| |
The
Renewed Debate over Convention Centers as Good Public Policy
The
27 January 2005 edition of the Zeitgeist e-Zine
Last week’s
USA
Today-fueled dust up over whether Convention Center
development is good public policy could have been the start
of a more measured approach to what University of Texas-San Antonio’s
Heywood Sanders called this nation’s “arms
race” among cities battling to build the biggest and the best
Public Assembly Facilities on the planet.
 Of
course, Sanders didn’t set out to initiate a dialogue that would
have resulted in deeper and more thoughtful analysis of facility development.
He didn’t intend for those companies that perform feasibility
studies to develop more rigorous standards for their recommendations.
If he did, he would have researched and written his “study”
(published last week by the Brookings
Institution) far differently. He would have focused on
the very real concern that many of today’s feasibility studies
may inadvertently overstate potential benefits. He would have suggested
ways to begin to create a better barometer of convention center supply
and demand. And, he would have partnered with someone that actually
had some hands-on experience in the meetings and destination marketing
arenas to insure that his sweeping generalizations about the hospitality
industry and its impacts upon a community weren’t just so much
tripe.
Instead, like so many politicians that utilize inflammatory innuendo
to get noticed, Sanders was simply continuing his long-standing anti-Convention
Center crusade. Only this time, he found a willing patsy in the Brookings
Institution.
We all seek third party endorsements to reinforce our agendas. It’s
why destinations engage firms to perform feasibility studies for Public
Assembly Facility projects…to prove that it’s not just a
handful of industry hopefuls that believe such a development would be
good for the community. It’s why we look to firms such as C.H.
Johnson Consulting and Buckley-Christison
to perform such studies…and not Jimmy Joe Ray Bob’s Consulting.
We want a “name” that connotes professionalism and expertise
in the field.
Which is why I’m less troubled by Sanders’ predictably slanted
rant than I am that the folks at Brookings actually allowed this drivel
to be published under their name. You see, Brookings has had a fairly
respectable tenure as one of this nation’s premier think tanks.
To paraphrase the old E.F.
Hutton ads, “When Brookings talks, people listen.”
Indeed, Brookings claims to conduct “the kind of rigorous, innovative,
clearly presented analysis on which sound public policy depends.”
On their website, they boast that “the remedies our scholars propose
are rooted in open-minded inquiry, not in dogma or doctrine.”
I guess nobody bothered to proof Mr. Sanders’ work…or check
to see if he was, indeed, open-minded. For, if they had, the Brookings
“scholars” would have asked why he focused the lion’s
share of his work on the Trade Show 200 and the exhibition space side
of the business…when the far more significant economic impact
comes from the meetings side. Why he ignored the larger development
impacts that Public Assembly Facilities often spawn (like the $400 million
of private sector redevelopment money that has flooded into Madison’s
downtown since it built its Convention Center). And why he based his
deeply flawed conclusions on the buying habits of meeting planners and
event attendees on a period of time in which this nation endured one
of the steepest economic declines in modern history.
It would be like me basing a “build” recommendation based
solely on last year’s recovery statistics. Even a rube knows that
none of the rules apply when trying to draw trend data from the past
four years. So why would an esteemed think-tank accept such “research?”
Other than that because Sanders has letters after his name that stand
for “Piled Higher and Deeper”…I’m not sure why
Brookings gave him a day-pass on accuracy. But, once again, it showcases
the disturbing lack of understanding and, thus, appreciation that plagues
this side of the economic and community development field.
Sanders’ underlying message that we must hold those that perform
feasibility studies to a more stringent standard holds serious merit.
It’s a shame that he completely fudged his proof as he gunned
for headlines designed to derail a handful of current projects by inflaming
a media looking for public scandal. It’s a message we might have
actually taken to heart. Instead, his swiss-cheese research and over-the-top
generalizations position him as a heretic…and Brookings as surprisingly
gullible.
Too bad…for it’s a discussion we need to have in this industry.
Bill
Bil
|
|
