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
OR
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.
5 comments:
change needs to be an important part of our future. We need to be providing the goods and services our customers want. There is a once-famous tourist town near here that never changed. Rockaway Beach. Ever been there?
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 . . . . .
Part Two: Anonymous,
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.
Post a Comment