Commercial Real Estate in Branson, Missouri

The Logic of Landlord

2011-11-28T12:31:00.000-06:00

The intricacies of the logic of most landlord is at first easy to envision. A landlord wants a return on and of his investment over the period of time they own the property. Now that being said there are many myths that a Tenant should dismiss.

Myth #1, An empty space is ALWAYS a terrible thing and the Landlord should take a very low offer of rent, rather than leave it empty.

The fact is the prudent Landlord has foreseen the potential for vacancies and has prepared for it. A landlord will find that accepting an offer for 40 or 50% less than the market rents, just to fill a vacancy will accomplish several negative results for the landlord and the property.
First and most obvious is the reduction in annual net revenue. 50% rent reduction for one space will take 6 month to recuperate each fiscal year. This means the Landlord could leave the space vacant for as much as 18 months while looking for a fair market tenant willing to sign a 3 year lease, rather than sign a lease, only to have a space filled.
Another result of accepting a low rent for space in a multi-tenanted property is it may, in effect, lower the "normal" market rents, therefore, lowering the rent in subsequent vacancies and in some cases even existing leases. Once a rent is accepted, it often becomes known by the market in general, or the very nature of the type of tenant the Landlord accepted a low rent from will reduce the viability of the balance of the Landlords building. More knowledgeable prospective tenants will know what a certain industry is capable of paying for space. They can then deduce that rent for some tenants is significantly less.
Yet another probable effect of accepting a low rent is the overall value of the building is reduced significantly more due to the net revenue reduction, than by having a vacancy. Potential buyers/investors for the property will give more credit for a vacancies potential than the lower rents will actually realize. Investment real estate is valued based upon the quality and quantity of the net cash flow. A 40% reduction from market rents will reduce the value of the building by 40%, while a 40% vacancy in itself will not reduce the value nearly as much, unless the market is also factored into the equation. While the building may not be for sale at this time the original fact is still very relevant: A Landlord wants a return ON (income over and above his investment) and OF (sales proceeds returning the original purchase or cost) his investment.

Myth # 2, Rent a Landlord receives is really all profit because he still has the building after the lease is completed.

Most Landlords have equity in the building they own. Many have a significant mortgage on the property. Often after paying the Landlord itself a fair return on the equity investment and the mortgage (along with the return the bank requires – i.e. interest), the Landlord will make very little "Profit" from the rents it collects.

Myth #3, Landlords always want the most rent they can get and don’t really care what the tenant’s issues are or who they are.

While this can be a true statement, most prudent Landlords are exactly the opposite. A good Landlord will want a fair market rent for it’s property. A multi tenant building Landlord will want his tenant mix (the types of businesses) to be very well thought out and effective. To give an extreme example for demonstration purposes, If a Landlord has an anchor tenant with the use being a moderately priced family dinning restaurant, an any sex hair salon, and a general dollar store, that Landlord will most likely search and give preference to such other businesses as a children’s or ladies clothing store, an electronics boutique, a tanning and nail salon or possibly a video rental business because any of these type tenants will feed and feed off of the existing tenants, thus making all tenants enjoy a better business and not encouraging them to leave when the lease renewal time comes. On the other hand the Landlord would most likely not show preference to a business that would either deter consumers from frequenting those existing tenants or even those that would not increase the potential of the existing tenants. For example, an adult bookstore, a pawn shop, a barber shop, an accounting firm, or even a very exclusive art gallery. While all these establishments are very possibly good tenants, they would not be the best choice for this building. The more obvious conflicts might be the adult bookstore could alienate the existing tenants and their customers, and the pawn shop often (but not always) demonstrates a declining neighborhood and could cause a reduction in the current trade, or at least shift the demographics of the clientele. One that is a little less obvious would be the accounting firm. While such a professional business would not alienate the current tenants or their customers, it would also not likely add anything to the mix. Finally, the barbershop would directly compete with the any sex hair salon, which may very well not be listed in the lease as an exclusive but would likely reduce the business of the existing tenant and simultaneously not maximize the potential of the new tenant. Both are likely to want to move by the end of their lease.

Myth #4, The longer a tenant signs a lease for, the lower the rent should be. AND, the more space the Tenant signs a lease for, the lower the rent should be.

While to some extent this is possible, some interesting points should be made. Many things must be taken into consideration when the length of a lease or the size of a Tenant’s space is considered, that at first glance seem irrelevant.
First, the length of the lease; Most retail Landlords understand that a term must be long enough to reduce the continual turn over of tenants in a building. Tenants moving in and out will tend to reduce the viability PERCEPTION of the building and it’s location. So often a Landlord will be happy to negotiate a slightly better rent for a longer term lease. However, it is also true that real estate markets change. Often a Landlord will willingly accept a 3 year lease from a neighborhood type tenant, but will fret a little when they expect a reduction in rate as a trade for a 5 year lease. This is overcome by establishing some formula for rate increases over the period of time if the expectation of market increases is strong.
Now regarding the size of the space. Unless the building as a whole is the indicated lease space, a Landlord must look at the potential of replacing the tenant in the future. Should the landlord allow a tenant to combine several spaces into one and occupy a large percentage of the building, that Landlord must weight the possibilities of default on the lease and eventual termination of the lease very heavily. While the immediate gratification of leasing such a large space is significant, the unforeseen negative ramifications are often horrible. What will the chances be for replacing the tenant later be? What will the new tenant’s effect be on the rest of the buildings current or future prospective tenants? What will the reduced rent for the larger space do to the net revenue stream of the building and does that combined with the potential higher risk decrease the value of the building?

There are many other perceptions and Myths regarding the Landlord and it’s investment, and there are many truths. As one might surmise the individual landlord and their specific investment goals are very often a determining factor in many decisions made regarding the rental rate, the tenant mix and other terms a landlord will accept.

One very important idea to keep in mind as a potential tenant, is that a Landlord is only a business owner. The Landlords product that it sells is space. Space sold for a given time and under a given set of terms. With that in mind try assuming that the Landlord sells shoes, or cuts hair or rents automobiles, while some negotiations are possible with these type products, most people would not presume to make the same assumptions as they often do when looking for space in a small shopping center. Just how much care would be taken by a barber who just agreed to cut your hair for ½ price? As with most things in life and business, the old adage of "You get what you pay for" seems very appropriate.

A good Landlord will desire stable tenants who pay as close to market rents as possible. They will look for a tenant that will enhance the traffic to the shopping center, mix well with the other tenant types, and stay put for a while. Not-so-good Landlords are looking for only the highest rents no matter what the rest of the story is. Those Landlords only benefit on the short term. That does not tend to support stability and will eventually negatively effect the value of the property.

Next, We look into the "Logic of a Tenant"

.

Announcement

2011-10-25T10:22:00.001-05:00

It has been so busy around the office this past couple weeks I was very remiss in not writing a post about the next topic....

My fantastic business partner Steve Critchfield has completed several years of study and passed the necessary tests as well as turned in a thesis resume' to finally obtain his CCIM designation!

Those of you out there who follow advanced REALTOR designations will know of this huge accomplishment this is. Those of you who don't know it entails hundreds of graduate level class hours as well as many hours of work developing and writing narratives that demonstrate actual expertise in our field. There are only a very small percentage of commercial practitioners who have succeeded in obtaining this designation and it often take years and years of work.

Congratulation to my esteemed business partner Mr. Stephen Critchfield, CCIM.

Spend, Spend, Spend.....

2011-09-06T10:29:00.001-05:00

Many of you who have followed our writings have certainly noticed a lack of entries of late. Sorry. It has been busy trying to keep our heads above water. It seems the city has been equally busy. Or, at least we will give them that excuse. Thus far they have managed to insult the owners of a major new potential employer. Cast aspersions upon their favorite whipping boy the Branson Airport and of course spent money needlessly and wastefully.

As far as the money spending goes, there may be a light at the end of the tunnel. It seem the 11 million dollar savings account handed over to the Mayor and her band of marry followers is nearing a zero balance. Not to worry though, we have a great list of accomplishments...

Purchase: 7.5 acres surrounded by city park with virtually no available access and the remnants of an old cabin and shed. Inquires into the value of this fine parcel of historic preservation with several local licensed appraisers sheds a little light. The city paid some $239,000 for what amounts to a $40, 000 value. But the view is wonderful.

Purchase: $200,000 for a old school building that had been on the market for about 3 years. No idea of the actual value. It could be we got a deal. but ask now why we made the purchase and the answer seems to end up with a blank stare of bewilderment. Surely there is no need for reason or plan. Evidently we bought it because it was there.

$150,000, I mean $200,000 or I think $225,000, oh some small amount like that bought our revered kingdom a slightly modified boilerplate novel dubbed "Comprehensive Plan". See, we do need plans. We hired a company from that bastion of green space, tree hugging, anti growth, self loathing gleaming light from the west. We had a need to spend thousands educating our employee plan writers as to how unique and special our community is so they could write a few extra paragraphs and insert them into their one size fits all 20 year plan for the future. A plan that will probably cost another 11 million to start enacting. But we will all be one big happy Kumbaya singing family when we get to the finish line. Broke, but happy with plenty of hiking trails. By then perhaps the voters will tell some of our leaders to take a hike.

Several Hundred Thousand spent in investigation of the previous administrations digressions and misgivings. Yes, it seemed we were in a forever state of investigation for the first two or three years. We had experts scour the books. We had professionals reviewing contracts. We had staff auditing decisions. AND we found some very important answers. We found out that the city under previous administrations made and saved money. Yes lots of money. Nearly 11 million dollars. They had solid contracts with strong companies as partners. They had built a convention center that in spite of a nation wide, if not world wide, recession is performing at or above projections. They encouraged and aided the growth in the private sector and created many new jobs that pay more and have benefits. And much more was learned in the repeated and costly investigations. You might not ever hear the results though. Most investigations led to the results they did not want to hear. The old guard did very well and represented the city properly.

Many more thousands were spent to find out how terrible the past administrations had been in wasting money paying too much for our city employees. Survey a few towns our size around the area and compare their wages and benefits packages to those of our employees. SURVEY SAID..... Branson better start giving raises or demotions and pink slips. Seems workers out on the streets were being paid at one to three levels beneath their counterparts in other cities. Woops....

Legal fees...... Wow! I mean, Wow! Breach of contract must really be an expensive endeavor. But I digress. City of Branson legal expenses are an article if not an entire blog of its own.

Energy Make-over.... How many dollars does it take the City Aldermen to screw in a light bulb??? One Million! OK, lets see if any of you can find a calculator handy and do the math. 1,000,000 dollars and it is expected (hoped) we will save $34,000 per year. Assuming Johnny will be paying ZERO interest on the $1,000,000 loan and assuming the savings is always the government analysis's estimated savings of $34,000 and assuming the city aldermen and our Mayor do not file bankruptcy in the next few years, how many years will it be before Johnny will actually start "saving" money??? That's right about 30 years.

Other Accomplishments:

Affordable Housing - Discussed so many times it became a yawnfest of the utmost. We talked about it, we spoke on it. We dialogued about it. We hemmed and hawed about it and we consulted about it. What we did not do is define it. We also did not make any changes to our development code that would effect it positively.

Signs - Thanks to the leadership of our City board of aldermen and the Mayor, we can all safely drive down Highway 76 without seeing any obnoxious unpermitted Garage Sale signs.

Community-Neighborhood Associations - In true spirit of liberal think tank spiritualism, our alderman board has taken it upon themselves to help form community associations. It seems they do not think our citizens are capable of thinking for themselves and forming an association, unless guided by their superior intellect. In the ever foreseeable actions of this administration, we have spent months organizing and initiating groups into small units of followers. Set aside even smaller subsets of more loyal subjects as leaders and created a movement of feel good rule setting people who will now feel incentivized to show up and root on more important portions of the liberal movement headed by our leadership team in office. But we got logos and monuments out of the deal.

No-Growth and No-jobs: Four years after the famous KY3 interview. We did it. We stopped and took a breath. My biggest fear is we took our last gasping breath this year, or last. The small movements in our chest are just reflexes. So far not a soul has stood up to run for office and see if we can get just a little air pushed back into our empty lungs. I don't blame them. Who wants to be attacked by the adoring press or worse, the like of me. Who wants to volunteer for what should be a few hours a week shaking hands and cutting ribbons, only to find out the micromanagement of this administration has turned that pomp and circumstance office into an 70 hour a week hands on multi-million dollar business. Come to think of it, that is a good question. Why does anyone want and seek that position? What is in it for them? One wonders...

The Branson Comprehensive Plan (as of May 2011)

2011-05-27T12:25:00.000-05:00

I will surprise all of you today and wholeheartedly yell from the highest ridge top of no more than 18% slope that I support in theory and in many cases in reality the Branson Comprehensive Plan. Yes I love so many of the ideas that I read over the past week.

Why we have a suggestion that the City encourage renovation and replacement of old worn out properties. We have suggestion that we grow our park system by expanding trails and adding small neighborhood parks. One sentence even suggested that the land to do this be bought rather than extorted (yet I digress). It is exciting to think we all got together and want a Library System and will all work to get that accomplished, in fact the work is already underway without the help of this Comprehensive Plan.

I had planned on relating unto you readers at least four or five long paragraphs about the wonderful virtues of the Plan, but I will fall short and cut to the chase. The Comprehensive Plan is very well written, well designed, a bit long winded, and in general balanced. At least that is the plan I read. I read a one and a half inch thick document three times. I tried the first time to just read it and not try to evaluate it and not try to seek out the underlying meaning and hidden agendas. Let's face it, I do tend to do that with this administration. I tried and except for a few very blatant lefty crybaby spotted owl moments, I was successful.

I tried the second time to read it with my less than rose colored glasses on and perhaps some long winters eve I will try to identify the monstrous passages I perceived in the text. Those clauses and paragraphs that I saw as absolute abomination of the Branson Way and of course the American Way. Oh, that is in there and quite prevalent if you read it that way. Idealism and environmentalism is abundant in this novel. Idealism akin to that of a 3 year old. That absolute attitude of "I want more and you can't have any". Yes we have a bit of the old protectionism, a little touch ( or more) of Socialism, and to just tip off the top, a smidgeon of Marxism.

Then I read the document for the third time. This time I made believe we had a totally different group of people in charge of the city. I imagined we had a group of entrepreneur enabling business minds who realized the idea of bigger pie is the way to the future. They all wanted a town to grow and prosper, not just the people they went to grade school with, but all kinds of hard working business minded, pro-growth people who contribute would benefit. This perfect group of leaders wanted to produce a playing field whereby everyone had a chance to succeed and therefore help grow the economy. This wild group of leaders also understood the benefit of failures too. They encouraged new business practices and new venues, even the risky ones. They understood that growth includes setbacks as well as successes. This crazy group actually started encouraging an attitude in City Hall of customer service and aid in development.

I just have to tell you, when read with that attitude, the Comprehensive Plan is pretty palatable. In fact if we actually had that attitude, there would be no need for the plan. See, decades ago and up until recent times, this town had that attitude. Why, once I witnesses competitors welcoming competitors. I even saw companies join forces and voluntarily contribute to joint marketing plans. Motels actively sent overflow to the motels that were in need of more business. Shows and entertainers climbed on the same bus and went to small venues all over the Midwest actively marketing Branson as a summer vacation destination. YES, they did that together. If a park was needed someone donated the land. If trails were wanted, city official asked and offered something in exchange. If community outreach was a need, PEOPLE came together and served the need. Affordable housing was attained by having plenty of businesses here who needed employees, not by searching for ordinances and rules while all the while feeding the problem by slowing and even stopping the addition of those jobs.

So I said I wanted to get to the chase and then rambled for two pages. I simply love the new Comprehensive Plan. I just want a different group of people interpreting what it means.

So, lets ADOPT the plan and DIVORCE the planners.

April 2012 is nearing and we need a group of brave people ready to step up to the plate and change the way this city is being run. We need a group that will honor contracts, stop wasteful spending and rebuild the savings account this administration was given and has quickly disposed of. We need less micromanagement and more professional administrating. It is time for the doors to the community to be re-opened and someone tell the world we want them to consider Branson as their next personal home as well as business home.

Side Note:

Well it has already started. self serving interpretation, selective attention to snippets and quotes, combining just the right points of interest to further an anti-growth campaign. I have knowledge of at least two "Special Interest Group" meetings and the agendas include "USE" of the Comprehensive Plan. USE to further self serving anti competition futures. USE of certain statements that can be interpreted many different ways. More as we hear the details.

Letter to the Editor of Springfield Bussiness Journal

2011-05-12T12:46:00.000-05:00

( Sent May 12, 2011 )

Gentlemen,

I've read your coverage of the Branson Airport with interest for several months. I admit I'm an obvious Branson supporter but I must say I'm turned off by your biased reporting about this company. Normally, I believe that your reporters do a good job of being even handed and attempt to just report the story. But in this case your obvious bias often pours from the page. I don't expect you to be a cheerleader for this project, but you should at least admit that it is an interesting story as it relates to private enterprise versus total government control of a typical public enterprise.

Yes, the projections have missed their plan which was prepared during much different times. Yes the business has lost a great deal of money during this time. All fair points that must be reported. However, wouldn't it be more accurate to report that these projections were not prepared in anticipation of the worst recession we have suffered in many decades. Those projections were made....not when airlines were cutting service and markets throughout...but during the "good times" when it appeared that more service would be needed...not less. In fact, it would be interesting if you were to talk to bond people to see how many of their bonds that were issued during that same period are performing as projected. Couldn't this be included in the story, instead of making these guys sound like idiots or just out to fleece the bond holders when they did their business plan and revenue projections. How many of the other similarly timed issues are getting forbearance agreements negotiated at this time.?

As a reader I think it would be interesting to know that the airlines that are flying into Branson are making money. Frontier Airlines are reducing seats nationwide, but they are adding flights to Branson because they are flying at about 90% load factors. Department of Transportation data reports that for the second and third quarters of 2010, the Branson Airport was in the top 25 percent of all of AirTran's flights for "revenue per available seat miles"...a very important indicator for Southwest's future plans. Instead, your story makes the airport sound like it is a ghost town....when in fact you can take pictures of nearly full flights landing everyday.

I appreciate your quotes from Mr. Hynes, the aviation consultant, but don't you think that including any of the following quotes would have been accurate and balanced his opinion?

“We have an airport starting from scratch,” Hynes said. “Branson started from zero.” Hynes said in 2009, when the airport was only open eight-and-a-half months, it saw 48,167 passengers. “To get 40,000 passengers the first year was great,” Hynes said. In 2010, the airport saw 94,923 passengers. “That is a tremendous increase,” he said. Hynes estimates in 2011, the airport could see 140,000 passengers, but doesn’t expect that kind of growth rate to continue into 2012. He expects a 5-15 percent annual increase starting in 2011. The Southwest Airlines acquisition of AirTran Airways should be great news to Branson Airport. “Southwest’s acquisition is probably the greatest thing that could have happened to the airport,” Hynes said. “I think they will make Branson a mini-hub.” Couldn't you find any of these thoughts important and or intersting enough that you could have included them in your story?

I totally understand your frustration when the subject of your story won't talk with you....but that doesn't give you the right to just fill in the story based on your own opinions...or perhaps that of The Springfield Branson Airport management. As a business publication it would appear to me that you would be interested to see how much the Springfield Branson airport ticket prices have dropped since Branson began operations. I would also wonder if the millions of dollars in national advertising that the Branson community has invested in the "low cost airline service now available" message has had in the past increases in passengers in Springfield. Check out the chambers web site, it includes links to Springfield's airport as well. Won't lower cost transportation help the entire SW Missouri region? Wouldn't it be interesting to see Branson continue to add service to its airport and bring more visitors to this region? As for me, I have several businesses that will consider Branson and or this part of the state to locate their business if we can provide good low cost air service. It might even help current businesses to expand....its a much bigger story than just tourism.

Again, you don't have to be a cheerleader for this enterprise, I just think you should give the project a fair shake and at least do some fair reporting. I would expect this sort of treatment from your friends at The Newsleader, but I had higher hopes for you.

Stephen N. Critchfield
Broker/Partner
Commercial One Brokers, LLC
Branson, Missouri

WE DON’T NEED ANYMORE OF THOSE….

2011-05-09T10:15:00.000-05:00

That’s a phase that I never heard when my family and I moved to Branson in the early 90’s. In fact it seemed that every day you would look at the paper to see what new project was being announced. Of course many of those new announcements never came to pass, but many did…in fact many of those businesses play a big part in Branson today.

Today, I hear a lot of we don’t need any more of those…..fill in the blank. It seems that a lot of businesses today would rather see less new development than more. Show producers and theater owners think that fewer shows would be better rather than more…hotel operators want fewer hotel/motels and nightly rental condos than more and attractions want fewer attractions rather than more. Show producers are driving parking lots counting cars in order to see how their competition is doing. I suppose that is ok, but it seems that instead of trying to figure how to make their show better and more marketable, they would rather cut their ticket price, give the ticket outlet a bigger commission or run their competitors show down. It seems to me that we are starting to “eat our young” instead of trying to figure out how to grow the pie bigger so everyone can be more successful.

Of course the tough economy adds to these sorts of actions and it is understandable that someone who is struggling would want less competition. It is pretty amazing however to be told that your city leaders are telling possible new business owners, brokers and developers that we don’t need their business…in fact if the city official had their way they would knock down half of what we currently have. That is amazing and perhaps makes it more clear why out of state brokers, investors and developers who talk with us and appear to be excited about a new project in Branson …lose that enthusiasm a few days after returning from their visit. Could it be they talked to city hall? The city leaders use to be the first people you would send a prospect to meet. Now, you want to make sure that they don’t talk with anyone at city hall.

We’ve even been told recently by an out of state broker working with us on one of their hotel listings, that a city leader told them that they would not approve another hotel in this city and if they had their way they would knock down half of all the hotels currently in the city. Of course that shocked this hotel broker who was trying to sell a Branson property. It also shocked them that when they congratulated the city on The Branson Landing and how well it was done, they were quickly told that it was awful and a pain in the neck. One doesn’t have to like The Landing developers, but you shouldn’t constantly bad mouth people who invested over $25M in cash and another $190M in debt building a convention/retail project that would benefit the city long into the future. Nor should you treat the developers of the Branson Airport who invested many millions of their dollars and another $135+M of other investor dollars who bought bonds in order to finance this project. I’m not sure how you can believe that if you don’t live up to an agreement that you made with these people in order to help finance the project, that it would have absolutely no negative effect on the city or its future credibility. No wonder the city had to budget over $900,000 in legal fees for this operating budget. I guess they are planning on being sued some more.

Who should decide what is needed in this community. Of course there should be planning and there should be a focus on what is missing in the economy. There should be an aggressive plan to recruit those missing ingredients and a plan to help attract those missing businesses. That is how a tax base is grown, jobs are created and the community fabric is improved. The community should support and cheer for more of those kinds of businesses. But for elected officials to decide that we don’t need something is not the cities decision to make. It is the investor, their bank and their minister’s decision to make. Someone who ran for public office doesn’t make them the smartest person in the room. Someone who decides to invest their money and their partners money in a business …doesn’t make them the smartest either…..it just gives them the right to do try their idea. At least that’s how it is suppose to work for now, although it seems that both the local and federal governments want to pick the winners and losers in our economy. That is not how to grow a local or national economy.

April 4, 2011

2011-04-04T14:33:00.002-05:00

4-4-11
Been getting busy around the office. A couple leases and we even had a closing last week. I know, who would have imagined!

We still have a space available at the Grand Village and we really thought that would be at 100% this spring. Had a deal fall apart at last minute.

Space on 76 is becoming rare. One at Vista Plaza, one possible at Dixie Station and our one at Grand Village. That is about all we have available. I know about two others in older centers.

Off 76 on the north side is seeing quite a bit of action but still have plenty of space in the retail buildings as well as offices. South side is a bit tighter for the retail spaces.

that is it for a short update today 4-4-11

More Fees!

2011-04-01T08:56:00.000-05:00

Well folks another long night at City Hall meetings. It really is sad that so few showed up last night. The few there spoke up and fought hard to stop the latest in anti-business ordinances that have plagued our community these past few year. Unfortunately, it is now going to be even harder to develop in this fine city. Effective immediately, there will be an application fee of $125.00 and an 18 to 25 day wait for a permit to modify the lighting on exterior of any commercial building. It seems the good folks down at the public works department want to make sure all lighting is in accord with the newest federal regulations regarding luminary spectrum exposure rating. The application fees will be used to pay two commercial real estate brokers to use high tech modified welding goggles to evaluate the ability for light fixtures at a level of 25 feet to effectively illuminate the parking areas.

April Fools
Steve and Bob

New Blog site for REAL ESTATE posts

2011-03-28T14:19:00.000-05:00

http://comm-one-brokers.blogspot.com/

This is a link to our new blog site. We think another site with the emphasis back on the local market, our listings and real estate in general is a valuable alternative from this site. We will maintain both with this site being open for our political views and opinions, our local observations of need for change and any other points of interest to us or you our audience.

The new site will focus on real estate.It will focus on Commercial One Brokers the company,and our properties that we manage, lease and sell as well as informative bits of information. We will include news about actual transactions in town as they happen. Maybe even a few rumors will be added (if we can substantiate them enough)

The site you are looking at and have seen for some time now will remain it's very opinionated self.

Thanks,

Bob & Steve

HAVE YOU NOTICED LATELY?

2011-03-28T12:49:00.003-05:00

I wonder if anyone has noticed that our “world famous” strip….”country music boulevard” is looking pretty worn out lately. I’m sure that all the “TIF” haters will blame Branson Hills and The Landing for all of the empty buildings and closed businesses.

I wonder if the reason might be that many of these buildings were old and couldn’t support the kinds of business that are required by our new visitor. Of course the national economy no doubt played a role in helping to speed up their demise. Economics negatively affected the business owner so that he couldn’t or wouldn’t invest in the property updating and repositioning it so that it could compete. It seems properties like The Titanic, The Wax Museum, The Tracts and even The Boldnobbers, Jim Stafford and The Presley Theaters, to name a few, continue to succeed. Even The Grand Village has become one of the most successful retail developments along the strip….even as it sets next to its empty neighbor…The Grand Palace. What do these successful properties have in common? I submit that it is updating and maintaining these properties by their owners and tenants so that they will continue to appeal to our visitors and their customers.

What can be done by the city, if anything to help rectify this problem besides blaming competition for our woes? I don’t think it will help to blame those nasty developers who lost their investment in the property along Forsyth Road and who made it possible to fix a city street that was closed most of the year. By making this property usable, they had to clear some wild cotton wood samplings, cedars and other junk that now have become a city wide shrine to bad development. If those pad sites were filled today with new hotels, restaurants and shopping malls with green grass and newly planted trees and businesses that were all paying sales and property taxes, I doubt their would be as much complaining. I know the city and its’ general fund would look different to the city administration and the “bean counters”. I even think that a few hundred new jobs would have been welcomed about now.

Instead of working on positive solutions, It appears that the cities typical remedy will be more “thou shall not” zoning regulations, more hearings for special use permits by those business closed more than six months, more new sign regulations for those poor properties that are no longer “grand fathered” for their use and more fees and hearings to beg a city board or council for permission to invest in this community. I think this is called …”taking a breath” by our leaders.

As we work with other economic development agencies, commercial brokers and read our trade magazines …it appears that every state, city and hamlet is looking at ways to make their community more business friendly. They are looking at streamlining their processes, regulations and lowering fees…not to cause harm, make things less safe or less healthy but to make their community more inviting to business. By contrast, our community treats our businesses and new comers willing to invest money and time in this community as doing the city a favor by allowing them to do business here. We even recently called city hall asking for our economic development director and were politely told by the operator that she didn’t know who that person was nor what his extension was. Of course those who are uninformed and who always have to count how much is in others billfolds will cheer these “anti-growth” policies as fair and right by our leaders. I suspicion these are the same people who have already made theirs and or who are satisfied with their job and current salaries. I even suspicion that there are some in the city planning and zoning department who because of this economic slow down are looking for ways to justify their jobs to city council.

We believe that it would be even more useful to spend some time developing new financing methods, policies and procedures and marketing methods to help attract investment to our community instead of adding more regulation, fees and road blocks in addition to our new comprehensive plan…..OR HAVE YOU NOTICED?

2 more "White Papers" (Governance and Housing)

2011-02-14T17:16:00.000-06:00

White Paper #3
Governance

Well gang, we warned you way back in early October. Yes, the hired guns from Colorado asked ONE question that week at the two meetings. As far as I can remember, it was only asked once at those two meetings. I was in attendance the first night and asked why they even brought up the matter considering the published nature of the project had nothing to do with the question. I was quickly dismissed and the question was dropped. But from that one question, they looked at the clicker results or didn’t even bother, and decided an entire white paper needed to be written. This white paper seems to me to be designed to tell us all about the horrors of being a 4th class city in Missouri and the wonderful option we might have in a Charter City government.

Interestingly enough, a Charter City government will free the elected officials to have more power. It seems our current administration is not happy with the power granted them by the Missouri Constitution and the laws of Missouri, they need to be freed of those shackles. Now many of us are all in favor of self governing, but I am always a bit concerned when the cat is lobbying to be in charge of the canary cage keys. Just sayin’.

As a demonstration of the desire to control your rights and the rights of your neighbors, this document goes a bit further in describing “urban fringe development”. Now first of all, I find it a little amusing to call Branson “Urban”. Next week we will be discussing our inner city crime, but I digress. Anyhow, here is where we see the next step. The step that includes lands outside the city limits. In recent public discussions some administration officials explain that they feel that should be 5 to even 7 mile from the current city limits.

Commercial One Brokers happens to be in favor county Building codes and a more efficient and traditional Planning and Zoning in Taney county. I guess most of the county population can just wait a bit and the City will do that for us. SO, by this authority scenario, land owners outside the city, with no vote on practices inside the city regulation will be subject to those regulations. Seems to me we fought a war or two over something like this. Once again, Just sayin’.

The third part of this “White Paper” discusses how to increase taxes. We get a quick refresher in the wonders of being a Charter City and the powers that we will have unleashed if we go that route. We get a history quickie and hear about the wonderful excise tax system on developments and contractors in Kansas City, Missouri. You all know, that is the city that has no growth, it’s the one across the state line from all the new development in Kansas. I guess that’s good news for Arkansas or maybe closer to home in Hollister.

White Paper #4
Housing

16 pages most appropriately summed up in two sentences on second page near the end of the section entitled “2.0 Housing is an important local issue”

“Housing problems in Branson have traditionally been addressed by the free market rather than through extensive public efforts. The survey results and public meetings suggest that, while the city has a Housing Authority and there may be a continued role for this group, most of the suggestions for programs do not involve significant public sector programs."

I think that means we are not ready for anyone to order some new “projects” to be built in our inner city. The results make me proud to be a citizen in the community. Even if City Hall does not remember we are a bunch of boot strap puller uppers around here, the people surveyed do. If we need more housing that is affordable, it seems the 16 pages tell us we need to make the housing more affordable and the people making more money so they can afford more. If we can move the latter up and the former down. A mid range will take hold.

One way to make housing more affordable to more people is to reduce the cost of development. Le’me give you a hint. I don’t think development impact fees and excise taxes and lower density with higher amounts of green space and donated land for trails and a percentage of a project in park space will help lower any development costs. I don’t think required fire sprinklers in 1100 square foot homes with multiple doors will help with the costs. I don’t think multiple loaded utility trenches will keep costs down. And someone hoping for a roof overhead is not too worried about a concrete sidewalk on both sides the street that had expensive curb and guttered edges. Those people don’t care too much about 40 foot right of way dedicated for a 28 foot street. They would be just as happy with a 15 foot setback and would forgo the need for that long concrete driveway that crosses the right of way and the fancy sidewalk. They don’t understand a city that want to help by putting a few hundred dollar cost on hooking up to a sewer line that they then have to pay to use. They just want a roof over their heads.

Page five has a nice chart showing employment numbers in the county and this little chart may show all of you something. Seems jobs in the private sector are dropping while government jobs are on the rise. OK, anyone else see a problem or maybe some similarities?

News Flash! Service workers are in the majority and many of those are seasonal. They also seem to be the lowest paid positions in the community. Thank God we’ve got an expert from out of town to help identify the problem. They also found that Motel room occupancy drops in January and February. Who knew! And after only 8 pages we can add to what we know from above the insightful realization that our population may indeed grow and if it does grow we might need more housing for that growth.

OK, to let them off the hook a little, they do identify several potential options that could aid in the development of some workforce housing. I think they miss the mark in the cost savings arena and try a little too hard to show potential in incentives and Public/Private partnership as an answer. I think the P/P partnership thing a good concept, but typically the Public side is more of a hindrance than a helpful partner. Start by reducing the costs by being flexible on development restrictions. Smaller lot requirement, smaller road or ROW requirement and waiver of utility hook up charges are among the most effective measures to get things started.

More to come. I 'm beginning to see a trend.....

.

REMINDER

2011-02-11T10:15:00.000-06:00

Recently asked: Where do i see the comments published...

Answer: at the bottom of each blog post is a line that read:

compliments of Bob Huels at (the time) 2 comments (and a mail envelope)

Click on the gray colored "comments" if there are any they will pop open and you too can comment from that point...

I will try to figure out how to change the color of that "comment" link again.

Thanks,

Bob

2011-02-11T09:29:00.000-06:00

We received a Comment that was in four parts and quite long. Since it is hard to read long comments in some Browser Flash Windows, AND because this is such a well stated comment, I am posting it in it's entirety as one post, headings, subheadings and all (the wonders of cut and paste).

In essence the Gold part of this post is a "Guest Blogger" - our response will follow.....

Anonymous, Part One:

I am going to take this as an opportunity to blow a few chunks out. You can delete the comment if you wish.

I think that at the gut level, what really bothers me about this report is that Branson City Government has adopted the idea that it 'speaks for the Community of Branson' most of which resides outside city limits, and that Branson City Government, which actually has relatively little in common with the actual 'Branson community', in my opinion, has appointed itself as the judge of what the 'culture' representative of our community should be. I hold the opinion that it should be the Branson Community (including all of us), and not those few considered worthy of valued opinions by Branson City Government, that should decide what the community's culture should be.

This reminds me a little bit of the 'Branson Name' fiasco where Branson City Government decided it 'owned' the trade name of 'Branson' that the whole community previously thought belonged to the whole community.

The whole point of this exercise seems to be planning for the growth of the area through 2030. This growth is going to be driven and shaped by economic and cultural forces which have long since spiraled out of the control of city government. If somebody wants to build a strip club in Branson, it will be because they think there is a market for one here, in which case the need for a strip club would already be a reflection of the actual 'culture' of the community and not subject to further 'shaping' by city government.

I have been railing for probably fifteen years that the zoning code and master plan needed a major overhaul, primarily because the existing zoning code was such an impediment to quality development, so when I first heard that a process was underway, I felt encouraged. But I am so far disappointed in what I have seen.

Branson is a relatively minor and possibly insignificant part of a much larger Ozarks/Upper White River Basin region which will see some significant change in the next two decades. Its opportunities will be driven by factors far, far beyond the purview of the 'all-powerful' City of Branson, and the region's challenges, including

-endangered and limited water supplies,

-problematical wastewater treatment,

-anemic power generation capacity and fragile power distribution infrastructure,

-aging regional roads and roads in Branson that don't go where they are needed,

-community perceptions adversely affecting finance, and a failing and increasingly non-transparent real estate document infrastructure,

-rural and antiquated communication infrastructure which existing providers are resisting upgrading,

-dwindling educated and skilled labor supplies and the continuing area brain drain,

-the increasing reliance of the region's economy on government transfer payments, coupled with a perpetual decline in actual productivity, in a political environment which will almost certainly require a long term curtailment of transfer payments,

-and so on,

absolutely none of which seems to be addressed in ANY way by anything I have heard comming out of Branson City Government.

~~ to be continued . . . . .

The City of Branson can either formulate a master plan which takes advantage of the greater economic, social, cultural and political forces of its environment, or it can be steam-rollered by them, which is exactly what happened in in the early-1990s. The City of Branson officially did everything it could to kill development, thinking of itself as a 'quiet little fishing town', as expoused by its mayor at the time, and the development happened anyway, except in a really screwed up way completely beyond the control of city government and without the benefit of adequate public infrastructure.

Reading this document tells me that when the greater Branson region sees substantial growth again (which itself is not entirely certain) the total Branson pooch-screw that was the early 1990s is going to be repeated.

It would appear that the objective of the master plan, as envisioned by the authors of this document, is to transform Branson into a pretty little suburbanesque garden spot like Scotsdale, or Mission Hills, or Malibu (without the bikini's), with the City Government acting as a sort of gatekeeper making cultural judgements on what sort of people are allowed to stay here. It's not going to work. It looks like they went around and asked everybody that is of value to City Government what they thought, including the hospital, the school, the ambulance district, the police department, and the fire department, and got a pretty good idea of their ideas of the future: the police want a bigger budget and a bigger court facility to handle revenue generation, the fire department wants two new stations, but doesn't see it happening until there is an actual need, the ambulance district wants to save more people from heart attacks, the school district wants more buildings and doesn't want to be split up (which most of the community actually would like to see), and I'm sure Skaggs would like to still be in existence in 2030. I'm sure that the needs of Branson City Government and its favored stepchildren will be well taken care of by the master plan.

The community, on the other hand, might still have a problem. I remember that all of the development planning and infrastructure work that the City Government of Branson did to make the Branson Landing project happen was justified by the idea that the development of the shopping center and the subsequent development of the convention center were supposed to lead to a tidal wave of sales tax revenues and lead to a re-development of downtown. Unfortunately, the zoning code and the old master plan called for downtown to remain static, and that is pretty much what it has done. In nearly ten years since the Branson Landing hoopla started, we have seen the redevelopment of only a half dozen existing buildings, maybe a couple new buildings (Mountain Man, Crappy Mall), and nothing of significance beyond existing development, despite EXTREME investor interest in downtown Branson at the time. The failure of downtown to completely redevelop as a result of the massive public and private investment in the Branson Landing project is, I conjecture, largely due to the City Government's failure to revise the master plan for downtown to take advantage of economic forces.

The de-commissioning of the old school buildings was an equally fortuitous opportunity to shape the redevelopment of all of downtown, but instead it has slowly degenerated into a slum district centered around crappy old buildings full of a bunch of freeloading quasi-governmental charities. Again, this is due largely to the old master plan and the City Government's enforcement attitudes.

~~ to be continued in Part Three . . .
Part Three: Anonymous

After twenty years of 'emergency' road building, you still can't get east and west across town. The Highroad is in the wrong place, and if you try to get across town, you'll get caught up in the Shep-X speed trap, the Gretna Road Speed Trap, or the Highway 248 40 MPH Speed Trap (where the 85th percentile speed was measured by the state to be 48, with speed limits recommended by engineers to be 45 or 50, but I digress), and you will have to pay Branson City Government a chunk of change. This is great for Branson City Government, but it sucks for the community, and is largely another failure of planning.

None of this is being addressed by the new master plan. In the next boom, (if there is a next boom, and the City Government is probably banking on the next boom to solve some of its pending future financial problems-it won't be able to count on another 300 % increase in municipal court activity to fund anything-there is only so much blood you can squeeze out of the area turnips) the region is going to have a problem with water, both clear and dirty. It will have problems with power supplies. It will have problems with labor supplies. And it is going to have monumental all encompassing overwhelming problems with growing poverty and its wide ranging associated social symptoms, such as public mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence, child welfare, homelessness, etc, all of which have economic causes and could be attenuated somewhat by intelligent community planning and zoning, but which the City Government will probably want to deal with by expanding the police department and school district. It will have many many other problems, none of which I see addressed at all by anything I have seen come out of Branson City Government related to this revision of the master plan.

Years ago, somebody asked me 'why is the town of Branson so screwed up?' I remember writing a long response on a blog somewhere where after several paragraphs I concluded that the reason Branson is screwed up is because the town actually WANTS to stay screwed up. So I don't really hold out for much chance of improvement.

I have ranted far longer than intended, but allow me one other point. I see a growing proportion of the Branson community that sees itself as not being part of the Branson community. We have always known that the business community used to be a bit cliquish (you were either 'in the club' or you weren't), and in recent years Branson City Government, or at least its staff, have been making judgements as to who is and who is not really part of the community, but right now we are seeing entire industries divorce themselves from what should be an interconnected community. Case in point: School of the Ozarks used to be very influential in Taney County and the Branson Community. Its connection with the community used to be a big part of what it saw as its mission, community affairs was part of its well rounded liberal arts education, and the faculty, staff, and administration members were often community leaders. That is not the case anymore, except maybe to a limited extent in Hollister. College of the Ozarks has found a newer mission which no longer requires any community involvement. And it is not really a part of this community anymore.

Part Four: Anonymous, The Conclusion

Another case in point is HFE. I don't see the same Herschend involvement in the community that I used to. I don't see the development community having the same connection with city government, local politics, and community affairs as I used to. In all of the small cottage industries that we have seen emerge in the area over the past two decades, what community involvement we have seen seems to be disappearing. The people in the design firms are not seen at community events anymore. The specialty distribution company business people seem to be withdrawing from community service.

The only people whose viewpoint is valued by Branson City Government, by Branson Schools, by Skaggs, or by the official community seems to be retirees, church leaders, and government employees. Business people are out, service industry people are out, higher education providers are out, manufacturing and technical people are out, finance/insurance/real estate people are out, the artistic community is completely off the map, the development community (except for a few 'favored') are out, and young people are completely gone-not valued at all. I sense that individuals in all of these groups feel themselves to lie somewhere outside of the circle of interest of community institutions such as the City Government, churches, police, etc.

I think the community has lost some degree of social cohesion, and everything being done by the City of Branson (ie., the Government of the City of Branson) is making it worse. City government making judgements on what is or is not desirable in the town through a zoning authority is far beyond its authority as city government since it does not represent or speak for any 'community' that I am a part of. If I am not really part of the community that the Government of the City of Branson speaks for, then City Government is not part of whatever community I'm actually a part of. And I am not comfortable with City government having that kind of control over MY community.

Our response to most of this anonymous set of comments:

Anonymous,

The comment about the early 1990's brings back a faded memories of the use of the word "Moratorium" and construction...... Seems to me a couple of the faces of that era are back at the front of the room.

I wonder.

Those faces were removed and things began to grow. they return and ......

Yes, I wonder...

Thank You for a great comment.

Community White Paper (Branson Comp Plan)

2011-02-10T17:56:00.000-06:00

http://www.bransoncompplan.com/documents/Branson%20Comp%20Plan%20White%20Paper_Community.pdf

This history lesson is quite eloquent and very factual in most cases. Wikipedia seems to be the most relied upon source. No use recreating pretty stories I guess. Much of the topics and sub-topics seem to revolve around a group referred to as Legacy Catalyst groups. Not sure, but I think that is the name they want to use for the interviews they did last year. Those interviews were conducted at city hall for the most part and were very short and seemed to be very leading. I think I wrote about the experience last year. Rather than come with a list of questions and topics that might be considered by some to be more open and information gathering, they had a list supplied by Ozark Mountain Legacy in the form of a nice plaque. It seemed to be the focus and definitely was the overall pathfinder for the direction they wanted to point the interview in. I remember being asked what I thought about the list of “Values” on the plaque. I responded in my typical sarcastic way with an answer that seemed to surprise the interviewer. I said I agreed with each and every value point. They had been forewarned that I might be a bit of a pain and they made the mistake of egging me on to elaborate on my opinion of the list. I pointed out that every WONDERFUL point on the list was open for interpretation. I used extreme examples to demonstrate the problem and tried to make my point. My silly attempt made little impact on the outcome as you can see.

The culture of a community is a difficult thing to define during the era of that very community. It is much easier for historians and anthropologists to look back and evaluate the position later. Culture is a living phenomenon. If it is not living, it must therefore be dead. I fear what some might interpret the pretty plaque as meaning will surely cause our communities culture to die. I love the friendly, generous atmosphere. I happen to be from a Christian belief and hope everyone finds their way to that belief, but I don’t know what level or tier I would fit into in this list of “Values”. Don’t get me wrong. I think I am an all around good man. But my interpretation of family values and yours might differ. My interpretation of historic preservation and yours may be a little less compatible.

Lets face it, overall this white paper is more a reporting and less of any form of advice. It has little drips and drabs of what I think will help formulate the minds of the reader and help develop the very defined objective that I feel is underlying in all these papers.

Tiny snippets like page 2 under “opportunities”

• Make new developers and business owners justify how they fit into the comprehensive plan as part of the

application process

Here on the next page under “ Challenges”

• A continued onslaught of “culture incompatible” businesses and entertainers. The “get rich quick” artist

who cares nothing of our culture.

• Growth in the population could dilute our brand.

• Discouraging businesses and organizations from coming here that directly go against our established

culture, heritage and values.

I don’t know about you, but I never like seeing comments like these when the “culture” and “heritage” and “fit into” are not fully defined in such a way that is exempt from alternative interpretation. What is “culture incompatible”? Does that mean “head shops” and “Strip clubs” or does it mean RAP singers. I know at one time it meant Andy Williams to some people. He was not country music. To some it means businesses that serve liquor while others think it means anyone who does anything but are not from here (born-n-raised). Look, we have laws in place and more than enough safeguards against nude dancers and smut film “book stores”. The “culture” of a community develops over time. It is not planned. It is not designed. At least it should not be. Every time a community tries to plan or design it’s own culture, abysmal results ensue. Think about it folks. This is not a lot unlike some of the stuff we have been witnessing out of Washington these last couple years. Legislation of morality, habits, growth, and the distribution of wealth. How different is that from what we read between the lines here. Using “culture” and “heritage” and “fit into” direction will define what businesses survive or even get a chance to open here. Is that not a control over the distribution of wealth opportunities?

Isn’t it enlightening that “growth in the population” seems to be a problem that will dilute the brand as far as this report suggests. Does it not seem a little fascist to use words like Discourage businesses and organizations from coming here due to their values system. OH, those kinds of people can come here for vacation and spend their money, but go back home and don’t infect us with your diversity. Good God, can you believe this! They have me fighting for cultural diversity now. Watch out, next thing you know I will be spouting global warming propaganda! No, seriously, changing pieces of what we call our culture over time is necessary.

Question?

At what point in history is our definition of “culture” going to be taken?

Are we to be frozen at that point?

Have changes in our “culture” a dozen years ago been determined to be horrible changes? By whom?

If not, why are we so afraid of future changes?

Doesn’t this seem just a little too abstract of a theme to be placing so much emphasis on in a PLANNING DOCUMENT?

And for some really abstract and far out questions:

Our current culture has many black eyes. Meth labs and homeless people are but two parts of our current culture. Are we to understand that someone does not want those parts of our culture to change?

How about the ever popular Timeshare salesman heat line about Disney coming to town. If Disney wanted to open a park in Branson, would we have to tell them that unless it was exactly what we already have, they are not welcome. See a Disney Theme park would change the culture of Branson and clearly we do not want that. Is that the message we want to send out to the world.

DISCLAIMER- I have no knowledge nor any indication in any way regarding any current, past or future real estate endeavors of any organization affiliated with or known to affiliate with Disney.

Now, I am not advocating forced change on our culture either. I don’t think we need to go forth and seek out major tenants or developers who are totally different and will form a sub-culture of their own here in Branson. I don’t think ANY other town in the world is better than what we have here. It is a little disappointing that our aldermen have a different opinion than a lot of us do. I don’t think towns in Colorado are better than Branson, I don’t think Branson 30 years ago was better than the Branson of today. I think our town and our culture has changed for the better, many time over the past years. I think the natural evolution of our culture and our values has been one of our biggest assets. As far as I know, no Branson City government in the past ever endeavored to genetically engineer our culture. It grew and changed naturally. It was allowed to.

Comprehensive Plan - a brief overview of the next step....

2011-02-08T17:26:00.000-06:00

The White Papers.............

The first results of our $150,000 "investment" are just being published on the Comprehensive Plan website ( http://www.bransoncompplan.com/plan-documents.html ). Eight "White Papers" are available for download and review. I suggest you all go to those pages and read the preliminary results. They seem to mirror what we at Commercial One Brokers have been warning about. The "anti-growth" agenda of this administration has been mysteriously transformed into a written set of instructions complete with a sure fire way to keep the ball rolling after they leave. Really, why did we have to go to all these meetings and ask all these questions.

These are wordy and in many cases loosely interpretable passages slightly modified form historical boilerplate. They will take a second and even a third read through to even partially comprehend the ingenious interweaving patterns of economic engineering that will, if adopted, change the free enterprise of this community and strip land owners of many basic rights of ownership.

Unfortunately, these papers will be seen by many as innocuous and my interpretation will differ from other interpretations. They are designed that way. Don’t be fooled. A pleasing description of connective trails between “wilderness zones” and "community parks" will sound so inviting and help build the “BUY IN” factor, but no mention of the cost to the landowners or the hindrances on the developer. At first blush, even this cynical S.O.B. started “BUYING IN” a little. Knowing the makeup of our community and it’s socioeconomic and political preferences, this well directed expert company leverages those attitudes and jumps from land use plan to what I believe is the real reason we spent the thousands on an expert from out of town. Governance. Yes, this community is in general a little more than slightly right of center in most beliefs. People like that are typically very in tune with self governance. Our not so right wing, anti business, environmentalist, within the current administration want more power. The powers granted them by the state of Missouri don’t seem to be enough. They want a more locally designed and controlled city government, a Charter City Government.

From a single question in a totally controlled environment that came from way out in left field, the land use, comprehensive plan, and developmental guidelines, project changed to the evils of a forth class city and the wonderful benefits of a Charter City form of government. While I may even approve of a “some day” conversion to Charter Government, and most of you might have already guessed this. I am not sure I want this administration to write the Charter! I know, you never even thought I would be so obnoxious and actually write it out loud. This administration has small (friendly) factions in it with special interests. Some want to save the earth, or at least this little part of it, some want less new businesses coming to town and taking the employees away with higher wages and more benefits, others seem focused on stepping back to the old days when less numbers had more power. While I don’t fault any of those factions for their positions, I fault the others for almost never voicing an opposing view. There is such an overall enabling character within the hallowed halls of the city that IF we allow this group to write a Charter and give them the power to over-rule standard Missouri governance, we will have a development code that somehow forbids any growth at all. The trees will be safe, but our citizens will all remain stuck in the 1980’s and 1990's forever in low paying jobs. Our visitors will be fewer and will have seen and heard everything so many times that repeat visitation will certainly dwindle. The schools will see less and less growth as more and more families find it necessary to move on to greener pastures.

Please be warned. This move to “self government” will seem to be a move to the right. It will be phrased and already has been phrased as a cure all to help us move away from the burden of fitting into a mold of a State defined set of rules. It will be made to look like the epitome of a Tea Party agenda. But, what it will really be is a move toward higher taxes, slower growth, less “Ozark Entrepreneurship” and more costs to live and work here.

Think about it. What groups gain if my crazy rants are true? If we slow the growth of new business, stop the rise in hourly wages, reduce the benefit packages to employees, eliminate the right to build big buildings on city (or even nearby county) lands. Who is it that enjoys the status quo the most. Them that already HAVE, not them that might want to have in the future.

More on each of the “White Papers” presented in the future:

Soon to be Nuisance Law in Branson

2011-01-18T10:14:00.002-06:00

The new nuisance ordinance about to be passed has been worked through with the local REALTORS® and their attorney and fortunately, many of the changes we proposed were taken to heart and either accepted or further modified and made somewhat palatable.

Automobiles that are not junk but for what ever reason are not licensed are no longer considered inoperable, and therefore are not a nuisance. Beautiful ski boats or bass boats on trailers also got a reprieve from the “lets all look alike” police. It may just be that we are close to offending all a little but not any one too much. Certain time lengths will be maintained regarding shade tree mechanic jobs, and so far it is still legal to paint your house any color you want, as long and no words are legible and it might be a good idea if all paintings of women are displays in full attire.

Finale touches are being made to the newest draft with particular instructions to staff to incorporate all the crazy freedoms that some of us insisted on including. For instance you may still park your $180,000 RV behind or next to your $120,000 home. It is now and has always been legal to have a small trailer and you can park it in the grass, just not in the front yard grass anymore. I am not sure if that trailer is allowed to have anything in it or not, but future interpretations will tell.

I am very concerned, however about one important part of the ordinance. I am concerned about the flowers in the neighbor’s yard to the west. See, if a 40 foot long and 12 foot high RV is allowed to park in the side or back yard, and the sun continues to rise in the East, and the flowers morning sunshine is blocked by that RV, the flower’s growth cycle may be stunted and effected negatively. I truly am afraid that could affect the overall viewscape of the neighborhood and the delicate psyche of some of our children. We should consider a change to the ordinance that would in effect not allow any party to build a house that would be due east of any existing house. Yeah, that would do it.

Also, some people don’t like children. It has been propose that any children be required to play in designated sections of the rear yard and said sections should be screened so as to minimize the visual exposure to the general public. Any non-motorized children's vehicles should remain within said designated sections of the yard and only be allowed to move from the designated sections of rear yards along connective trails. In order to effect this potion of the ordinance some portions of every rear yard will necessitate confiscation in an attempt to create the visual boundary trails to be utilized by these unsightly youths.

Personally, I do not agree with the unsightly youths clause. Why should the city allow those rug rats to be outside at all?

Disclaimer… some portions of this posting are meant to be sarcastic. If you have difficulty identifying the sarcasm, you might consider running for office.

Branson ready to send forth the Lobbiest

2011-01-17T16:22:00.001-06:00

Below is a list of Lobby Agenda items recently published in the News Leader.

This time, you comment.... As you most likely can figure out, I have a problem with a few items on this list.

What do you think..... Anonymous comments are welcome, but it's more fun if we know who you are ;-)

The tentative list

Branson's legislative agenda has not been approved by the board of aldermen yet, but at the board's most recent study session on Jan. 6, this was how it read:
Development
- Branson supports bills regarding making Missouri "data center friendly."
- Branson supports both federal and state legislative initiatives that upwardly adjust the income guidelines establishing qualification thresholds for subsidized work-force housing.
- Uncontrolled development at the unincorporated fringes of cities is detrimental to health, safety and orderly urban development. Branson supports legislation that would give cities the ability to exercise the extraterritorial powers of planning, zoning, enforcement of building codes and regulation of subdivisions within adjacent unincorporated areas.
- Branson opposes any legislation that restricts the ability of a municipality to extend municipal services into newly annexed areas.
- Branson opposes any legislation that restricts municipalities' abilities to impose franchise or user fees for the use of the municipalities' rights of way.
- Branson supports legislation that provides funding for state agencies to work in conjunction with Missouri cities as well as private and not-for-profit organizations to address the areas of affordable housing.
- Branson opposes the legalization of casino gaming in southwest Missouri.
- We support legislation allowing cities to annex "islands," which are properties inside a city's limits and surrounded by city property on all sides. Cities need the ability to annex islands after proper notification and majority approval by city council.
Environment
- Branson supports equitable funding for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to ensure the protection and safety of our precious waterways and natural resources.
- Branson opposes any regulatory changes by the Department of Natural Resources that would encourage the development of subdivisions with separate sewer systems built adjacent to a municipal system.
Local Control
- Branson opposes any reduction of local regulatory authority over developers.
- Branson opposes legislation that would interfere with municipal authority to determine personnel or merit system rules and regulations.
- Branson supports Missouri's current meet-and-confer law for public employees, and therefore opposes any attempt to legislate a mandatory collective bargaining law. We believe the power to set wages and other terms and conditions of employment for local government employees must rest with elected representatives and should not be delegated to third-party arbitrators or the courts.
- Branson opposes any legislation that will increase costs to cities (unfunded mandates).
- We support an increase in the maximum municipal court penalty for fourth-class cities. It is currently $500 and/or 90 days in jail. We feel increasing the maximum fine to $2,000 would be appropriate.
- We would like language for RSMo 67.410 to be similar to that of RSMo 67.398 regarding property maintenance.
- We support the exclusion of punitive and exemplary damages in certain claims against public entities, their officials or employees in certain circumstances.
Sales Tax
- Branson opposes state-mandated sales tax holidays that do not provide a local decision on participation or nonparticipation in the holiday. Furthermore, we support a change in state law that would allow cities and counties to choose on opting into the tax holiday rather than opting out.
- Branson will closely monitor any legislation affecting sales tax or sales tax exemptions that would adversely impact city sales tax collections.
- Branson supports the taxing of cell phone use for the purpose of funding 9-1-1 centers and local control for communication centers.
- Branson supports legislation that would encourage the collection of Internet sales taxes.
- Branson opposes the use of a higher sales tax rate to replace the corporate and individual income taxes (fair tax).
- We support strengthening legislation that prohibits theaters and other ticketed attractions from creating their own LLC to be ticket resellers to avoid paying sales taxes.
Tourism
- Branson supports appropriate funding for the Missouri Division of Tourism marketing budget.
- We support the current tax credit given to the Missouri Film Commission.
Transportation
- Branson supports state and federal efforts to keep pace with pressing statewide transportation needs, especially by accelerating the construction of projects when local communities are willing to assist with the financing of road improvements.
Health
- Branson supports increasing the core function funding in the state budget for local public health agencies.
- Branson supports increased access to health care for all Missourians through Healthnet expansion for those who demonstrate a financial need and who qualify.
- We support state funding for alcohol enforcement programs.

I promise, I will let you all know what my thoughts are in short order. For now, lets play "whats you take?"

Great Job!

2010-12-21T11:36:00.000-06:00

Madam Mayor and Esteemed Alder-persons,

It is without doubt that I often disagree with your policies and it is similarly undoubted that I have voiced those opinions several (if not many) times this past year. First of all I want to assure you that my opinions are solely in opposition to your policies and not at all in opposition to your persons. I respect the fact that you have taken up the reins and done your best to represent your constituents. While I often do not agree, I often understand your positions and almost never feel that the position you might take is not heartfelt and honest. It is ever so important that you maintain an open mind as I have tried to do in my review of your votes and statements and policies. I have met and spoke with nearly every single one of you and can not even begin to think that there is any one of you that I would say I dislike. I hope the previous sentences to be my way of telling you in more simple terms that it is not a personal attack that I may be engaging in now, in the past or the future. I feel compelled to voice opposition to these policies, but I have never felt compelled to voice opposition to the people who are making the policies.

All those gooey niceties aside, I am writing today with a few thoughts in mind that I want to make clear. I am very proud and happy with several recent decisions, and since I never pause in my attempt to point out what I perceive as your mistakes, I want to make certain that I use the same diligence in pointing out excellent choices.

The recent decision to fund the airport was wise, honest and I believe genuinely “the right thing to do”. I heard the opposing opinions and I do understand their position, but feel the correct movement was taken. I do hope the same decision is made in the future and this unfortunate public display is not repeated. I know how hard it is to keep these Branson issues in Branson, but some groups around the country love to see us in debate only to account for their forecast of our demise.

The appointment (announcement) of Vicki McFarland as employee of the year was an extremely appropriate decision. I realize this is not solely decided by you folks, but she was named such during your watch and I feel you are responsible for the good things that happen at city hall. After all I have held you responsible for what I consider the bad things there, so it only seems fitting the reverse be held true.

I happened to be at our local Wal-Mart this past week at the same time as the annual “Shop-With a Hero” program was going on and I felt so grateful that we live in a community that would have such a practice. Thank you for encouraging such a wonderful event once again. Along the same lines I know you all spent hours ringing a bell for the Salvation Army recently and having done that several years in a row now, I know how cold and uncomfortable that can be. Thanks, I think it is exactly what we need our officials doing. Show up and let the community know how much the city cares about their wellbeing.

So here the deal for 2011:
You try to do more things that will make my list of “great job” spots in this blog, and I promise to try to publish the list of those things in and amongst my rants about what I don’t think is a “great job”.

How about it?

Thanks.

.

Late Night at City Hall

2010-12-15T14:53:00.000-06:00

Well it was a very late night at City Hall last night and I don't have a lot of time to report on it all now, but will give a few highlights...

The budget was approved and an amendment was made to pay the current (actually a little past due) payment to the airport. Another motion was made to amend the 2011 budget and appropriate about 10% of the June 2011 payment. All in all, no big surprises on this continuing saga. I am sure it is not the end.

A large group of code changing bills were presented. They amount to three significant changes and a lot of clean up bills due to the three significant changes. One bill was a "dangerous buildings" bill and while it has some minor issues that a few are worried about, in general it is palatable if not acceptable. Another bill presented is an "Administrative Warrant" bill. Very interesting. I guess I had been under the incorrect impression that a judge would issue a warrant for inspection of a property that the owner refused to allow access to. I learned that without this new piece of legislation judges are reluctant to issue those. City attorney Dustin explained the need and procedure well and that passed with little to no question. I got the impression he left a few with a glaze over their eyes, but being a glutton for anything legal, I was excited to learn the process and the logic behind it. The third bill was a "Nuisance" ordinance that had been discussed and re-discussed with the Board of REALTORS and it's attorney and City staff over and over again. The changes were made over a number of months and in general were taken as far as staff could take them given the request they had been given by the council. A few issues were still not at all acceptable to the REALTORS and the City Council was very good at listening and possibly considering changes. Not a lot of use going into detail. They have to make several changes to the nuisance bill to make it effective and not become a major problem to a significant number of citizens.

One one hand I have to admit, it was a long late evening, but on the other, it began to feel a bit too much like Washington DC of late. We saw a bill passed on first reading that was clearly not acceptable to the aldermen, but they passed so they could read it and then later try to fix it. I think I heard that lately on national TV! In fairness to the city though, our system has a second reading and second vote. Sure wish that were the case in DC.

It was a long and difficult night. It ended up relatively fair and some wins came with some losses and we even might have seen a couple ties. Definitely a couple rain delays. Enough baseball for one day!

Sorry if you were looking for more controversy, this week was just plain democracy in action. But stay tuned, I am trying to stir the pot a little. Maybe after Christmas?

Merry Christmas All!

November Business

2010-12-06T11:38:00.000-06:00

It was a pretty busy month last month around the big city of Branson, Missouri. Our retail tenants nearly all tell us that business was great. Seems the ones that actually track numbers monthly are reporting significant increases and the ones that are not so sophisticated are anicdotely telling us that times are rocking and rolling. That is good news!

Our leasing has picked up a bit and we have successfully filled a few more spaces this last couple months. Retail space seems to be tracking at or about the same occupancy level as this time last year. Flat is, of course the new UP. Year end numbers will be most telling, but at this time we are experiencing about a 15% vacancy in retail space in Branson. So far, discussions with our tenants has caused us to have reasonably good expectations of holding on to the existing base of retailers. We do have a few older tenants ready to retire and not interested in selling the business and are simply calling it quits after the end of this month. That will leave a few small holes in one of our most sought after locations, but we don't anticipate a long vacancy period.

Office space is a reverse situation. Current trends place vacancy at a pace to end the year at 4% higher mark. That added on to the beginning of the years very high vacancy will not bode well for the future. On the other hand, there has never been a better time to negotiate a great lease on space you may have never imagined your business to be at. Downsizing, right-sizing, closures and consolidations have been the most recited reasons this year and the most obvious result is lower rents in nicer spaces for some.

So, what an unusual report... Retail tenants are expanding and office tenants are contracting.

Look for Steve and I to publish our annual report some time in February. We need the end of year break down of tax revenues and a short time to re-interview our friendly property owners and we will let all of our clients and customers know what the real story is in the real estate world of Branson, MO. as far as what happened in 2010 and what we expect to see in 2011.

Until then, BUY LAND, they ain't making no more of it!

City Board does the RIGHT THING!

2010-11-24T06:24:00.000-06:00

The City Board of Aldermen did, after many citizen voices were heard, vote to amend the 2011 proposed budget leaving $165,000 in the reserve fund of the 2010 budget and may now move that money into the 2010 Branson Airport line item at their next meeting. That all mean that if they proceed as described, they will pay the 2010 invoices that are in essence for a portion of what everyday people call 2009 and early 2010. Good Job!

I know that was all a bit confusing. Basically due to a change in the way we (Branson) "book" moneys and expenses, this year 2010 was a 15 month year which included 3 months in 2009. The important part of all that first paragraph is they might be paying the invoices for all the passengers delivered to them per the contract thru June 2010. (long night and lots of votes, so I hope I get this right) The vote on this amendment was 4-2. Alderman Davis remains against the payment of any money due to his belief that the contract (even though modified in 2010) is unconstitutional. Alderman Williams voted no and either I missed the reason given or she did not give one, which is troubling since this move did not effect the 30% floor, she just last week gave as her reason to oppose appropriations. Once the amendment passed the budget as amended passed 6-0.

This was the (extended) first reading so yet another exciting meeting is set for the December council meeting. Since these things are fluid I do hope all the citizens who are concerned about this issue show up once again in force. Thus far, the City has not appropriated fund for the 2011 budget year. While so many of us applaud their steps last night, the message being sent to the community and the airport is mixed. In April 2011 the city will receive another bill from the airport for work completed through December of this year and so far the message is that the city is not intending to pay the bill. Alderman did discuss briefly an option to appropriate a small portion of the anticipated amount, but fell short of making that motion. Perhaps another sole searching and budget searching will take place over the next couple weeks.

Many of the public have viewed this as a simple issue based around a debt owed and a contractual agreement that needs to be honored. City council has been dealing with the legality of this agreement for over a year. I'm not an attorney and certainly not a constitutional scholar, I have reviewed both sides written and disclosed legal advice and one thing keeps ringing in my ears. Technically legal or not we agreed to do this. The commitment and the intent is clear. I deal with attorneys all the time. They deliver what the client asks for. If our city leaders tell the attorneys we want the contract fixed so that the intent and our commitment is honored, they will get that job done. If they ask for loophole which might prevail in court and get this agreement voided and allow the city to break the commitment, I bet the attorneys will have a course of action available for the city on that line too.

It could also be a prudent move to appropriate and pay the debt while looking into the constitutionality. Many attorneys advise clients to fight a case, but not to compound the case by defaulting on the obligation. IF the contract is some day deemed inappropriate, AND the city wants to discontinue the relationship via the accidental unconstitutionality of the document, they can stop the payments then, or they can do the right thing and fix the agreement. IF they were to be proven incorrect, the cost of litigation as well as the additional cost of defending the default and quite probably the further additional cost of potential damages to the Airport could be much more damaging to the city. Not to mention the wonderful public relations we have and will generate.

Just because you can do something, does not mean you should.

Beginning to See a Pattern Yet?

2010-11-23T16:40:00.000-06:00

It looks like the "Agenda" has been completed. We asked for it and we got it.
OK, everyone ready to stop the "take a breath" attitude......

Good. Now make like we want new businesses to come here and old ones to succeed. I know you are all out of practice, but you can make yourself do it.

.

THE REST OF THE STORY - Future Visions

2010-11-19T15:11:00.000-06:00

Well, I think it is time for all of us to have a vision. I don't mind starting and you all pitch in.

Suppose we have just a little of each of the "Future Visions' of the paid visionaries. With a little arm twisting I think we might just get the city administration to admit that some of the horrible things that got us here might not be too bad of an idea. You know, like when we let entrepreneurs start businesses with out the great wealth of wisdom of the government meddling in the affairs of that entrepreneur. Since we all get to imagine our perfect future, I see a city that welcomes growth and searches for opportunities to enhance our economic development options.

Future city departments learn how to explain that while code will not allow the method being described by the citizen, there is another way that will be allowable and save time and money along the way. I see a city that uses common sense in it's decision making on a day to day basis. No longer are "special use permits" the trade dollars of the city. Developers and businessmen do not need to bite their tongues in order to get permission to open a business that will generate tax dollars for the city in order for the city to honor their debts. No longer will a car repair shop that has been in existence in the same place for 25 years need to beg for permission to put the open sign up on the window simply because it had been more than 6 months since the last tenant loved out.

In the wonderland of Branson we will not have multiple interpretations of ordinances based solely on the type business and the relationship you have with a city employee. Signs for a garage sale or a cheeseburger special will not be confiscated by roving "inspectors" with little to do and a paycheck to protect. City staff will not be required to harass employees of a business by issuing a ticket when they are not at fault and then force the staff to take the blame for the ordered actions.

Churches and civic organizations will continue to aid the needy just like they have for decades. Social support will remain at a level it has been for year, by the way much higher than any of the more enlightened cities of other futures or even of today. Energy conservation will be slow to take hold as that is humane nature, but costs and reason will effect the users. Recycling will be voluntary and take time to grow as it has over this past decade. A recycling "franchise" will not be necessary as healthy competition will be allowed to remain and flourish among the competitors as government will not interfere. Citizens will not be forced to pay for recycling services and even fined more if they neglect to utilize those services.

Vertically mixed-use developments will be built when misterious forces know as "the market" demand they be built. Homes will become affordable when employees make more money and builders are allowed to build on lots that are developed by developers who are allowed to use modern techniques that allow for more affordable development. No longer will antiquated size and utility servicing methods be a hard and fast rule.

STOP, if you look down at the bottom of this post you will see a Post a comment link. It's your turn. In the comment section post your couple sentences or paragraph about the future of Branson. You don't have to identify yourself, use anonymous.

When we get all the comments put together we will send it to the city council and who knows, maybe they will like it and send us a check for $125,000. That seems to be the going rate for prestidigitation or prognostication or prostitution or whatever this was.

If we really wanted a project like this done, we have several professional groups here and in Springfield that would understand the REAL history and the REAL key points of this town. Some of them actually know what they are talking about. Just sayin.

Future Vision #3

2010-11-18T17:43:00.000-06:00

Well folk, I know a lot of you are waiting for the third "Future" of Branson. I really don't know if I have that one in me gang. Future #3 is, , , , well, , ,I think Kumbaya might be appropriate. everyone together now....

OK, the deal is, this is the version that focuses on social equity, community partnerships and regional systems. This is the Boulder Colorado of Missouri. Another example is Vail and Breckenridge....

Signs are all uniform, buildings fit into "the mold" with color pallets of soft hues.

Alternative Future #3 - Community Branson

Community Branson places a significant emphasis on the social fabric of the community and on providing the services and the jobs the City needs to be a balanced community. The balance includes economic, environmental and social sustainability. Branson is a community for young and old to live, work, visit, raise a family and enjoy outdoor recreation.

The economic drivers of the City will look at businesses that are complementary to Branson’s current strengths and will grow beyond the entertainment industry. The well-established health care industry will be expanded and Branson will be a destination for specialty health care. A variety of education opportunities for area residents will be offered (including OTC in Hollister, a branch campus of a college such as Drury University and Missouri State University, high tech and information technology jobs will build upon the foundation of the Mountain, and the City will attract professional services jobs and light industrial companies to Branson for additional year-round employment opportunities.

Who could complain about this vision? other than the ones that will have to pay for it. Obviously we all want the high tech and medical jobs. Sure, those of us who love this town all believe those companies should pull up stakes in San Jose and Seattle or shift their focus from the Research Triangle Park in North Carolina and come here. We have a much nicer city. AND after all we have a few hundred thousand square foot of super conductive office space sitting around waiting for HP or Cisco to gobble up. If we need more the city will just let the word out that we will clear a few acres of milk and honey and sprinkle star dust to make one appear. Never you mind about the thousands of cities with existing buildings offered at very low or even no charge for those same jobs, after all we all know how economic development minded this city administration has been.

Don't get me wrong. We need and want entry level tech jobs and we can hope and pray for those to some day develop into a few mid level tech positions or get really lucky and see an incubated start up that flourishes and is not run out of town due to the over regulation that is promised in most of our "visions" lately.

There is a strong inter-governmental support within the region among the municipalities and counties. Each governmental entity will support one another and recognize the strengths of their respective jurisdictions and support their growth. Under this scenario, the City takes a proactive approach in establishing agreements and/or policies to influence the type of growth that occurs on the City’s edge and within the Urban Service Area. Highly visible hillsides and ridgelines will be protected from development as the City and non-profit groups purchase these visually sensitive lands.

WOW, has anyone run this past the other municipalities and counties? From a current observation they can't seem to get along with themselves, let alone others. I got to give them a bit of credit here. They are planning to pay for the highly visible ridgelines and hillsides in this vision (at least that is the public word, never know, it might be a different board by then and we all know what that means regarding promises and such).

Interestingly enough, this vision of our city does not settle with what is in our city, no, while getting along with the counties and other municipalities they instill the rule of development law unto them that do not exist with our meager and meaningless boundaries. After all if your building Valhalla, you might as well take in a few neighbors as well.

A regional transportation system that serves the greater area will be jointly funded by the cities and counties affected to provide affordable transportation for the workforce and tourists. The system will connect key employment centers, community centers and destinations with residential areas. Vertically mixed-use districts will be concentrated around existing neighborhood and community centers. The mixed-use nodes will build upon the established concentration of land uses and will create additional synergistic opportunities for complementary uses. The infill and density focus in already urbanized areas will take advantage of the existing infrastructure, which will minimize the cost of additional community services needed to service such growth. The green building techniques and the use of renewable energy have kept municipal, business and residential energy costs from rising. The City will actively encourage residents to participate in energy conservation, recycling, etc.

Won't Al Gore be proud. Makes you wan to stand up straight and salute the beautiful red flag with the gold symbols on it. BTW: I think a vertically mixed use district is something like ,,, uhm, BRANSON LANDING! These guys must have not gotten the memo. Someone tell them, that is devil worship talk.

The community social service groups will join forces to create a unified Cooperative Partnership where funding is distributed equitably and where there is a central place for people in need to go. The new Cultural Arts Center includes a history museum, a regional serving library and a place for performing arts such as dance and theater. The new library is large enough to service a large, regional population, is publicly accessible, offers free educational programs and has a (superior) book selection There are a variety of housing choices, including affordable units for all socio-economic classes. There will be more neighborhood, community and linear parks to serve the communities active and passive recreation. Branson becomes the community of choice in which to live and is recognized for the state-wide quality of K-12 education and post-secondary educational programs.

HOLD ON! "unified Cooperative Partnership" There it is. Finally some honesty. Will every business have a union label? If you only vote for this fine vision, you will get free libraries and living units that are affordable, history museums (anyone have any idea what version of history this will house), Cultural centers, linear parks and a central place for people in need to go. I KNOW, we should name it RED SQUARE.

Well, I don't know about you , but I got a warm feeling running up and down my leg and goosebumps on the nape of my neck.

In the words of Will Hunting, "Let the healing begin"

NEXT;

THE REST OF THE STORY.....

also- If you will look to the right of the top of this page you will see a place to put your e-mail address. Enter your e-mail address and you will be sent the upcoming entries. Just a hint. and it is automatic, so you don't have to wait until I get a chance to send out my spam e-mail that I hate doing because I feel so intrusive and self conscious about.

2010-11-11T16:59:00.003-06:00

I was privileged to serve as one of the marshals at the Veterans Day Parade today. I met some absolutely wonderful people from all over this fine country. I helped for the lines and fill the ranks for the participants and spent most the morning in the center section of the Convention Center parking lot.

I was not in the military, but have great respect for these special people. I know very little about military life, ranks, divisions, in some cases I can't even tell you the difference between the Arm and the Marines. I do know they all were there today and I thanked as many as I could speak with. I learned a few things and will never forget what these fine men and women did for ME.

My favorite quote today: I was asked by a half dozen 50 and 60 somethings in uniform or partial uniform, where the 1st Cav unit was and then they pointed to their shield and horsehead patch. Not being a military guy I missed the point. OK, I finally gave up and shouted to all my troops asking, "Anyone know where these guys can find the 1st Cavalry Unit". A Sailor from the Submariners float yelled back "they took that hill over there and are 10 miles behind enemy lines"

I had to tell the Rangers to stay on their float and quit jumping out. And the Submariner corrected me when I told them to head on out. They said, it's "DIVE DIVE DIVE"
EVERYONE Had fun! I love Branson.

Long Night at City Hall

2010-11-10T09:38:00.000-06:00

Yes, it was a long night at City Hall. With very few exceptions the larger organizations of this community stepped up one at a time to the microphone and loudly let the City Council know they think the city should honor their commitment to the contract with the Airport. The item (2011 budget) was postponed and staff was asked to find the money. Alderwoman Bohinc even suggested a couple places to find some of the money, offering to use a portion of one of her valid pet projects for some of the funds. She also suggested moving funds allocated for a citizen and an employee survey to this line item. Not a bad idea, after all they surely got the answer to one survey question last evening loud and clear.

Another of the alderwomen, Mrs. Williams is clearly against paying this agreement, and while I do not agree with the decision, I have to say, she at least gave a valid reason that is on the surface fiscally responsible. I have to fault her on at least a portion of the logic she is using. Yes, the contract is subject to annual appropriations as is most all contracts that cross over from one fiscal year into another of over several years. The problem as I see it is that clause is useful for a city that literally can not pay their obligations. In effect it is a stop gap measure between fiscal soundness and all out bankruptcy. it is not a legal position I would want to defend with a 30% reserve fund and a surplus budget. In essence, the city has the money, is capable of paying the bill, but does not want to cash in the savings account to do that. I believe that in order to use this special "subject to annual appropriations" loophole in the contract, the city needs to be on the verge of collapse. Since we are budgeting nearly 8 million dollars more than last year and are announcing a balanced budget with a surplus why can't we find the money.

Note: Balanced Budget- I know, it is confusing, see if it is not a deficit budget, it is balanced even though it is not balanced or even, and it can be a surplus even though we have higher expenses than we do revenue, it's a governmental definition thing, go figure?

For one thing, the city is being very conservative in their assumptions (not at all a bad tact) and has assumed a 1% growth in revenue from taxes. Now, we are experiencing the worst year in most of our lives economically and we still are bouncing at or above that 1% mark. I don't pretend to know what the future will bring, but for most of history tells us this will rebound. In fact some of our illustrious leaders in Washington tell us the recession is over (I know, don't get me started). Anyway, a more aggressive, yet still conservative number might be in order. We have experts that forecast visitor growth and spending habits in this town and I can't see where we asked their professional opinion as to the potential for next years tax revenue. Lets see if the most important assumption regarding income is correct. That may solve the problem all together.

I applaud alderman Todd also for acknowledging the possibility of an underestimated income assumption as well as being one of the voices suggesting honoring the agreement. His willingness to send this budget once again back to staff for more research into the possibilities is admirable.

I caution the city in their attempt to use the "subject to annual appropriation" clause too quickly. It can only be used once because after that, nobody will do business with the city again if their contract includes this clause. It was never meant to be used for the purpose they are now contemplating using it for and several attorneys I have visited with do not think it would hold up in court under these circumstances. So they would be using the one thin metal shield they have at their disposal against an armor piercing anti tank missile. I know we don't like gambling in this town, but I got to tell you, them odds ain't too great and this administration has not had too good of a record in the courtroom.

It is a shame this had to be brought forth during a public meeting thereby airing the dirty laundry of this city once again. I walked away with a little better understanding of the councils position and am thankful that the budgeting of the funds is all they seem to object to this time. I must admit, I went into the meeting expecting to hear them try to weasel out of the contract altogether with claims of constitutionality and such. If the problem is they can't seem to find the money, we all need to help them see places to save the money to pay the bills. At least they did not try to claim the bill is not valid. In that I think a step in the right direction was taken.

The unfortunate additional side affect was that very little other debate took place regarding the proposed budget. The Airport issue overshadowed so many other issues that might have been opportunities to see savings. Everyone seemed so focused on the one issue, very little was questioned and for the sake of democracy, that is unfortunate.

Alternative #2 - Destination Branson

2010-11-08T08:12:00.001-06:00

Alternative Future #2 - Destination Branson - WOW, what an idea, we could become a destination. Yes ladies and gentlemen, it could happening spite of our wasteful Earth raping history. Let's take a look at what the experts tell us in this scenarios narrative:

Under this scenario, Branson becomes a national, potentially international, tourist destination as well as a destination for retirement. The City will strategically expand their tourism offerings to attract a broader demographic, will expand upon the markets with air service into the Branson Airport and will include a variety of new activities for visitors. To attract and give access to additional visitors, the City will have more extensive transportation offerings (i.e. Amtrak, Greyhoud, etc.). Branson will have off-Broadway shows, an aquarium, a multi-purpose arena, opera, theater, music festivals/events and will expand upon convention events. The City will be widely known for its indoor and outdoor recreational offerings and will continue to attract visitors from around the country for passive and active recreation (i.e. triathlons, fishing competitions, geocaching courses, hiking courses, wilderness training, bike races, sports tournaments, etc.).

I submit we were headed toward that "national, potentially international, tourist destination" before we elected to stop the momentum and take a breath. Now we learn it is a possible characteristic of one of our futures. COOL!!! "The City will strategically expand their tourism offerings", interesting statement. I for one did not think the City had any "tourism offerings". I thought private enterprise had "tourism offering" and the city had citizens. AND, how interesting that the city will expand upon it's markets with AIR SERVICE! Great idea! How about we attract a nationally known airline service by defaulting on our financial agreements with the newly developed Branson Airport. We can expand on the relationship we have with them by searching for loopholes in the simple performance agreement we signed. Then when a BIG airline tales over the small on we have servicing the area, we can send a strong message that they had better fly into another city and leave us alone.
Next this City of the future will somehow become so GREAT, that Amtrak will extend it rail service 3 or 4 hundred miles to add the tiny hamlet in the Ozarks, bypassing the metropolitan cities that have spent millions attempting to force them to bring service, but no worries, if we don't get Amtrak, we might get Greyhound.

Next we see a small window into but one of the ultimate motives behind this ludicrous exercise. The shift towards the ever so important "active recreation"... Se we will need to take private property away from some people because we need trails and parks and bike lanes and waterfronts to have all these huge profit centers operating in the City. OH!, and out of the corner of your eye, just behind the door left slightly ajar, notice the ever present danglies? The aquarium and the arena. More on those little tidbits later.

The character of the strip will be improved with incremental streetscape improvements including consistent, wider sidewalks, designated cross walks, a signage and identity system, benches, lighting, landscaping and the overhead power lines will be undergrounded. Property owners install landscape improvements to their private property that abuts the public right-of-way of Highway 76 in an effort to enhance the pedestrian experience. Any potential parking that may be lost as a result of these improvements may be ‘bought’ from a nearby, centralized parking bank

Aint' that a pretty picture? Wider sidewalks would not necessarily need to be on land owned by the government. I for one can not wait to see who is going to pay to have the power lines dropped underground. I will give you a hint... Not bigger than a bread box. That's right boys and girls, the electric company, after all it is a franchise and they will pass the cost along to you anyway. OR perhaps the City will simply wave their hands across the viewscape and the lines will burry themselves. I do want to commend the authors of this paragraph though, I did not think they realized that there was a "public right of way" I had the impression that they thought the city owned all the land.

Design guidelines that guide the development character of new buildings along the strip will help unify future construction and redevelopment. The visual clutter along the strip will be improved. Similarly, design guidelines for the downtown will preserve the historic character of the core area and will encourage similar architectural styles are applied to new construction. A rubber-tired trolley or bus that transports tourists from location to location along the strip and to the Landing will be in service. The trolley ride will be an activity in addition to an alternative transportation option. There will be directional signage that clearly demarcates and encourages the use of the alternate transportation routes to help alleviate traffic congestion.

ONE more try at a trolley on 76. GREAT. How about we just get a city bus or two and get the employees to work. Newsflash!!! most of these pedestrians are employees. Anyway, this begins the goosestep towards boredom. "Design guidelines" is the newspeak words for conformity. You're out of here Ripley and take a hike Hollywood Wax (By the way a hike will be much easier, see above). And let's review some other towns attempt to "preserve the historic character of the core area"..... the kids call it the DMZ in St. Louis, but hey, we got experts helping us.

Development and growth will occur within the City limits before growing outward. Vertically mixeduse districts/nodes will be concentrated around the intersection of major arterials and residential growth will be prioritized around parks. The City will make infill and redevelopment of underutilized properties a priority and will maximize the use of existing infrastructure.

Well, The first sentence is so inaccurate it is scary. NO, growth will happen elsewhere is the plain and simple truth. It will happen outside the city limits, where a land owner is still free to develop what the market wants and not what the experts think is right. Growth will occur in our competitor’s town, where the developers feel welcome.

Oh no, somebody forgot to tell the expert land planners that we do not allow vertical growth. But then again, it's not their fault, it is the paragraph that always gets put here. The City gets the full set of boilerplate in their three futures, no skimping.

Retirees and empty nesters will know Branson for its entertainment, activities and outdoor recreation. These characteristics will draw retirees from around the country, creating a larger local resident population. Retirees will move to Branson from economically challenged areas of the country.

Especially those longing for and reminiscing the good old days when you could visit Havana legally. Here they will be able to see government controlled landscaping, the bad man known as the entrepreneur will be gone and buildings will be closed, but hey, they will all look alike and have wide sidewalks to view them from through the slatted fences that surround them.

Soon, , , , Future number 3….

Special NOTE! : The City in their infinite wisdom will be voting on the annual budget Tuesday night ( the 9th of November) and it appears they will once again set in motion a plan to default on the Branson Airport contract. IF that is the plan, we can all forget about the Alternative Futures. This sends a message to the airline carriers. A clear and loud message. That being, “ You are not Welcome Here! “ Contact your aldermen and let them know they do not have to fall prey to one members loyalty to the competitor. Let them know we in the good town of Branson, we with our high morals and special values that are better then anyone else, think we should honor an agreement we made. You can remind them that it used to only take a handshake in this town to have a deal you could count on.

2010-11-03T16:30:00.005-05:00

Ok down to the nitty gritty of evaluating the "Futures".

Our first entry in the "Futures" parade is

Alternative Future #1 - AS IS Branson

Suppose we look at the first paragraph of the narrative given on the official propaganda web site:

The As Is Scenario creates a future for Branson based on “business as usual”. This is the scenario that will likely prevail if no actions or initiatives are taken to obtain a preferred future. This scenario infers that the future will follow trends of the past decade including growth and development, annexation, zoning, community organization, economic development and business trends. This is characterized by low density development in a sporadic manner throughout the City limits and within the surrounding area. Under this scenario, the City will not change policies or land use codes to encourage or direct the location or type of growth; development will be reactive to the market demand.

Oooh, don't all you developers and entrepreneurs fell a bit dirty? Right off the bat the writer shows their contempt for the history of our fine community. See, if we go along and let thing happen as we have in the past, you know the old fashioned American way, then we will not obtain a "preferred future".

Next we see how the horrible historic trends are "characterized by low density development in a sporadic manner...". See we can have higher density and then since nobody has a yard, we will really enjoy those parks they want to force down our throats. The difference is the housing becomes more compacted and the balance of the land becomes government controlled. Thus affording the government politicians more power. Of course more important is the saving of our mother earth. Development is distributed in a more sporadic nature because we still live in America where the guy next door may not want to develope HIS property yet and the guy sporadically down the road, wants to do it NOW. If we are to eliminate the sporadic nature of the development here, we must remove a certain portion of the property ownership rights.

OK, then the obvious and true culprit, the devil himself.... "development will be reactive to the market demand". How HORRIBLE! Market supply and demand and customers desires will rule the free market of the City of Branson. Surely Mr. Branson never intended for this to happen in his town!

PLEASE, can anyone else see a little bias in this first paragraph of the less preferred "Alternative Future"?

Next Paragraph please:

Under this scenario, the majority of the population and employment growth will take place in the suburban fringe and rural areas in the form of low density development. Currently untouched hillside and ridgelines will be developed, negatively impacting the landscape and viewsheds of the Ozark Mountains. Redevelopment of properties along the strip and completion of the platted, unfinished developments will not be a priority. The strip will deteriorate and have the appearance of being tired, the aesthetic will continue to be visually cluttered and the pedestrian experience will be unsafe and disconnected. The City will remain automobile-dominated and city-wide traffic congestion will increase as the local population increases.

Growth in the suburban fringe and rural areas? Well, of course, after all this is the very city council that will not let anyone build higher than 35 feet. NEWS FLASH, higher density will require us BAD developers to go UP! OH, and those untouched hillsides and ridgelines are currrently owned by PEOPLE, not the government. When you fix this terrible injustice and take the land away from private citizens you can keep it untouched. Until then, it belongs to them and they have rights. This is not Cuba. anyway, back to my interpretation...

The Strip will deteriorate, if for no other reason then it has become nearly impossible to jump thru the hoops necessary to demolish an old building and build a new project in it's place . Once you get building plans approved and pay the piper a few times for permits and such, you get to witness more red tape than an MRI patient at a government run hospital in Sweeden while attempting to build it. Then some bureaucrat reviews of your signage or annual attacks on your employees, and then you get to be pointed out as one of THOSE people who actually invested your hard earned money in an entrepreneurial enterprise that hires people and pays them all the while collecting sales tax for the city.

OK, someone please tell these professionals from out of town that lots of traffic is a good thing. What nobody seems to want to admit that traffic on 76 is desired. We have had several ways to solve the problem and the owners along that street do not want the traffic to move any faster. Branson (on 76) is a drive thru mall. Every retailer, hotelier, restaurateur, ticket huckster and characature artists on Highway 76 understands that if they are moving fast they will pass them by without seeing them. Especially since signs are going to outlawed too (another subject). Imagine a huge mall with thousands of customers going in both direction. The more customers, the more congestion. Now some genius decides to put in those people mover sidewalk contraptions like they have in big airports. Since there moving faster and have fewer exit points they either don't see the "purse store" or they are so far past it that they go on further into the mall in stead of heading back. That is Highway 76 in Branson, Missouri.

Branson’s brand remains tied to the entertainment industry. The entertainment and tourism industry will evolve, as the market dictates, and will continue to be a destination for an older demographic. Branson will compete with many other tourist destinations for the Baby Boomer tourist because variety shows and country music do not completely satisfy this demographic. Branson will continue to experiment with a variety of music genres in an attempt to anticipate the entertainment preferences of its visitors. The business climate will remain the same and will provide the support and the foundation for entertainers that move to town. The Convention Center will continue to be a draw for businesses and events and will be increasingly utilized. The downtown will slowly lose its historic character as modern-styled buildings replace dilapidated old structures that once defined the downtown. Downtown growth and vitality will be challenged by a lack of a cohesive business and architectural plan.

The last two paragraphs are slightly confusing to some people, Since, even in the worst recession in decades, Branson is holding it's own financially as it pertains to income at least, wouldn't the business climate remaining the same be a good thing. The baby boomers will go elsewhere, the downtown will crumble and loose all historic value and the world will end in fire and damnation unless you ignore the free market and force investment in historic registry rehabilitation and steadfast architectural design restrains and other fine details otherwise known as Alternative Future #2.

Another Official Notice....

2010-11-03T13:55:00.000-05:00

This is beginning to get a little too regular:

Uncertainty added to the unwelcome greeting has lead to a success at City Hall!

It's official, EVERYONE has had a breath now.

I think some of us have hyperventilated!

Future(s) Update

2010-11-02T11:27:00.000-05:00

The alternative futures have finally been posted at:

www.BransonCompPlan.com

Go there and answer the surveys and review the futures.

Best description yet was......

Alt 1 is the old fashioned free enterprise way...

Alt 2 is Socialism at it's finest...

And Al3 is Communism run a muck...

Frankly I stand by my initial assessment, a little of each will prevail because this administration can not leave it's hands off the free market.

You decide. Comment welcome.

.

What Will The Future(s) Bring?

2010-10-30T03:39:00.000-05:00

Well, the City of Branson held the Alternative Futures Workshop Thursday evening and reports are the turn out was low. Let's see, Branson High and Hollister High both in BIG games (Congratulations to both!!). The REALTORS were all at their annual business meeting and our Commercial Committee market report. Add to that, at least two Grand Openings of new businesses (outside the City limits, of course).

Not a problem, Some day, you will be able to go to the website:
http://www.bransoncompplan.com/
and see what the various futures are. Not sure when they will update the website. Apparently that was not in our immediate future. It's now Saturday morning and they are still proud to announce the Thursday night meeting.

Fortunately, I had two faithful fellow REALTORS who had to miss the business meeting and attend this City event. Well, thanks to them I have the hand outs and will be able to plan for all the government controlled changes we are in for.

I will delve deeper into the three options that have thus far been presented at a later time. At a time where you can see all the alternatives on the official website and where you just might be allowed the ability to give input. I would like to give you my initial opinion and a very general description of the three futures:

Future #1 seems to be the horrible option of allowing the free market to survive this anti-business administration. Now, the problem is they suggest this as "Business as Usual" and go on to explain it as being the same as the past ten years. Actually, if we could please have this future modified to be the same as the ten years previous to this administration and the introduction of protectionism, non-growth, worn out business biased attitudes. Give us the old administration attitudes of growth, economic development, active participation in attracting new business and that crazy idea they had about creating sales tax revenue and supplying services at low costs to citizens.

Future #2 portrays us THE international tourism destination of the Midwest of maybe even the US, clearly modeled after some ski resorts in Colorado with a twist. Development is, of course allowed, but frowned on and nearly sent packing due to the heavy restrictions. Color coordinated building faces and Archetectural controlled potions of town are encouraged and trolley cars fill the highway in place of cars with customers in them. This future is wrought with peril in that it is possible some of the entertainment might not be exactly what "WE" want here. There is one other small issue, the cost will be insurmountable, but once again, don't worry about that, I am sure we will cover that issue at another city wide meeting. perhaps Thanksgiving day? OH, here is a non-invasive move the city would have to make in this future, the utility companies who have legal rights to easements they bought will be forced to have their power lines, phone wires and cable lines placed underground. No idea who pays for this, but I will give you three guesses and the first two don't count. Thaaaattt;s right WE DO! Either the city pays and fees and taxes go up, or the utility companies pay and the rates go up. Don't get me wrong there are some great ideas in this future.

Future #3 is the utopia of the typical social minded city planner... Civic centers and Museums, regional libraries and regional mass transit with everyone living happily ever after in higher density living pods. Cultural experiences for all. Oh, and yes, we will have some of those pesky businesses that are not run by the government, but only to serve the common good, I'm sure. Of course this little gem has some good ideas also.

I think, if we are really lucky we will see a combination of these furures. The free market, if allowed to flourish, might be able to accomplish some of that fantastic internation tourism destination stuff from Future number two, that is if government will not only step out of the path, but even get behind the bus and push a little. If we can give future number one some of the help offered in future number two, we might see the city savings account change direction and grow a little, then we will be able to afford some of the utopian dreams from future number three.

Actually, if I am not completely incoherent at 3am, that last paragraph might just be the closest description of the old version of Free Enterprise meets the American Dream meets Civic Pride.... Well that is it would if you readers had the advantage of being able to see these three futures, keep watching the propaganda web site. They are fine tuning the results they want us to see as we spaek and should be able to deliver next week or two.

There are some facts that might have come to light in this expensive activity. Regardless of the fact that the city wanted certain results, they did get told some eye or ear opening bits of opinions from the citizens. They will most likely miss those important outcries, or they will interpret them to the advantage of the prevailing desires, but people have spoken and it is just possible one or two might have heard. We can all hope.

Once again, please go to the web site http://www.bransoncompplan.com/

Some day the Alternative Futures will be on there and you to need read them. Read them carefully. Read between the line. Realize, of course, that you will be being led by the nose, just as we have been thru this entire process. Don't worry, the futures you see now will be folded togather into what the original plan was anyway. The city just needs to go thru all this process so you think you were involved in their decision.

Where's the Money!!

2010-10-27T12:45:00.000-05:00

Well, it was another one of those all-nighters with little to no sleep. Happens every time I go to a City Council meeting or even worse when I go sit thru a Planning and Zoning meeting. Last evening was not all too painful. We now have a law that makes it illegal to park your camper overnight in a place that is not designed and zoned for campers.

The new bridge was a topic of discussion also. The city engineers and police are going to have fun for a while trying to move traffic from the new bridge through to their destination on roads not designed to handle the crowd. All in all they seem to have a good handle on the problem. And it is a good problem to have, since it means we will soon have two bridges across the big creek that separates us from the City of Hollister and most of the rest of Taney County.

The Convention Center gave a very good report to the City regarding it's ability to control spending and reduce the deficit it was anticipated to have this last quarter and for this year overall. Convention dollars are flowing thru to the other parts of the city also. Nice job Hilton.

Once again (I think the third or fourth time) the city elected not to answer the simple question Darin Codon has been asking. Not sure what the problem is. I guess it really does not bother me that they evade the answer to his question, they seem to want him to put everything in very succinct written question form. Seems other people can ask a question and at least get an attempt to an answer, but this young man does not warrant that courtesy. What did cause me to spend the rest of the night awake and vacillating from perturbed to down right angry was the fact that the aldermen didn't seem to wonder about the answer to his question either.

Now, I ask you. If handed a pretty chart that shows expenditure of the past few years and one of the 12 or 15 colored bars is four times larger than the others that correspond to the same date in other years, would you not want to know what EXACTLY caused that multimillion dollar change? I sit or have sat on quite a few boards that utilize annual budgets and have fancy book keeping methods of reporting to the board members. I have had instances whereby unusual figures or graph sections stand out and I can assure you, I was not the only one on the board that questioned this phenomenon. The expenditure in question are labeled "Brd/City Admin" and for some reason 2008 is about $4,000,000 while 2009 and 2010 is about $1,000,000. There is an asterisk with a footnote that explains that in "2008 - Board/City Admin - includes lump sum paid to Convention Center"

Mr. Codon asked what the lump sum amount was and I think he also was in effect asking WHY.

My anger is based on a more important question. Why was not one alderperson asking for the answer also?

I don't know what this lump sum expenditure consists of. I don't know what it paid for. BUT, I do know our city council should be able to answer the question asked of them. OK, maybe not the first time he asked it, after all it was only a 400% variance from the norm and it was a 3 year old number. Why on earth would you not have the answer available when the question was asked the second or even the third time? It sure does bring a parcel of questions to mind.

Is the "lump sum" used as the excuse really a large amount or is there other lump sums not disclosed?

What other expenditures caused the massive total? OR was the full $3,000,000 overage caused solely by the Convention Center?

Why is an expenditure noted as being for the Convention Center levied against a department known as Administration, surely a capitol improvement of this nature has it's one line item in the books or the benefits would be parceled out to the various departments affected?

Who got this huge windfall of money that mysteriously got spent by the Admin department on a convention center that was fully financed and funded by bonds. Why did it come from City coffers directly rather than the bonds created to pay for that venture?

And so many more questions could come to mind.

Yet, the sole answer to the cause of a single expenditure column on the chart was

" * 2008 - Board/City Admin - includes lump sum paid to Convention Center"

and no expansion of that notation seems to be forthcoming.

I do so hope that the city aldermen have already asked those questions and had sufficient answers to enlighten them. I do so hope at least one of those, ever so important, people has bothered to learn the cause of $3,000,000 of this city's hard earned money being handed of to some unknown person or company.

If so, could one of you please bother to answer the question he has asked over and over again?

If not, don't you think it might just be a valid question?

NEW 12 Step Program

2010-10-08T10:27:00.000-05:00

1.   Tax and Spend, Spend and Tax!
2.   Raise fees on the “more capable”.
3.   Blame the previous Administration.
4.   Spend money and time SELLING the agenda.
5.   Blame the previous Administration
6.   Raise Taxes.
7.   Promise tax money to allies
8.   Promise more taxes and higher fees to the enemy.
9.   Blame the previous Administration.
10.   Waste money on Government expansion
11.   Ignore what the public really wants.
12.   Blame it on the previous Administration.

We know what party holds the White House,
What party holds City Hall ?

Sales Job or Snow Job?

2010-10-08T08:33:00.000-05:00

The City of Branson held the third segment in the long term sales presentation yesterday. Very slowly the highly paid and very highly educated sales force delivered the veiled and manipulative agenda of this administration. The professional “Sustainability” sales crew did a 90 minute podium presentation that would have had the timeshare industry sales leaders staggering.

I am serious, this presentation was amazing. Three times we were basically reprimanded for bothering to ask what something would cost or who would be paying for this ecological Utopia where evidently vast miles of “green space” would surround high density enviropods with hydro-powered maxi-busses that travel on magical non-invasive invisible glass threads carrying enlightened citizens on their way to their “think tank” jobs.
Sorry about that last paragraph. I just got all caught up in the moment. What with all the “pie in the sky”, theoretical exercises we have been doing in these sales pitch meetings.

So, the event was once again a barrage of leading questions. You all know the kind we are talking about. The kind of question that nearly everyone can agree that at least a couple of the very carefully selected choices of answers are correct. Who is it that can really answer “STRONGLY DISSAGREE” when asked if you like and want more open areas? Of course the answer was an overwhelming “AGREE”! BUT, don’t bother with the minutia and details like who it is that owns the land that the Government will designate as OPEN SPACE. Ask the question differently and you get a whole new perspective….

“If the City of Branson passed a land use law that effectively took away the right to build a house on land that you bought and paid for over the past dozen years of your life with your hard earned money, all for the preservation of Green Space. AND they did this without any monetary compensation to you for the loss of those real property rights, Would you be a happy camper?”

Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat
Partially Agree
All of the Above

We were once again force fed concepts such as connected trails from park to park and from park to other community sites. Let me be perfectly clear! I LOVE the fact that we have beautiful trails and huge parks to enjoy. I am all in favor of trails connecting parks and other portions of our community. What was not addressed is what I truly feel the citizens of this community do not understand and that is that the City and their highly paid sales crew are not telling them that the land to have those trails that connect these locations will be forcibly taken from the rightful owners of those lands through invasive land use laws or by holding services or zoning changes hostage in exchange for the easements necessary, or via the more righteous but still obnoxious, Eminent Domain.

Ladies and Gentlemen, they are from the government and they are here to help. Help take your property rights away one at a time. And they have now decided to take them away not one at a time, but all at once and they are not going to do it with an army of police officers, but with a series of town hall meetings whereby they inform you of the fact that you all agree and want them to take your rights away.

Since it seems we all want to laud the wonderful history of this beautiful community, let me please point out an interesting comparison to history. If my ramblings are even half correct, the rules that will be promulgated from the results of this sales pitch will be such that had they been put into place 55 years ago, Silver Dollar City would not have been allowed to be started. Had the land laws that I believe are being forced upon us been in place 40 years ago, the city of Branson would have a downtown and then another town a mile away would have everything else because of the “green” corridor surrounding the city. I wonder what the story would have been that Sunday night on 60 minutes then.

A few people in attendance yesterday did try to break the momentum and ask silly questions about the cost of this Bali Hi. They were given an answer we might hear at the most talented of Timeshare presentation room sales pitches, when the prospect asked that question too early. They were told that the costs would be discussed at a later date. You bet they will. AFTER the poll results are tallied, questions re-asked in a more manipulative fashion, and then re-tallied until the results are overwhelming one sided. Then and only then will we be told how this is all going to be paid for. Why all the heat pitching? Why not discuss costs now? Simple. We must build a consensus no matter what the real answers are, we need that 70, 80 or 90% “BUY IN” before we turn the contract around and ask for the order.

One new element did eek out at this meeting. Out of the clear blue sky the Colorado company, with no history we can find of practicing law in Missouri, explained the Missouri laws regarding Class 4 cites and how they contrast with “Charter” cities. After the 20 second one sided “gubment” class, the polls were open and, SHAZAMMM, our city council and Mayor were given a clear mandate to change our city government that is plagued with regulations set upon them by the state of Missouri, to a Charter City where by the Mayor and the chosen few will be empowered and loosen that burden of state control.

Why would such a question be asked in a land use visioning meeting? Yet another shoe just dropped to the floor.

Disappointing Town Hall Meeting

2010-09-28T07:08:00.000-05:00

The meeting regarding increases to the fee schedules for those businesses still wanting to come to Branson was held last evening. While I do fault the City a bit for their minimal advanced notice time, I was disappointed with the turn out.

First of all, the notice announced that the Aldermen were holding a Town Hall and while I might be mistaken, The Mayor was the only elected official to show up. She did a good job setting the stage and while I disagree with her, the argument she made was compelling. It is a shame the Board of Aldermen did not feel the need to be there to hear the other side.

As for the other side of the issue. WHERE were the REALTORS? I seem to remember somewhere in your oath that you took that you were to defend the "rights of real property ownership" of your fellow citizens. In general the same group of a small handful showed up to show their support of the right to use private property without undue taxation and restriction.

In some cases the fees will be increased 200 and 300 percent. The staff made good argument that the fees were way outdated and had not been increased for a long time. I think the economic developers of the little town in the Ozarks made good note that now might just not be the best time to make this change. Some argument was made to think about a gradual increase, while others tried repeatedly to remind the tax collectors that the very people they are trying to increase fees on already pay in most of the revenues collected in this community.

If only the crowd had been larger and if there had been TV cameras, and had there been a big rotunda above the room. If then, one might have thought we were sitting in Washington DC. Well there was at least one difference, in Branson there were a few Statesmen still present. Oh and it seems the left side of the isle was missing a few participants.

All that aside, the concept and demeanor of this forum version was more relaxed and seemed more receptive. It appeared as though we were being listened to. At least until the last statement from the Mayor whereby she announced the issue will be coming to the Board soon so they can institute the new fee increases before the next year budget is done. SORRY Mayor, but that ( and the lack of other Aldermen at the event) seemed to tell a few of us that this Town Hall was for show and that the increases were a forgone conclusion.

Maybe that is why so few people showed up.
Well folks, BAD on you !
You can fight City Hall, but only if you show up.

.

.

Possible Rate Increases at City Hall

2010-09-23T15:23:00.001-05:00

Any time rates are increased it will effect YOU.

I am not taking a position for or against these rate increases.

They may very well be necessity

they may be a further step in the attempt to slow growth.

Either way, WE NEED TO SHOW UP!

IMPORTANT UPDATE - LINK TO proposed fee changes!

http://www.cityofbranson.org/pdfs/ProposedHealthFirePZFees.pdf

LAND PURCHASE ?

2010-09-21T17:50:00.000-05:00

We did try to get an answer from the City, but so far nobody seems to know why the City of Branson paid $231,000 dollars for about 7 acres of land without road frontage in the middle of a city park. Now it is entirely possible the deal was negotiated years ago and is part of an overall purchase agreement whereby the owners/seller delayed a taxable windfall. It is possible there are underlying legal matters that made this purchase, at an unusually high price, part of an out of court settlement. It’s even possible that there is a 127 foot long, 6 inch wide, streak of gold in the cave wall beneath the land. OR it is possible the 7 acres is so special that it is actually worth about $33,000 per acre regardless of its lack of road frontage, limited access to utilities and extremely limited market potential.

I guess we will never know. Seems the local press has once again decided to simply regurgitate the official press releases from this administration. Interestingly enough, the press release seems to no longer be available on the City web site. Hmmm. Well, we want to know why this administration has decided to take the chance on affecting the general financial welfare of this city. We are told in the approved “newspeak dictated memo” that the monies were taken from the “Tree Fund” since it just happened to have about that much money in it. The problem is that money was collected illegally over the years and the City has been put on notice of that fact.

So take money from a constitutionally challenged fund and spend it by purchasing a property for what this Broker calculates to be 5 to 7 times the actual value, if in fact the property has any actual value left at all. Then twist and turn the facts into how wonderful it is that we can enhance the experience of walking thru the woods. Since after all there are only a few million acres of woods surrounding this community (ie. The Mark Twain National Forest). Now pass a resolution that the City will restore the home of the previous owner. A very small home built about 100 years ago that may very well be quite nice when several thousand more dollars are spent restoring it and the barn nearby. We have no idea what the historic value is. It might be very high and the city may have gotten a bargain. What is wrong with simply explaining the motives and logic behind emptying a fund full of illegal tax money to buy a 7 +/- acre parcel with a 100 year old house on it in the middle of a 100+ acre city park with poor or no access, limited utilities and an even more limited market potential?

There has got to be more to this story……

Think we will ever hear the real story?????

Thank God we have this transparency in government movement based down at City Hall.

.

Let the people of Missouri have their vote!

2010-09-02T10:11:00.002-05:00

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate?”

That is the proposed language for a Missouri Constitutional Amendment that is to be on the ballot this November. That is unless The Missouri Attorney General, Chris Koster gets away with a technicality claim and wins an appeal he appears to be pursuing.

A real estate transfer tax is a form of double taxation. Annual real estate taxes are already collected.

Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan’s office has publicly stated plans to appeal the decision, resulting in further delays in formalizing voters’ opportunity to vote YES Nov. 2 to stop double taxation. UPDATE:
The appeal was withdrawn. The issue will be on the November 2 Ballot!
VOTE YES! to stop double taxation!

The Billboard

2010-08-31T14:25:00.000-05:00

I see we have gotten a lot of traffic on our Blog over the weekend and yesterday. Well, I guess KY3 should be proud of the controversy it stirred up Sunday night. It seems a billboard that our company (my partner and I ) had installed over a month ago got to be on the news Sunday night. The billboard was our question to the public in response to the many quasi-socialistic policies President Obama and his administration have instilled this past 18 or so months. It was our reaction to the Insurance Company sending us a 30% increase due to the future that “ObamaCare” regulations were going to cause. It was in reaction to financial reform that was just shy of governmental takeover of Wall Street. It was installed in reaction to our perception of a total disregard for what the public desires and an Orwellian attack on our freedoms. Most importantly it was a reaction from us to the anti-business, anti-capitalism attitude displayed by our president and his administration on a daily basis. We do business every day with other small business people who have put it all on the line. Who not only are trying to support their family, but also their employee’s families. None of those people ever get bailed out.

Both our faith and lack of faith in some of the American public was tested Monday morning when the phones began ringing, yes, many for and many against. First of all, I fail to understand why anyone would find it necessary to block their caller ID and call us to use filthy language to voice a perfectly acceptable objection to our sign. I further fail to understand how our little sign on highway 65 in Missouri is racist or treasonous, or disgraceful. It was a perfectly viable question….. If you voted for Obama, are you embarrassed yet? If you are not, then buy your own sign and tell us all how proud you are.

I voted for people in the past that I would freely announce that YES, I am embarrassed. Clearly President Obama has not honored all his promises. His own party has had members announce their embarrassment. He has boldly directed congress to pass legislation that we believe was never envisioned by the founding fathers.

That being said, I am interested to know how some (Not all) of the people who called to oppose our sign have come to the mistaken realization that I at some time had unnatural affairs with my or someone else’s mother or why they think I have any homosexual tendencies. And had either of these things been true, I thought the liberal left would have accepted those activities more freely.

The sign was never meant to be racist. It is far from treasonous, in fact many have called it patriotic. It is not disgraceful and was modeled after a few anti-Bush logos we have seen over the years. We know the man is African-American. We know that is a problem for some, but it never even gets a second thought in our mind. His color is the absolute last thing about him that bothers us. While a list that would go on for hours could be made, the question was never about color or race, it was about his politics. We frankly think it is very racist to bring up the man’s race or genealogy and with hundreds of calls both for our sign and against our sign, ONLY the against brought up race. We did have several callers mention the birth certificate thing. You know, we don’t much care weather he was born in America or not, we just want the man to start acting more like an American.

For all of you who tried to call us this last few days, we tried to answer all your calls, even the ones where you felt it necessary to block the caller ID and then hang up after spewing your filthy monologues. We missed a few calls since it is only the two of us. We can afford a secretary, but can not afford the taxes and insurance we would now be forced to pay for. Rather than pay for an employee, we rented the billboard for another month.

All joking aside. Thank you to the many folks who asked us if they could donate to the billboard fund. No thank you. We put this billboard up the first of August. It took 30 days before anyone against it cared and called us. It was intended to be up until November 2nd and it will remain up until then. It’s paid for until then and the election will be over then and perhaps we will step one small step closer to the path back to the America many of our citizens miss so much.

Buy In??? What are they Selling????

2010-08-13T15:00:00.000-05:00

Well, it has officially begun. The big shindig at the convention center to kick off the public “BUY IN” of the Comprehensive Plan was last evening and to the uninformed, it was a nice Kumbiya moment. If you can read between the proverbial lines however, the stage was neatly set for a future that will include governmental interference in nearly every part of your day to day life as well as in insurmountable increase in the cost of any land development or expansion of our local economy. These game show antics that allowed the public to answer “BIG” questions was the second step in the power grab.

Some of the activities and questions might be more appropriately reworded as follows. “Place a red dot on the picture of a property that you consider bad.” OR “Place a blue dot on the “green” space you think should be preserved regardless of who might own this property and any of their rights.” OR “Push 1 if you think we need to save our green/open space or 2 if you think we should clear cut all trees and blacktop everything.”

We were asked to choose 3 of the following or “only 1” of another list of answers and the answers that were so blatantly ambiguous that no matter what the majority or “consensus” is it can be manipulated and distorted to justify unconscionable governmental movements. Simply put, the City of Branson just started the fast hand shuffle in a 3 Card Monty scam and the citizens never saw the ace get buried in a coat pocket. The fix is in. This ultra liberal environmental fringe group will deliver exactly what they were hired to deliver. A boilerplate, babble filled report with results of their weeks of surveys and “Buy In” meetings all interpreted, skewed, and manipulated to give one alderman his connecting trail consensus, another his “we don’t need no more XYZ” and “we don’t want that kind of business here at all” consensus, and yet another alderman will be granted the right to demand that property owners no longer have the right to develop their own property.

What is lost is the minor tidbits of how these new consensus items will come to be. Land owners will be forced to GIVE easements or deeded land to the city for biking and walking trails so they can be connected to existing and other new ones. Moratoriums or freezes will be placed on special use permits or rezoning requests in an attempt to accommodate the consensus that we already have enough of XYZ type businesses here, after all that is what we learned in the Comprehensive planning process. And the ultimate land grab will be made in the name of a natural beauty. A green belt around the city will be mandated. The problem is the City won’t have to buy those lands that they want to make the green belt. Interestingly enough, every place this has been done before has an increase in the property values near the green belt. See, it seems the old “supply and demand” gets a bit out of whack when government artificially removes a portion of the supply. Now historically, in other cities where this phenomenon occurred, some of the more powerful people with the money to do it would buy or they might even already own property inside the greenbelt and some just outside the greenbelt. Those “Lucky” individuals nearly always end up making a nice healthy profit.

Comprehensive Plan or Prefabricated Rubber Stamp

2010-08-09T17:15:00.000-05:00

Every good business makes plans. We do not disagree with the concept of planning. The City of Branson will be holding a comprehensive planning open house this Thursday. Many of us hope the City Council will actually listen and maybe even truly hear what the public has to say. It is possible. While all anecdotal evidence is quite to the contrary, there are still a few of us die hard optimists that hold out hope that our answers to the surveys will not be used against us in the near future. Unfortunately only time will tell.

After little or no debate the City of Branson decided to spend $175,000 with a Colorado firm that is known for this work. The contract is signed and the money is already spent, so that debate is now over and, wasteful or not, we are all going to have a comprehensive plan to either help form the future or to be used to direct us toward the future desired by a handful. The actual results, if anything more than repeatedly overused boiler plate, will be so loose in exactitudes that this administration will be able to “interpret the results” to their own desires.

This same maneuvering has taken place allover the country. The city bought and paid for a report that will be specifically designed to point the way down what ever path they want it to. Let’s just take one very simple example of a question:

One of the $175,000 questions is:

3. Which of the following makes you most proud of Branson?

Natural Beauty
History
Music/Entertainment Industry
Recreational Opportunities
Community Values
Small Town Feel
Business Environment
Family Orientation

Now if you look at each of these fantastic answers, you might assume that most people would or at least could check all of them. However, let’s look at just a few......

“Natural Beauty” I am sure many of you have heard the old saying that beauty in the eye of the beholder, well even in Branson, Missouri that is very much the case. Many love the hills and trees out in the county that stretches for miles as our visitors approach this little town in the Ozarks. Some see beauty in the lakes and other waterways that were built by man by flooding and killing some hundreds of thousands of acres of those trees. Some see absolute beauty in the neon and incandescent flashings along the short strip of highway in this wonderful place surrounded by all the trees and wild life. Some see the beauty in the natural talents displayed on stage in the big nasty buildings built on land cleared of all the trees. OK, I know a long stretch of the imagination, but these are only a few ways to interpret the fact that many of us who took the online or in person surveys and checked a box next to the words “Natural Beauty”. Knowing the history of nearly ALL government groups, I am willing to bet that the current administration will use my checkmark to further their own agenda.

“History”… What history? The history of The Presleys and Bald Knobbers and Boxcar Willie? Or that of a wonderful fictional book based on real lives of local people some 100 years ago. Or perhaps the “History” of entrepreneurial individualism with a splash of liaise faire attitude. Will an overwhelming percentage of checked boxes on this line in the questionnaire mean we will preserve 100 year old motels that are falling down in the name of “History”? Perhaps it will mean that we discourage “new” kinds of entertainment under the guise of preserving history. Most likely, it will mean different things over the near future. It might mean one thing on Tuesday and another on Thursday. That is the beauty of not being defined in the question.

“Community Values”…. This my friends is Branson newspeak for “BIG BROTHER” if there ever was one. In the name of “Community Values” we hear loud and clear that we don’t want “those type” businesses here. Or we already have enough of “that kind of business”. Values should be defined in the home and at your church, NOT at city hall. This City Hall not only wants to define “Values” but determine what is best for you. Our City administration has decided that they need to develop within their “Comprehensive Plan” what they determine to be our “Community Values” and has even gone so far as to include that in a question placed before the public. The content of those “Values” is not disclosed at this time. Those definitions can be developed in the future at a city council meetings. PLEASE, does that not scare anyone else!

This just about sums it up!

2010-08-03T15:40:00.003-05:00

Need we say anything more?

Just some examples of the ANTI-business attitude of the City of Branson:

2010-08-02T16:37:00.001-05:00

One of our clients opened a nice store that sells various products including a small portion of which that are packages to be mixed with cheese or water, or other substances and then eaten as a snack or dip or spread. You know the kind of stuff you mix up in a little bowl and dip a cracker into. Well, they thought it might be nice if they could allow customers to taste these treats. The dip would be mixed by stirring with a plastic spoon in a plastic throw away bowl and then dipped out by customers with a pretzel or cracker. When used up, everything is tossed into the trash can, simple enough. BUT, they asked the City what permits were necessary expecting some health department concerns.

Believe it or not, they were told they needed to hire an engineer and get professional drawings of the 3 compartment sink and the plumbing for that to the 1500 gallon grease trap that would need to be buried outside under the asphalt. Also they were told that most likely an Architect will be needed to draw the base line drawings for the engineer and to show where in the building the sink would be placed. In addition to the cost of all this professional help and the materials and construction costs, the time to get all this done and the permitting process was a factor.

Another of our customers decided that one of our very nice upscale shopping centers might be a wonderful location for a very nice wine store, the kind that has wines from all over the world at prices from a ten-spot to a couple hundred bucks. Discussions came to the liquor license requirement and they qualified in every way except, the City has a rule that no more liquor licenses can be issued inside the city of Branson IF the license is for packed or bottled liquor. Now, we were not talking about a corner downtown store with iron bars over the windows and MD 20/20 sold by the quart to the poor guy who sleeps on the front steps, NO, I mean a clean upscale wine rack filled establishment with 1963 Chateau Sum-tin-or-udder in the racks and shining sets of long stemmed glassware on the shelves. Now, every city has the right to evaluate and approve or not approve a license, but this City set a moratorium on this type license. This City does not want you to buy a fine bottle of wine at our shopping center and take it home to your home and drink it. However, we were able to get a license to sell you three shots of Tequila and a hotdog at the same location and then you can drive home. Go ahead and explain the morality of that one to my clients. For that matter, why is the City making morality decisions for us regarding a perfectly legal business accepted in 17 other location in Branson. Restriction of trade comes to mind. Why not let the market determine the number of stores. It works for nearly every other business. I assure all of you, if there are too many wine stores the sales volume will decline in them and they will reduce until sales are sufficient again.

The same “Wine” store prospect also considered serving cheese with a weekly wine tasting which took us back to the first example, so they determined cheese and tasting was out of the question even if they got a license.

I know our good citizen friend Yakov has been in this great country for quite a while now, but I wonder if any of these examples remind him of any other country?

More examples of wanton disregard for free enterprise, common sense, and the American way will be published here in the near future.

We at Commercial One Brokers deal with this every day and we know the steps and the side steps necessary to make a good attempt at getting through the bureaucratic mess, but most people only attempt this once in their life. IF you are trying to work your way through all the nightmare by yourself, keep in mind the mess comes from the top down and the staff is only doing their underpaid job the way they are instructed to do so.

Or call us and see if we can help!

More about this famous “TIF Report” and the City of Branson’s strange math equations and processes…..

2010-07-29T17:09:00.002-05:00

The City in their deep desire to go the extra step in their story telling, or I should say their “reporting” went on to add a section of the report that supposedly attempted to show the “Loss” of tax revenue to the Schools from the various TIF districts. I understand the method the Finance Department used to calculate these figures and will not dispute them, what is not being said is the real disingenuous part of the report. The money that they are not getting would not be there to get if the TIF had not been passed. The School District is getting the same Real Estate tax income they did before the Landing was built. You know, the small amount of real estate taxes that the old resorts and restaurants and parks generated back in 1999 or 2000. That same money is allocated to the school district. This is where a little simple math needs to be used. The TIF deal works pretty much like this. What’s coming in before keeps coming in and what comes in above that (EXTRA) for a period of time after goes to the bond debt. SO for the algebra students out there:

X = taxes collected for the schools before the TIF
Y = NEW Taxes collected over and above X
And here is the big one:

X + Y = (T)otal taxes

Now Y or in some cases ½ of Y must be paid to the bond debt:

T – Y = X

So therefore:

X still gets paid to the Schools so how can anyone with any mathematical skills say that the TIF cost the schools?

RETRACTED PORTION

For the less fortunate in the mathematics skills division:

If Johnny has 5 apples and Suzie gives him 3 more, but Johnny has to give 3 apples to Frankie because he introduced Suzie and Johnny,,,,

Johnny STILL HAS 5 APPLES! He may think they are SOUR APPLES, but he still has 5 APPLES!

In most TIF cases, there is yet another “left out” bit of information. Before the TIF was created, some properties had ZERO to very little Personal Property Taxes charged against them and now after the TIF hundreds of thousands of dollars are being collect on those same properties by way of NON-CAPTURED personal property taxes! Yet the city report does not bother to even hint about those hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Perhaps the city council members and their finance department need to consider a tour of the underprivileged schools they reported about and meet up with a math teacher.

NOTE: One of our loyal readers wrote that they believe the PILOTS are not 50% at Branson Hills as I stated... In order to be as fair and honest as possible I am retracting this portion just in case they are correct. The basis of the argument remains, no LOSS occurs.

Creative Bookkeeping - BRANSON 2010

2010-07-23T12:56:00.001-05:00

I am writing this to give another thought or perspective to recent reports distributed by the City Finance Department and further embellished and distorted by our local media. While I find many facts to be correct in the original report, they are presented in such a negative slant and with so many glossed over and foot noted side posts that are particularly relevant to the report, yet missed or poorly represented in both the written report as well as the slide presentation given the night of the meeting, that an entirely different perception was forced onto the audience and later the general public thru the neglect of the news media. While I see a dozen or so examples of this creative bookkeeping and reporting I feel one simply must be pointed out to the public.

On page A-9 of the hand out report a matrix is presented with several columns. One of which is labeled “Branson Landing Debt Service 2004A and 2005A”. In simple terms, that is the debt incurred for building what you and I call Branson Landing, or at least a portion of the construction and infrastructure. Another column is labeled “Branson Landing Debt Service 2003A” When in reality this report is the only place I know of where one might see that label.

The 2003A MDFB Bonds that attribute nearly $3,340,394.00 in debt service for 2010 are not appropriately labeled. If read carefully and sometimes a little light reading between the lines, you might see that those bonds while labeled “Branson Landing Debt Service 2003A” are actually several older debts incurred and re-financed by the city in 2003. The debt was created by rolling the Branson Meadows debt ( which had already been rolled into a city wide TIF debt), the land acquisition debt for the lakefront land and the debt from at least two other city buildings and some street improvement debts. Now it is true that the land acquisition debt for the land the Branson Landing project sits on is included in that 2003A debt, the re-payment of that debt is the Cities responsibility and this fair minded person feels the $450,000 per year land lease payments for 100 years for a total of $45 million dollars is the way that debt should be shown on the report. The payments for that debt via the bonds will end some time in 2031, while the land lease payments will continue until 2105. The land acquisition debt was approximately $ 37,500,000 and it was incurred prior to the Branson Landing TIF and even prior to the concept of Branson Landing being drawn or named. In fact that debt was incurred prior to the developer even being involved with the potential project. Early concepts were a convention center built along the waterfront with little or NO income potential other than the convention center itself. No matter what was built on that property, the debt would still be there and would still be payable. The more appropriate and more honest way to have reported this revenue and expense stream as it pertains to the Branson Landing is that in 2010 the Branson Landing sales tax income forecasted and captured to reduce the debt via the TIF will have an excess of approximately $892,000 that will be able to be used to reduce other debts and reduce the amount of funds that would otherwise need to be taken from the city general fund and other important funds.

As a general perception we looked at the same matrix and after correcting the misinformation regarding the 2003A refinancing debt labeling, we tried extending the matrix further to demonstrate the projected cash flow throughout the term of the lease as compared to only the term of the bonds. It seems that IF one can assume the estimated TIF revenues will remain in a similar pattern as depicted on the City Matrix thru the term of the lease and in effect the anticipated economic life of the project, the additional income amounts to approximately $79,000,000. That 79 Million is over and above all debt service. In fact if you add the excess funds anticipated to be collected during the life of the bonds that are being used to pay other debts, the total funds anticipated to be collected over and above the actual TIF bond debts service for the term of the lease would be in excess of $127,000,000. Subtract the $37,500,000 initial land cost that was paid for from general fund and transportation fund and the City nets about 90 million dollars or roughly $900,000 per year after debt service.

Now the above paragraph is NOT a real picture of this investment. It is an example of how the same data can be used without using any untruths to paint an entirely different picture.
Enough is enough, most of us get it. The people on City Council NOW do not like what the people on City Council before did. They don’t seem to like the Branson Landing financing program (ie. TIF). They don’t seem to like much of anything done by anyone before them. But here are some much more important questions in my mind.

What exactly have they done now that they are in power to advance this wonderful City?
What great new economic development projects have they fostered and brought to the City?
What new road with new exciting tourist attraction has been developed in the past 3+ years?
What great enlightening and changes have come about due to the current administration?

Or how about the attitude change and the transparency we all heard about:

Our experience lately is that nearly any attempt to develop, enhance, add, or change any business or property in the City is met with bureaucratic nightmares of a magnitude many times that of just a few short years ago. Back in those days we economic development minded people all complained about how difficult it was to get something done. Now we look back on those “good ole days” as a walk in the park.

Jury Finds for Coverdell and City "surprised" ????

2010-02-19T16:52:00.001-06:00

The recent court findings by a Taney County jury in the dispute over property in Branson’s North Beach Park and Branson Landing has Empire District Electric Co. and the City of Branson claiming there was a “mistake”, however, Empire District and the City of Branson’s sudden, public outcries have left those present for the trial ,including myself, a bit bewildered and others trying to figure out just how far big business and big government will go to interrupt the individual rights of real property ownership.

In 2003, Empire District filed a quiet title lawsuit claiming ownership of the property against Coverdell and Coverdell Enterprises, Inc. On January 14, a jury ruled against Empire District and found that Mr. Coverdell and Coverdell Enterprises are the rightful owners of the property.

Now, after the jury’s decision, Empire District and the City of Branson have claimed that they were “surprised” to learn the court’s judgment included the Branson Landing area, they claim to believe that only the North Beach Park property was at issue in the lawsuit. Court records, however, demonstrate a totally different story, a story that reveals the truth.

The lawsuit that Empire District brought, refers to two different deeds describing both the Branson North Beach Park and the Branson Landing property at issue. These deeds were introduced into evidence at the trial as Empire District’s own exhibits marker Exhibit TT and Exhibit UU. The judgment includes verbatim the same legal description of the property that Empire District introduced at trial and brought into the suit seven years ago.

Transcripts from the trial also show that Empire District’s corporate representative, and Empire District’s attorney, agreed in open court that if the jury ruled against Empire District then Coverdell and Coverdell Enterprises, Inc. would own the Branson North Beach Park property and the Branson Landing property. The same Branson Landing property that Empire District and the City of Branson now claim was not at issue in the lawsuit.

The court documents reflect that Branson reached a similar agreement with Coverdell and Coverdell Enterprises, Inc.. When Empire District filed the lawsuit in 2003, it also named the City of Branson as a defendant, claiming ownership of certain property in the North Beach Park area. The City of Branson and Coverdell reached an agreement that Coverdell would not dispute Branson’s claim to its property and Branson, in exchange, would not dispute Coverdell’s or Coverdell Enterprises, Inc. ownership or the land in their deeds.

In 2004, the City of Branson’s claims went to trial and the judge ruled against Empire District. The City of Branson dismissed its claims against Coverdell and Coverdell Enterprises, Inc..

Other court records show Empire District and the City of Branson as well as others have, in fact, been on notice of the existence of the dispute over the property for many years. Mr. Coverdell received title to the property from Tori, Inc.. Tori, Inc. acquired the property in 1972. Tori, Inc. filed a series of lawsuits to quiet the title against Empire District dating back as far as the 1970’s and continuing into the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Neither Empire District nor the City of Branson ever challenged these attempts to quiet the title or Tori, Inc.’s title and ownership of the property until Empire District filed the suit in 2003.

Coverdell and Coverdell Enterprises also filed a document known as a Notice of Lis Pendens, which provided written notice of Coverdell and Coverdell Enterprises’ ownership rights to both the Branson North Beach Park property and the Branson Landing property, in 2004 and again in 2006. This Notice was reportedly served to Empire District, the City of Branson and others.

These records are public and available for examination and raise serious questions about Empire District and the City of Branson’s sudden claim of “surprise” about the dispute over the Branson Landing property. Even after seven long years of legal battle, it seems Coverdell will have to continue the fight a little longer, disregarding the hard work of the courts and the jury. Just how long must the fight continue before Coverdell can enjoy the rights of real property ownership for a property which he has owned for years.

Now, I am certainly not an attorney, but I think I can read, and I definitely understand English. Tell me, just how can anyone be “surprised”.

NEW WEB SITE

2009-01-12T11:21:00.001-06:00

Commercial one Brokers has launched their new web site. This new version is complete with many of our “Available Properties” as well as “News”, other “Resources”, our all important “Market Reports” and Information about our team.

Thanks to the development team of:
Quality Business Services
And
Way Out Web Dezign

After a well thought out “wish list” was given to the development team they went to work making miracles happen and we are looking forward to using this new site to help all our friends and customers. Over the next year several new additions will be incorporated.

Follow the progress of the market on our Market Reports and check out our “News” section for information that may effect real estate values from time to time. Click on any available property to get some of the details and even send it to a partner via e-mail at the click of a button. Explore the new site and let us know what is missing.

Location, Location, Location!

2009-01-06T11:37:00.002-06:00

But, what is the right one?

We’ve all heard the old adage: What are the 3 most important things regarding commercial real estate,, Location, Location and Location! The problem is, what is the right location for your business? Main and Main might not be the right location for your business. So often, you as a prospective tenant may not really know where the right location for your business is. Sometimes the criteria for identifying the right location are different for a particular community. For example, most experienced tenants who have many locations across the country will have very specific criteria. These criteria may include such exactness as which side of the street and on which end of an intersection. They may know exactly how many feet from the intersection they might need to be and what the minimum automobile traffic count per day must be.

Often in the city where we work (Branson, Missouri), we need almost first and foremost, to understand the exact nature of the tenants business before we are able to correctly identify the right location. One great example was a specific nationally known retailer who sent their professional real estate department people to town to identify the right location. The pros searched the available data and virtually matched the very precise location criteria to a “T”. The traffic count was in excess of all other options and met the minimum criteria for their business. The relative location to companion tenants that the company had identified as the perfect neighbor was next door. The side of the thoroughfare was correct with regard to the location of their target market. And the cost of the space was within the budget. Perfect, they had identified the triple threat- “ Location, Location, Location”. But, by not consulting a local professional or moving here and living here for a period of time, they made one major mistake. They neglected to identify the correct target consumer habits and challenges. You see, they sold a product that small businesses and even individuals would buy for use at home. Unfortunately, their “perfect” location was an area the local patrons did not frequent and seldom would drive to if given a choice. The huge traffic was mainly tourist traffic. Tourists were one segment of the market that would be very unlikely to buy the products offered by this company.

Selection of location is also going to be very dependant upon the amount of money that a business can typically budget for rents. Just like home buying, different location will effect the rent rate required by the Landlord. Identify the percentage of gross revenue that you will be able to budget toward rent. Identify the potential revenue for each location and weigh the results. Sometimes the perfect location at first glance is not the right choice. If your particular product is such that the “perfect location” will increase sales potential and therefore net revenue by $ 10,000 per year, and rent is $14,000 per year higher than the other choices. That “perfect location” might not be the right location.

When considering the right location, keep other factors in mind.

Where are my competitors and does it at all help me to be near them or away from them. Competition is not always bad. Most of us realize, the fast food chains all seem to be located in the same area. That’s not because they all bought or leased at the same time and none knew about the others. One led and the others followed. These businesses know that competition means choices and choices for the consumer mean more frequent visits and each believes they can achieve their share of the market place. It is seldom an accident.

Who is my customer and which location is likely to be more accessible to that customer? Once again we need to examine the product or service your business sells. Then who really is the typical customer? Easy examples of this would be a store that specializes in lawn and garden supplies like riding lawn mowers and garden tillers. While there are a few commuters in a big city like Manhattan, NY. It would be a poor choice of location to place an 8,000 square foot Lawn & Garden Store on Fifth Avenue. Now why would that be a poor choice? After all, Fifth Avenue is by far recognized as the premier avenue for retail shops. The patrons on Fifth Avenue are very wealthy and riding lawn mowers are expensive, seems like a great combination. The traffic count is huge and the walking traffic is almost impossible to top. Of course most of us recognize the problem, the patrons there, for the most part, don’t have lawns to cut.

Now your business has similar issues to deal with. In the case of Branson, we need to find out who really is your customer or who will most likely be your customers, when will the most likely time be that they will visit your establishment, and maybe, how are you going to get them to come to your establishment. Other bits of information that will help determine the right location are, who would be the best neighbors for my business, will most of my customers come due to an impulse, walk-in type customers or are they sent to me from another source, and maybe, how long will my customers be at my establishment and will the parking be adequate for them or will they be hesitant to visit because they don’t want to fight traffic. These are some of the things we need to establish to evaluate the locations available and determine the right location for your business.

Often there are no perfect choices. Sometimes the rental rate will not allow you to select the best space or the absolute best location has no available space or will not rent to another one of your type of businesses. This is why a complete evaluation of all the acceptable locations is always a very good idea.

CAM, Pass-Through Expenses…What They Mean to You

2008-09-21T20:55:00.003-05:00

Ever called on a retail or office space “For Lease” sign and was told that rent is $X per month + CAM? What are they talking about?

Why isn’t it like renting an apartment...rent is rent and upon paying that amount I get to live there?

You should ask yourself…what should be included in the CAM charges that I pay?

CAM is an acronym for “Common Area Maintenance” and it’s uses are often different in various areas of the country. For the most part, and in it’s simplest form, CAM is an estimated annual amount of total expenses for operating a property. When a landlord discusses or quotes a CAM charge during lease negotiations, they are usually expressing an estimate of the per square foot expenses to pass through to the tenant.

As with many items in a lease, the expenses that are included in calculating CAM charges are determined by actual verbiage in the lease. For the purpose of this discussion, we will discuss the most common meaning of CAM for the retail trade in the Branson, Missouri market. Beware however, there are no absolute rules. Landlords may include additional items or may exclude traditional items as detailed in this discussion. To fully understand all items included in CAM, read your lease carefully.

Generally speaking, CAM charges are all expenses common to all tenants in a given property. For instance, a small neighborhood shopping center will have several custodial or maintenance jobs that must be done regularly. Some of those regularly completed jobs are: grass and weed control, parking lot sweeping, sidewalk cleaning and trash receptacle emptying. Other CAM expenses that are often experienced are: common electric usage for parking lot lights and lighted signs or flagpoles; rental and servicing of large trash dumpsters; often the water is supplied for irrigation as well as consumption in the stores. Virtually any “operating expense” will be added to the CAM charges. In most cases, any costs or expenses related to management company fees or property owner’s employees are added to CAM charges. Often, real estate taxes and insurance for the center are added to CAM charges (although there is usually a separate clause in the lease denoting these expenses).

Calculations of the estimated CAM charges are relatively easy and fairly accurate, once the center has experienced a year or two of expenses. If the center is newer, estimates will be slightly more difficult to assess. However, if represented by an experienced broker or if the landlord is familiar to the area, the estimate will most likely be very close to actual.

CAM is estimated by setting a budget that will list all probable expenses for the calendar year. The total of all estimated, probable expenses is then divided by the total rentable square footage in the property. The answer to this calculation is the estimated CAM charge per square foot. The next step is to multiply the per square foot rate by the total number of square feet in the space leased. This is the annual CAM estimate for the space you are leasing.

Since the amount is usually relatively large and for many legal reasons, the annual CAM estimate is divided by twelve therefore creating a monthly charge. It is important to note that this is only an estimate. Usually there is language in the lease regarding CAM reconciliation at the end of each year. Most leases will have rules regarding overages and shortages. Most typically, remedies are either an invoice for shortages or a credit (or check) for overages depending upon the outcome of the reconciliation.

You may ask why a tenant has to pay CAM since the property is the landlord’s building and asset. The answer is comprehensive and many fold.

First, the tenant is the entity receiving use of the building and are therefore the reason for the expenses. In other words, a landlord expects to receive a certain amount of money for the space they are letting to the tenant. To ensure the landlord receives that amount of money, it has several way in which it can collect it’s rent.

One simple way is what is referred to as a gross lease rental income. This lease arrangement is much like the apartment rental you may have experienced. Tenant pays a set rent amount and the landlord pays all CAM expenses. The problem with that is both the landlord and the tenant have a good chance of losing. If the landlord was willing to rent based on the gross lease rental basis, he would naturally need to add the expenses to his rental rate and since the expenses are not accrued as of yet he will need to estimate them on the high side. Thus, the rent for a gross lease will be higher per month than the net lease.

A net lease arrangement is one in which the tenant does pay their portion of the expenses (CAM) with a few limitations; those limitations should be spelled out in the lease document. Now, the landlord and tenant set the rent and the landlord bills the tenant for the actual expenses on an estimated basis throughout the year with reconciliation at year end. This is a much more equitable method of leasing for all parties. The landlord knows its tenants will not be wasteful and leave water running, or lazy and throw trash out onto the parking lot because the increase in expenses or repairs will be the tenants expense. The tenant should feel confident that the center will not quickly be run down and dirty because the landlord is being reimbursed for the expenses.

While anything is possible when negotiating a lease - it is virtually impossible for a landlord to modify it’s CAM calculation and charging methods once other tenants are in the building. The other tenants have a reasonable expectation that all tenants will be paying their fair share. If any negotiations were to reduce the CAM for a new tenant, the landlord would have to make up those deficits.

Some other acronyms that may be seen or some variations are:

CAMTI- Common Area Maintenance, Taxes, Insurance – This is used when the 3 clauses are lumped together.

NNN or Triple Net - The actual definition for this would be much too long, and local custom will often allow for many variations, but in it’s simplest form the description would be: Tenant pays for all expenses. Sometimes there is an exception for the replacement of the structure and roof.

Absolute NNN- The tenant pays for the roof and structure also – most often seen in single tenant buildings specially built for the tenant. – ie. a Walgreen’s stand alone building.

Our experience has shown that a property which has tenant’s paying their fair share of expenses by way of a CAM charge will usually be better maintained and professionally managed property.

Learn more about CAM as a tenant or a landlord. Visit CommercialOneBrokers.com before you sign your next lease.

What To Look For and Expect from a Professional

2008-08-27T20:17:00.007-05:00

The real estate world is complicated and expanding. Both a Landlord and a Tenant need the services of a good professional REALTOR. It is important to seek the advice of a REALTOR that actually practices in the field you are in need of. Unfortunately, licensure to practice real estate is a single license…a very general qualification, if you will. The person who did a great job helping you find a house, would not necessarily be the best choice to help you look for a business location. The very fact that the agent did a good job on the house deal should tell you right away that they specialize in homes.

The Broker that understands commercial leasing fully has little time left or the knowledge needed to even sell his own home. Professional commercial Brokers spend much of their time tracking locations that are vacant, about to become vacant, and new construction. They study the market on a daily basis evaluating official traffic counts, sales revenues, rent and term trends in their market, personal demographics of specific sub-markets, governmental procedures for occupancy, and many more intricacies of commercial real estate and leasing.

Look for a company or Broker that asks you lots of questions about the basics of your business. Simple as it might seem, the Broker will perform best when they really know what you need. Retail Tenants should introduce the Broker to the product type and target consumer you intend to penetrate and market. Practicing this simple rule is much more efficient and effective than blindly looking at spaces available, then picking one that looks good to you. A great looking location that is too far and too difficult for the end consumer to arrive at might just be a catastrophic mistake. For instance, the ideal location may have been the third or fourth choice of the Tenant because there the target consumer base is much larger or qualified.

Many very successful restaurant chains have an actual location ‘check list’. The public might indeed think that a location on Main St. would surely be the best place for this restaurant. However, professionals know that unless a location ‘scores’ a certain point level on their check list, the restaurant will not succeed or meet their sales objectives. These check lists include evaluation of things like racial demographics, average age, income level, education level and marital status of the people living within 1, 3, and 5 miles of the location…all this often before they get into a car to drive over and look. If those numbers don’t measure up, they don’t even leave the office.

Now, not every Tenant will have or even want all that information, but a good commercial real estate Broker has it and can draw conclusions from it to help a Tenant select a location that is right for their business.

Learn more about the role and effectiveness of a professional commercial real estate broker. Visit CommercialOneBrokers.com before you choose a location for your business.

2008 Mid-Year Update of the Annual Branson-Area Real Estate Market Report

2008-08-19T22:05:00.003-05:00

VISITORS NUMBERS SHOW SMALL DECLINE IN FIRST HALF

The year started with ice storms followed by tornados and then floods. The swarms of locus were the only missing calamity so far this year. According to preliminary numbers collected by the Branson Lakes Area Chamber and CVB, visitation appears to be off approximately 7% +/-. At one time during the spring, over 400 counties in our primary markets were labeled national disaster areas by the federal government. When $4 gas is added to the equation, Branson actually performed very well.

RETAIL OCCUPANCIES DROP SLIGHTLY

Even with a softening of the local residential markets…the retail sector appears to be holding its own. It is clear that the newer retail locations that have commanded higher rates are slower to rent and the older centers with lower rental rates have shown more leasing activity in the first half of the year. Many of the new visitors to the Branson area are buying more expensive items and are staying at more expensive, higher-quality hotel properties or condominiums.

OFFICE OCCUPANCY RATES IMPROVING

The area’s office market showed good improvement thanks to the recent commitment by the Veterans Administration to lease nearly twenty-four thousand square feet of The Executive Center for the VA’s new Branson clinic.

Occupancy for the local hospitality market continues to remain steady despite the pressures of weather catastrophes this spring and high gas prices.

Learn what markets and industries Commercial One Brokers projected to increase and prosper by year end…and what Branson and Taney County need as soon as possible. Ask about a full version of this report and view previous market reports at CommercialOneBrokers.com.