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?
3 comments:
Very good obeservations Steve. It has been nearly 20 years since most of the development on the strip was completed. I understand the city's desire for more retail and rationalle for incentives in Branson Hills and others. However, it appears that our money would be put to much better use by offering incentives for redevelopment on the strip. If we look at taxable sales for the city of Branson over the past 10 years, one would observe a substantial uptick in taxable sales when Branson Landing opened. A new attraction every 5 years is needed in this town to keep us fresh and inviting to our repeat visitors and to attract new visitors. Let's re-prioritize our incentives and re-direct some of our funds from overpriced marketing to incetives for tourism development.
Interesting. This blog entry goes all over the place, but has a theme of Branson city government being non-conducive to business.
It has been my opinion for a long time that the most unfriendly establishment in the entire town is Branson City Hall. I feel as though when I walk in the door, I am viewed as the enemy. They stonewall me when I ask questions (not accusorial questions either, I'm asking things like how is a certain property zoned, what is allowed in that district, can I read the ordinance, what is staff's interpretation of the ordinance, what does it take to hook to sewer, etc.). I have gotten to where I really don't even want to walk in the building.
And I thought it was just me. I thought I had said something unpopular or unapproved years ago, got the cops upset over something ignorant, or offended somebody's genteel sensibilities with some blue language or something. But I just had a client in my office this morning who said almost the exact same thing: the whole building is unfriendly, you feel like the enemy, he just didn't want to walk in the building anymore.
In my conversation with this developer, we both noted that Gatlinburg/Pidgeon Forge is booming right now. So are a few other low-cost or countrified tourism destinations. But Branson isn't. Why?
This person attributed the fault, much like this blog entry, with the City of Branson. I don't fully agree; I think market forces will overcome an unfriendly city, and the more the city actively tries to kill development that is pushed by economic forces, the more screwed up it becomes, but it still happens.
Although I don't think the attitude of the city is the entire story, it is probably a component. The investors that I have been working with are currently focused as much or more on risk than they are potential returns. Political risks associated with an unfriendly city government are a big component of that risk. They also like investments that require minimal investor involvement in management. The more 'brain damage' associated with the ownership of something, the less they want it.
We have been predicting for a number of years a redevelopment of the Strip as many improvements are approaching the end of their economic lives. As far back as I can remember, there has always been somebody looking for a site for some sort of attraction, usually five or ten acres, fronting the strip, and they could never find one that really worked. Right now, for the first time that I can ever remember, there are several potential sites suited for redevelopment with a new attraction, such as Bens Wishing Well, the Grande Palace, the Silver Slipper, TanStone, Windmill Inn, Legends Theater, K-Royale, Dollar Shop, Fiddlers Inn, and so on, that are all suited for immediate re-development. But there are no buyers. For the first time in decades, there isn't a line of people looking for sites fronting the Strip to develop something on.
I find that interesting. I don't think that the city's attitude toward the public is the root cause, but I am certain that it is a factor.
Unlike Bob's blog, I don't lay the fault entirely with City Council. I find the councilmen to all be very open and claiming to be wanting a better functioning city hall, but the staff seems to be something else: Jekyl & Hyde.
Part Two:
I know from my own experience that it is affecting redevelopment to some degree. I was strongly looking at buying a building in downtown. At the end of the day, I chickened out because I really didn't want to have to deal with the City of Branson. I was worried that I would try to make some minor repair, and some city official would show up and start demanding a bunch of major alterations and then tell me I cant use the building because what I do doesnt produce sales tax. It wasn't the entire reason, I was also worried about the economy, the neighborhood, increasing crime in the area, and my longer term desire to get out of Branson, but it was a big factor.
As for government incentives to develop on the Strip, I am going to disagree with Jerry. I would prefer that development be driven by market forces and guided and regulated by government actions. Incentives are necessary only where a community has completely failed. All that I think may be necessary is to remove some of the government disincentives that are present.
As for redirecting marketing money into incentives, I have always thought that marketing is something that is much better done by the private enterprises that benefit. If there is any marketing money that needs to be spent, it is not on direct promotion, but on something deeper. I suspect (though I have no actual data) that the "Branson Brand" has been damaged in some way. Whenever some hollywood character refers to anything having to do with Branson, it is intended as a derisive joke of some sort, suggesting that only trailer-trash, meth-heads, and bible-thumpers vacation in Branson and buy a bunch of trinkety crap. We don't have much of a product, and the product we have now is mis-perceived.
(Sorry for the long rant)
Post a Comment