesty. Yet, that doesn’t change the basic fact that it is what a person honors, has respect for, that determines whether or not they are honorable. In the final analysis there is a certain symmetry to the principle that what a person honors ultimately determines whether or not that person is honorable.

No one is born with personal integrity and honesty and it’s not an absolute or perfection thing. It’s a commitment to a way of life that can be summed up in a paraphrase of the first line of the Boy Scout Oath, “On my honor I will do my best to be honorable.” An honest person is one who, in spite of an occasional misstep, does their best to honor that which is honorable and to make sure that their “yes” means yes and their “no” means no.

An argument could be made that the ill fated attempt of Branson city officials to involuntarily annex 1024 acres of land north of Branson is a perfect illustration of what Abraham Lincoln meant when he said, “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.”

If voting is an indication of public sentiment, the results speak for themselves. There was 70 percent of the total vote against the annexation. This included about 66 percent from within the City of Branson itself against the annexation as well as 93 percent from within the area sought to be annexed.

If sentiment is defined as “an attitude, thought, or judgment prompted by feeling,” the question then becomes one of does the vote indicate a public “gut reaction” that goes beyond the annexation issue? Something that caused the public, both within and without Branson, enough concern to vote the way they did?

There are many reasons people locate outside of city limits and very few, if any, are because they want to get involved with the type of situation that the “new Branson” represents. One can only wonder how those whom the city sought to involuntarily annex felt when they first heard that the “new Branson Juggernaut” wanted to take them into the fold.

On second thought, maybe it doesn’t take too much wonderment. The 93 percent vote against the annexation by those the city wanted to annex really doesn’t leave too much to wonder about.

How are public attitudes and judgments influenced when Branson’s City Administrator, appears before the Branson school board and tells them that they will, for the first time, have to pay building fees because it would cost the city money that it could not spare? How much does that sentiment change and in what direction when, shortly thereafter, the city has an epiphany and substantially reverses its position? Is this the type of action that inspires feelings of either trust or confidence?

Is it even possible that public feelings toward Branson city officials could be influenced by the priority that they have given to the fountains in Branson Landing as compared to insuring that access to the areas only emergency room was not impeded by the city’s routing of Branson Landing traffic? Comparatively speaking, how much has the city spent on fountains? On maintaining ready access to the emergency room?

Is there any impact on public sentiment when the city administrator and board of aldermen vote to take millions of dollars from other taxing entities just to make sure that big box stores come to Branson rather than to a neighboring community in the county? What would be the attitude of the property owners within Taney County, including those living within the city limits of Branson, if the county had to start collecting real estate taxes to make up for the loss in revenues caused by Branson’s indiscriminate abuse of Tax Increment Financing?

At this point, one can only wonder about the sentiment of Branson’s existing stakeholders as they watch millions of taxpayer dollars being spent to develop the very competition that will compete against them for the visitors that their efforts and funding developed. What is the public sentiment of the city’s existing retail base as to its ability to withstand a 20 percent “hit” over the next two years?

Perhaps the lesson to be learned from the election is in a warning attributed to Abraham Lincoln. He said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

In Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” a sailor surrounded by salt water that he couldn’t drink said, “Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink.” Paraphrased that could become the slogan for the new Branson, “Millions, millions for the new Branson, nor a dollar for Branson.”

What is the difference between the “new Branson” and “Branson?” In a word it’s “character.” Economically, “Branson” was built by families who literally invested their lives and fortunes to build it. As they did so they enhanced Branson while preserving its character and essence.

Perhaps as important as what they built was the way they built it, with commitment, respect for each other, their neighbors, and by taking, upon themselves, the personal responsibility to pay for what they were building. Along with building Branson economically, they demonstrated the type of citizenship that provided the schools, infrastructure, and environment that made Branson the type of place that people would not only enjoy visiting but want live.

The “new Branson” is being built by developers and “Wally-World” big box stores who want to invest as little of their money as possible. Its very success appears to be not only built on the backs of those who built Branson and Branson’s current businesses, but in changing the character and essence of Branson. Didn’t a national magazine recently report that a major mover and shaker involved with the new Branson indicated that one of the goals for the “new Branson” is to physically shift “Branson’s center of gravity towards” the the new Branson?

It seems that the major commitment of the new Branson is to get the City of Branson to give them millions upon millions of dollars so that it can build stores, restaurants, lodging and entertainment facilities that will compete directly with Branson’s existing similar facilities. And, it seems, over the last few years, that the new Branson has found a money “honey hole” in the Branson Board of Aldermen and Branson’s current City Administrator.

Millions upon millions of dollars has been and is being spent to develop the new Branson while how many millions is being spent to help the Branson upon whose backs the new Branson is being built? For example, how many dollars has the city allocated over the past five years, or the next ten years, to solve the problem of getting pedestrians safely from one side of the Branson Strip to the other?

How much respect does the building of the new Branson show to Branson’s existing “stakeholders” and businesses while it uses taxpayer funds to finance and reimburse it for the cost of developing the new Branson that will compete against them? How respectful is it to obligate the future tax revenues of Taney County, the Branson School District, and the Branson/Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District without not only their consent but against their expressed wishes?

Of course, the respect shown to Branson’s neighbors by the new Branson, as it spends millions of taxpayer dollars just to keep stores from going elsewhere, besides the new Branson, speaks for itself. It speaks not only in terms of greed but in the actual cost to all who live in Branson and Taney County. How many millions of dollars are the residents of Taney County, including those living within the city limits of Branson, going to pay so that stores like “Wally – World” will be located in the new Branson instead of elsewhere in the county?

Where would Branson be today if those who built it only took on the personal responsibility of paying for it only when taxpayer funds were used to reimburse them for 35 percent of the cost of what it was they were building? Exactly what is the percentage of the total cost of the Branson Hills redevelopment project that the developer is being reimbursed for with taxpayer funded TIF funds?

In the new Branson, the City of Branson conveys information to its school district indicating that it will be charging the district about $85,000 in building fees for current and near term building projects; something that Branson has not done before. What is the rationale for the change? According to published reports, Terry Dody, Branson City Administrator, indicated that it was because it would cost the city money that it could not spare. Ah yes, “Millions, millions for the new Branson, nor a dollar for Branson” or evidently, its schools. Welcome to the “new Branson.”

When the framers of our nations Declaration of Independence made their commitment to its principles they said, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Yet even as they signed their names, it was the commitment of Soldiers at places like Lexington, Concord, Ticonderoga, and Bunker Hill that breathed the very meaning into its words and provided the hope of realizing its promise.

From Valley Forge to Yorktown, it was the commitment of its Soldiers that won America its freedom and from Yorktown to Iraq it has been the commitment of her Soldiers that has preserved that freedom. Without that commitment, the Declaration of Independence would have been just another piece of paper, America would not have come into existence, long endured, or have had any hope for a peaceful and successful future.

It is a sad fact of life that the politicians, and those in power, start wars and that it is the Soldiers, their families, and the people of the nations they represent who bleed, die, suffer, and otherwise pay the price of war. It’s an amazing thing that a nation can send its sons and daughters off to bleed and die in a war even while it debates whether or not it should have gotten into that war in the first place and how long it will stay in it. What a strange dichotomy; the very freedoms that our Soldiers are fighting for end up providing aide and comfort to the very enemy they are fighting.

Yet, in spite of this, each day our Soldiers pay the price of war and do their duty. And what a price it is, a price not only in lives lost but bodies, lives, and families maimed forever, both physically and mentally. How can they do it day after day, particularly when, at times, it seems that the nation they are fighting for is divided on its commitment to the very war they are fighting?

Why would they risk their very lives and be willing to pay the “price” in the face of, not only, such indecisiveness but actions that just plain make their job more dangerous? An Ole Seagull would suggest that it is because of their “commitment,” being true to their word, to an oath taken, their fellow Soldiers, and honor, the Soldier’s Commitment.