Questions on Branson Area East West Corridor

On April 7, Taney County voters will have an opportunity to vote on whether or not to authorize up to a quarter of a cent additional retail sales tax to build a road, known as the East West Corridor (EWC). According to the ballot language the ECW will run from near the intersection of East Highway 76 and J Highway to U.S Highway 65 at the Hollister interchange just south of Branson. One could get the impression that if the voters approve the tax that the whole amount would go towards financing the EWC and that the EWC will provide a “straight” connection with the interchange, but, in terms of practical reality, is that the case?

In following all the news reports on the EWC the Ole Seagull has not noticed any substantive comment on the effect of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) on the financing of the EWC. In Branson alone won’t the TIF will eat up one half of the taxes collected at Branson Landing and Branson Hills, including Wal-Mart, Target etc?

If that is the case, only $.50 of every dollar collected at either Branson Landing or Branson Hills will go to pay for the EWC and the other $.50 of it will go to pay off Branson’s TIFs. The Ole Seagull hasn’t read anything about the potential impact of Hollister’s TIF’s on the project. Does that mean there isn’t any?
Doesn’t the “straight line” of the EWC kind of turn into a “zig zag” at its eastern end at the intersection of Birch? Won’t there be some sort of traffic control signal put in at that point? Isn’t there a little zig to another traffic signal at Industrial and the U.S. Highway 65 and a “zag” to another traffic signal actually controlling entry and exiting from U.S. Highway 65? Has any recognized government study been conducted on how the “zigzag” could impact traffic flow?

Is there any recognized government study establishing the need for the EWC that takes into consideration the improved levels of service for Highway 76 traffic that will result when the new Lake Taneycomo Bridge project is completed? Does Taney County have a prioritized list of infrastructure projects, transportation, bridges, water, sewer etc.? If so where is the EWC on that list? Is it a “need” or a “want?”

The last two questions are perhaps the most important and it is addressed to each of the Taney County Commissioners personally and individually, “In view of the current economic situation and its potential impact on the revenues of Taney County, do you believe that the building of the EWC, at this time, is the best use of limited tax payer resources?” The second is, “If the voters vote for the EWC will you guarantee that no Taney County real property taxes will be assessed against Taney County residents until the EWC is paid off?

Questions on Branson Area East West Corridor Read More »

There is a time for everything

After a decade and hundreds of columns, on March 1, and perhaps not soon enough for some, the last column of the Ole Seagull, entitled “An Ole Seagull’s last column is but a “Letter to the Editor,”’ was published in the Branson Daily Independent. Although, as a citizen of Branson, Missouri, “the live music show capital of the world,” he will attempt to continue to express his opinions on local affairs, those opinions will be expressed in “Letters to the Editor” and, on line, at “TheOleSeagull.com.”

Excerpts from the column:

He could write a lot of words about why, but in the final analysis it is simply because he thinks it is the right thing to do in terms of his current personal and business situation. Does that mean he will stop expressing his opinion?

 

For the opportunity, encouragement and help he has received over the years an Ole Seagull is eternally grateful and thankful. In terms of what he has written and how he has written it he will rely on the words Abraham Lincoln who said, “If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

 

 Click here for entire column.

 

 

 

There is a time for everything Read More »

Obama picks Biden after calling Clinton “Compromised Washington insider!”

An April 21 article in the New York Times entitled “In Push Before Vote, Obama Sharpens Tone, reported “In television commercials and in appearances before crowded rallies, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, cast his opponent in one of the most negative lights of the entire 16-month campaign, calling her a compromised Washington insider.”

 On August 23 Obama announced his selection of Senator Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate. Biden has been a Senator from Maryland for about 35 years, the sixth longest period in officer for current senators, unsuccessfully ran for President in 1998 and 2008, and is currently concurrently running for senator in 2008.

An Ole Seagull cannot help but wonder what the difference is between Clinton and Biden is in terms of being a “compromised Washington insider?” To him Biden is as much a “compromised Washington insider,” as is Clinton and more so. It would be interesting to know Obama’s definition of “compromised Washington insider” and why Mrs. Clinton meets it but Biden doesn’t or, in the alternative, why it should have been a factor in Clinton’s case but not Biden’s?

Obama picks Biden after calling Clinton “Compromised Washington insider!” Read More »

Give us a break, the City of Branson can keep the term “Dodink” but leave “Branson” alone, please!

Give us a break, the City of Branson can keep the term “Dodink” but leave “Branson” alone, please!

On Sep. 15, the attorney for the City of Branson, Paul Link, under the leadership responsibility of the City of Branson’s highest ranked unelected official, city administrator Terry Dody, sent a letter to the “Branson Sports Club, Inc., c/o Pamela Sue Dapprich, 414 Buchanan Rd., Branson, MO 65616.” In the letter Link said, “The City of Branson, Missouri owns the federally registered service mark BRANSON, MISSOURI” and that the purpose of the letter was to “protest your [her] unauthorized use [of] ‘Branson’ in connection with a business not located within the city limits of Branson, Missouri.”

Link’s letter then calls the business’s use of the common term “Branson” in its name a “deceptive trade practice” and alleges, among other things, the violation of federal statutes relating to the “false designation of geographic origin” and trademark infringement.” It goes on to say that “Within 10 days of the date of this correspondence, we expect to receive from you a written undertaking that you will formally change the name of your business to delete all references to ‘Branson.’”

But not to worry; the letter goes on to say that all can become wonderful again if Dapprich “would consent to annexation into the City of Branson when the City is ready to take you [her] in, then we would not prohibit the use of ‘Branson’ in your name.” Dapprich said that she was an outspoken opponent of the City of Branson’s recent failed attempt to force the annexation of the area that the Branson Sports Club is on into the City of Branson. She also pointed out that she had called a number of businesses with the term “Branson” in their names, located outside the city limits of the City of Branson, and that none had received a similar letter.

At about this point, to an Ole Seagull, the resulting stench is starting to grow and is eerily reminiscent of what he calls “Dodink Law.” In the instant case it’s the kind of law that appears to try to intimidate and coerce by alleging that the use of “Branson” in its name is a crime related to the “false designation of geographic origin” even while ignoring the fact that the very letter making the allegation is being mailed to a specific “Branson, MO” address.

It’s the type of law where the City of Branson can take, what it alleges is a proper service mark, “BRANSON, MISSOURI,” and say that it gives them the right to prohibit the use of the single word “Branson.” What’s next, a prohibition against a business using the word “Missouri” in their business title if they don’t meet some condition that the City of Branson establishes?

Dodink Law appears to delight in going after individual small businesses; it intimidates and coerces them to give into the demands of the city or face the alternative of fighting its unlimited resources and people, like Dody and Link, who receive their fat salaries regardless. It’s a choice that causes a lot of small businesses to give in simply because they don’t have the time or money to fight “city hall.” One can only wonder, although not for too long because of the obvious, why the City of Branson didn’t go for the maximum deterrent effect by sending letters to the City of “Branson” West and the owners of the Showboat “Branson” Belle with the same demands.

Was it because they would have probably told the City of Branson what to do with their demands? Surely the failure to do so had nothing to do with the fact that they have the resources to, not only fight them on its frivolous assertion that, based on the alleged validity of having the service mark “BRANSON, MISSOURI,” it also has the right to the term “Branson” but to challenge the validity of the City of Branson even being able to register the term “BRANSON, MISSOURI.”

Isn’t “Branson” a surname and the name of the post office that Ruben S. Branson started decades before there ever was a City of Branson? Would not most people say that the term “Branson, Missouri” is a post office address or is “primarily geographically descriptive?”

“Branson’s” biggest and longest running attraction, Silver Dollar City, is located where? Oh, and last but not least, doesn’t the fact that the City of Branson’s registration for the service mark upon which its letter is based, Registration Number 2594679, contains a disclaimer stating that, “No claim is made to the exclusive right to use ‘Branson, Missouri’…” mean, at least as to the service mark covered under that registration, that any one is free to use those phrases as is otherwise permitted?

Republished with the permission of the Branson Courier.

Give us a break, the City of Branson can keep the term “Dodink” but leave “Branson” alone, please! Read More »

Keeping an “opinion columnist” in perspective

The Ole Seagulls columns, appearing in the Sunday edition of the Branson Daily Independent and on line in the Branson Courier, normally involve the happenings of small town America, as illustrated by life in Branson, Missouri. His September 24 column, entitled “At least ten things that the Ole Seagull is positive about,” contains an interesting perspective on what an “opinion columnist” is and their value to their readers. For the most part that perspective is discussed under “positives” 1 and 10.

Keeping an “opinion columnist” in perspective Read More »

“The vestige of slavery that has divided our nation for all these years” is?

Can someone help an Ole Seagull understand exactly how the movement for reparation, payment of some sort, to today’s black Americans by the rest of today’s Americans because of slavery in America’s past, does anything but help divide our nation? Is the term “African American” a term of unification or division? Does it not remind all Americans “of the vestige of slavery?”

These and other questions came to mind as the Ole Seagull read a recent Associated Press story by David A. Lieb entitled, “Mo. to Fly Confederate Flag.” The story quoted Mary Ratliff, president of the Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as saying, “It is just appalling to me that the governor would again raise a flag that is so humiliating and reminds us of the vestige of slavery that has divided our nation for all these years.”

According to the story the governor had “ordered that the Confederate flag be flown Sunday [June 5] at a state cemetery where former rebel soldiers were buried, a move denounced by black leaders.” The story was very clear that the flag would be flown “for one day at the Confederate Memorial State Historic Site in Higginsville, where a service is planned to mark Confederate Memorial Day.”

Will someone give an Ole Seagull a break here, what “reminds us of the vestiges of slavery that has divided our nation for all these years” more? Is it a Confederate battle flag waving from a flag pole at a Confederate Memorial State Historic Site or the constant reminder of slavery in America’s past that Ratliff, the NAACP, and some black leaders use to imply that today’s black Americans are owed something because their ancestors were slaves?

No right thinking person can condone slavery or the concept that one person can be another person’s property. That’s why, were the Ole Seagull a betting Seagull, he would bet that about as many non black Americans living in America today own slaves as there are black Americans living in America today who are or were slaves.

Is it totally inappropriate to suggest that it is the constant reminder of slavery in America’s past, in the attempt to obtain preferential treatment and economic advantage for today’s black Americans, at the expense of, among others, today’s white Americans, that divides this nation far more than the display of the Confederate battle flag. Comparatively speaking, exactly how divisive to our nation is the display of the Confederate battle flag for one day, over the graves of Confederate soldiers “at the Confederate Memorial State Historic Site,” in connection with a service “to mark Confederate Memorial Day?”

Is it as divisive to our nation as was the practice of bussing? Might some Americans view the practice of affirmative action where, among others, black Americans are given preferential treatment over white Americans, merely because of the color of their skin, as divisive?

It’s an amazing thing to an Ole Seagull how those who call themselves “African Americans,” instead of just “Americans,” can talk about being either reminded about the vestige of slavery or something being divisive. Was not slavery a well established institution in Africa before European traders arrived? Was it Americans who enslaved black Africans or was it their fellow black Africans?

History testifies to the fact that it was black Africans who enslaved their fellow black Africans. Then, after enslaving them, they sold their slaves to, among others, European slave traders and transported the purchased slaves out to the slave ships.

In terms of black Americans not being reminded about “the vestige of slavery that has divided our nation for all these years” may an Ole Seagull make a suggestion? Why not put the same effort that is currently being expended against the display of the Confederate battle flag, in not just in this situation but nation wide, into encouraging black Americans to use the term “American” rather than “African American?”

“Ah Seagull, is that politically correct?”

“That depends on who is determining what is politically correct.”

An Ole Seagull would echo the words of Abraham Lincoln. He said, “I do the very best I know how – the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

“The vestige of slavery that has divided our nation for all these years” is? Read More »

Are they heroes or cheaters?

A Mar. 18 AP story entitled “McGwire Evades Questions on Steroids Use” reported, “In a room filled with humbled heroes, Mark McGwire hemmed and hawed the most. His voice choked with emotion, his eyes nearly filled with tears, time after time he refused to answer the question everyone wanted to know: Did he take illegal steroids when he hit a then-record 70 home runs in 1998…” In an Ole Seagull’s opinion one would have to be a hero first to be a “humbled hero.” Based on the actions described in this and other articles one could wonder if the term should have been “humbled caught cheaters” instead or if their “records” are really records at all.

Are they heroes or cheaters? Read More »

You don’t have to be a racist to be offended by Ward Hill’s 9-11 comments

A Denver Post article published on Feb. 3, entitled, “Regents won’t fire Churchill” said “The American Indian Movement of Colorado, which counts Churchill as one of its leaders, also entered the fray Wednesday, saying in a statement that Churchill ‘is under attack by racists who would prefer to silence indigenous voices altogether.’” Give me a break, does one have to be a racist to be offended by the comments of Wade Churchill in his essay, entitled “Some People Push Back,” wherein he called those killed at the World Trade Center on 9-11 “little Eichmanns?”

You don’t have to be a racist to be offended by Ward Hill’s 9-11 comments Read More »

Ward Churchill- proof positive “Be careful what you ask for you just might get it!

Shortly after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on 9-11, Professor Ward Churchill, of the University of Colorado, wrote a essay entitled “Some People Push Back,” containing his perceptions about why the attack took place and what it bodes for the future. To an Ole Seagull, statements such as “If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.,” indicate he could be a few slices short of a full loaf. Oh, well, interested or not, he’s “hearing about it!

Ward Churchill- proof positive “Be careful what you ask for you just might get it! Read More »