General

The Ole Seagull has seen Branson shows fail because they did not have a product that met the expectations of our guests, let the quality of their show deteriorate, did not have the financing to either market or keep the show going until it grew to maturity within the Branson market, poor management decisions and, marketing funds or not, simply had an inadequate marketing program. He has never seen a show fail because of Branson Landing or the “free shows” it offers. …

Chances are that Branson shows are helped by Branson Landing and none will fail because of itRead More »

Federal Judge Barbara B. Crabb could serve as the “Poster Child” for a constitutional amendment requiring all federal judges, including the U.S. supreme court justices, to go through a retention election every four years. …

Crabb could serve as poster child for “retention vote” Constitutional AmendmentRead More »

To Christians, Christmas is both a commemoration and celebration of the fact that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” If however, that first Christmas was all there was, there would be little reason for anyone to believe in Jesus and the promise of eternal life would be lost to all. But that’s not all there was. …

But that’s not all there was, He has risen!Read More »

Joel Manby, the president and CEO of Herschend Family Entertainment (HFE), will be the “Undercover Boss” on tonight’s episode of the new CBS hit reality show, “Undercover Boss.” The underlying premise of the show is that a high level company executive goes “undercover” within their company at the “worker bee level” …

CBS’s “Undercover Boss” reveals Branson’s real “undercover boss”Read More »

There have been those who have been upset with what the Ole Seagull has written about the alleged agreement between the city and the airport and start out conversations with words such as “Why are you against the airport?” Being against the unconscionable agreement that the pre 2007 board and administration tried to saddle the city with is …

Branson Airport and free shows at Branson LandingRead More »

Ever since the words “Where’s the beef” were first spoken by actress Clara Peller, in a Wendy’s commercial in 1984 to point out that a hamburger should be more beef than bun, they have taken on almost iconic status. An Ole Seagull would ask “Where’s the beef” for the following questions or statements that he has heard recently.  His opinion, follows each.

“Branson shows and attractions shoot themselves in the foot when they ‘dumb’ down their ticket prices.” “The beef” for this one is prevalent. It breaks an Ole Seagull’s heart when he sees tickets representing the personal cash investment, sweat, blood, anguish and talent of some of the greatest entertainers and talent he has ever seen being sold at places other than their theatres at prices far lower than the theatre providing the entertainment is selling the same tickets. It’s one thing to offer a couple of bucks off a ticket, but where’s “the beef” in terms of getting anywhere near the full ticket price if your show is advertised somewhere else on a list of shows with up to 50 percent off?

“With our airport now being serviced by Frontier and AirTran Airways over 100 cities can access this great destination [Branson] from around the country.” The Ole Seagull has lived in Branson for about 24 years now and one of the reasons he moved here initially was because Branson had air access to 100s of destinations. Whoops, bad Seagull, that access doesn’t count anymore because it was through the airport that he believes, with the blessing of the Branson community, was renamed the “Springfield Branson National Airport (SGF).” On April 20 there will be how many United flights to SFG and how many Frontier flights to the Branson Airport (BKG)?

“The taxpayers of the city of Branson are not legally responsible for the TIF indebtedness of Branson Landing.” It’s interesting how many people still believe that even though, as soon as a former Branson City Administrator said words to that effect in a public meeting, the city’s own bond attorney immediately and publicly pointed out the practical fallacy of the statement. An Ole Seagull believes that the lack of “beef” in that regard will soon become apparent to all.

“Would we have the increase in tourists after 2005 without the Landing?” A rhetorical question posed to the Ole Seagull. The Ole Seagulls answer would be “Such as it has been in these challenging economic times absolutely!” The Ole Seagull knows someone else asked first, but let’s rephrase the question, “Would we have the increase in tourists after 2005 if the voters had not approved the 1% retail sales tax for marketing in Nov. of 2005? As neat a place as Branson Landing is, how many people would get to Branson Landing or many of the Branson’s other great shows, attractions, and activities if they were not aware of and sold on “Branson” first?

Silver Dollar City and the other properties owned by the Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation (HFE), White Water and the Showboat Branson Belle and their superb marketing cause more people to chose Branson as their travel/vacation destination than Branson Landing, the Branson Convention Center and the new Branson Airport combined.” This is a compilation of comments of things that different people have said and the only “beef” the Ole Seagull has to back that up is his opinion and belief that the statement is true.

That’s sad. With the tens of millions that have been spent on market and research why isn’t there the “beef” showing more specific data about specific shows, attractions, and other things that cause people to decide to visit Branson? One thing for certain, Silver Dollar City, the Herschend family and organization have been doing it right for 50 years. Happy Birthday and thank you!

Let’s go with the good news first, the city of Branson got a clean bill of health on its handling of the Branson Landing flood plain issues from FEMA. Among other things FEMA said that Buildings 1 through 6 in Branson Landing “are reasonably safe from flooding.”

What then could the bad news be? Those are the building on the west side of Branson Landing. In fact there was some flooding to the lower levels of the building on the east side during the Spring 2008 Floods. It was the type of flooding that was anticipated when the Landing was built and it was basically handled as anticipated.

“Well, that’s not bad news that’s good news.” Absolutely, but the thing to keep in mind is that in terms of the water that could be released from Table Rock Dam’s 10 gates, only the equivalent of less than one of its ten gates was released during the 2008 Spring Floods. There is a capability of releasing 515,000 cubic feet of water per second (cfs) with all 10 gates and four generators. During the 2008 event less than 50,000 cfs was released yet, it flooded homes and the lower levels of the eastern side of Branson Landing.

Here we are two years and a “FEMA Scrutiny later” with buildings that “are reasonably safe from flooding” at Branson Landing, but a downtown Branson area and areas in the surrounding community that have no such assurances. What is “reasonably safe?”

Who really knows? One thing that could be done however, is have maps of Branson Landing, down town Branson including the Convention Center and the areas along Lake Taneycomo and its tributaries that clearly and simply show the areas that would be covered by water released from the dam at 50k cfs, 100k cfs, 150k cfs, 200k cfs, 250k cfs, 300k cfs, 350k cfs, 400k cfs 450k cfs, 500k cfs levels.

Will the water ever get that high? Who knows. Until April of 2008 the water had never been as high as it got since the dam was built, but it got there. There is a reason there are 10 gates and eight auxiliary gates at the dam. It would be interesting to see just how high the water would be in Branson Landing and other areas with a 300,000 cfs release.

Oh, and speaking of interesting, does anyone know what formal action the Branson Board of Aldermen, Hollister Board of Aldermen or Taney County Commission have taken to look into what, if anything, they can do to mitigate the consequences of future flooding like the 2008 event? Were an Ole Seagull a betting bird he would say that the answer would be pretty close to zero.

On the other hand, why be proactive when most people will settle for reactive? In the unlikely event of another flood like 2008, or worse, they’ll give us the same platitudes they did in 2008 and we’ll soon forget until the next time.

However, it would be interesting to know just how high the water would get in Branson Landing, Hollister, downtown Branson and other areas along Lake Taneycomo if 300,000 cfs were released from Table Rock Dam. On second thought, do we really want to know? Isn’t ignorance bliss?

At the outset, let’s make one thing perfectly clear, the issue is not about the Branson Airport whether its good or bad, should have been built or not etc. It’s about a contract that has the potential to cost the taxpayers of the city of Branson up to $2 million dollars per year for 30 years. A contract that is so one-sided and unconscionable on its face that most objective people looking at it would say, “Wow, what a gift for the airport. The city pays up to $60 million to the airport to spend without restrictions of any kind simply for running their business?” Others might ask, “How can I get the same type of deal?”

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, up until the Jan. 12 Branson Board of Aldermen meeting, the stench of the Branson Airport Contract, “negotiated” under the regime of former City Administrator Terry Dody and what the Ole Seagull refers to as his “merry band of men,” had not tainted the new administration and board that has developed since the 2007 elections. To an Ole Seagull that contract is the perfect illustration of the arrogance and attitude of a city leadership that, whether it was claiming the right to the name “Branson,” authorizing 25 story buildings, or using its power and authority to impede the rights of citizens to speak freely at public meetings, did what they wanted to and when they wanted to with impunity up until the 2007 elections.

There are relatively few times in a person’s life time when they have a second opportunity to right an obvious wrong. The current Mayor, staff, and Board of Aldermen were presented with just such an opportunity. While obviously only a judge can determine the legality of a contract and how it is being performed, the city recently paid tens of thousands of dollars to get two different legal opinions on the contract. In general they both agreed that the current contract was not legal or enforceable as written.

The current board and  administration had an opportunity to correct a wrong. One way would have been by simply telling the Branson Airport, “We don’t believe the agreement is legal or enforceable and do not intend to pay one red cent under its provisions.” Another could have been by saying “We don’t believe the agreement is legal or enforceable, but we would be willing to work with you to see if we can negotiate an agreement that would be fair to both parties, limit the payment of any city funds to the first time a passenger flies into Branson excluding subsequent trips and addressing other concerns the city or community might have.”

Instead, after about a year of closed door discussions on the matter and being informed of the legal opinions as to the illegality of the contract what does the board and mayor do? It passes a resolution reading, “The Board of Aldermen hereby authorizes payment in the amount of $77,101.68 for the first quarter billing as identified and recommended by the City’s Auditor, subject to the modification of the Pay for Performance agreement allowing payments to the Branson Airport Transportation Development District.”

By that simple action, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, the board and mayor chose to taint themselves with the stench from the Branson Airport Contract. Instead of doing the honorable thing and calling the Branson Airport Agreement the one-sided unconscionable and illegal agreement it is, the city appears to be trying to launder the payments through another entity, not a party to the contract, in an attempt to make something they have been advised is illegal legal and, in doing so, appears to give the appearance of ratifying the contract.

To their credit Alderman Rick Davis, Sandra Williams, and Chris Bohinc voted against the resolution while Aldermen Bob Simmons, Mike Booth, and Rick Todd voted for it and surprisingly, Mayor Raeanne Presley broke the tie by voting for it. It has been said this is just the beginning of the process and public discussion on the issue.

To an Ole Seagull, the resolution itself and the fact that the issue has been discussed for over a year without public participation speaks volumes about how close to the beginning of the process things and the value that was put on public input. Who was it that said, “The more things change the more they stay the same?”