| |
The
Response over the Brookings "Study" Continues
The
17 March 2005 edition of the Zeitgeist e-Zine
The furor
over the recent indictment of Convention Center Development by Heywood
Sanders (and inexplicably published by the Brookings
Institution) continues to flare up in pockets across North
America.
As mentioned in our January
post on this topic, Sanders’ rant against Convention
Centers is predictable and, dare I say it, even permissible. Hey, he
has a right to his opinion. He even has a right to play fast and loose
with his research. It’s a free country.
My concern was (and continues to be) how a well-respected think tank
like Brookings could have allowed this “report” to go out
under its masthead. I mean, it’s one thing when a professor releases
a white paper. It’s something else when it comes with the full
faith and credit of Brookings. And, it didn’t take long for the
Brookings connection to come back and bite a destination.
Rockford (IL) has been contemplating its strategy for a convention center
since the mid-1990s. Initial feasibility studies green-lighted the project
for Illinois’ “Second City,” but the economic downturn
and siting discussions caused the City to move judiciously. Just as
the project began to come back into focus, the Brookings study hit the
media…and the subsequent editorial was chilling:
“Wendy Perks Fisher, president of the Rockford
visitors bureau, remains a big believer in the need for
a convention center. She says the Brookings report is not real research
and is not substantiated.
We beg to differ.
The Brookings organization is a respected think tank in Washington,
which is regularly called upon to testify in Congress. Every group has
its detractors, but most people regard Brookings research as reliable,
thorough and independent.
Rockford could hardly call its own study objective. The Chicago-based
Johnson consulting group has been paid a total of $125,000 since 2003
to study the convention center issue.”
That’s right, the Rockford
Register Star decided to stick a fork in the project, based
not on the numbers…but because Brookings said so. And,
in the same breath, they attacked research done at the request of the
City because it was paid for. Seems like a strange criteria upon which
to base a position…
And, among your responses to our initial post…most were of the
“right on” variety. However, there were also a few that
were just as right on in my eyes, thanks to their candor:
“We may get more credibility by embracing some of his conclusions
and calling for further study vs. circling the wagons as is more customary.”
“He may be closer to making our point about good sound, destination
development than we think.”
“This guy beats an empty drum but he gets attention and the ripple
effects are profound. However, Heywood aside, as an industry, we do
need this debate.”
And I agree. Unfortunately, Brookings’ endorsement of the report
as factual has put our industry in a defensive posture…and it’s
hard to move forward when you’re doing damage control.
To my friends across the country who are still bailing, hang in there…and
here’s hoping that your project helps prove the skeptics wrong.
Bill
Wanna
comment on this or other topics. E-mail
Me!
|
|
