You should definitely read Martin Wisckol’s article in the Orange County Register asking experts for their views on the economic impact study done to assess the impact of the Angels’ presence in Anaheim. It’s available at this link; if it costs you $2 — well, the value of the information is far greater.
This does not count as one of the CSL study’s twelve pages. So at least there’s that.
The brunt of the article involves taking the 12-page report written by the Texas-based consulting firm Conventions, Sports & Leisure (“CSL”) and having experts probe it. This is the firm that the City Council or its agents actively sought out and hired for either an objective analysis of the Angels’ economic impact on the city (which they’d claim) or for a slanted report they could brandish to justify what they wanted to do anyway (which seems more likely to be the case.) Please consider familiarizing yourself with the details — which are pretty devastating.
You don’t even have to get into the report itself to see a huge problem, though; CSL’s reputation precedes it. They’re in the business of facilitating this sort of transaction with rosy economic predictions — and someone in this situation (my guess is that it was Charlie Black) doesn’t consult them for objectivity, but for advocacy. (This sort of thing ranks high in my “what I hate about Law” list.)
The key phrase is probably this one.
“Based on everything else I’ve seen CSL do, this is a promotional study,” said Andrew Zimbalist, co-author of “Sports, Jobs and Taxes: The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadiums.” “If CSL came out with a study that said Anaheim had no positive economic impact, they wouldn’t get any more work.”
Beyond that, I’m only going to quote some material from the end.
City Council members’ reaction to the commissioned report – and to the critiques by other economists interviewed by the Register – range from outright rejection of the document to complete embrace of it. Tait is the council’s harshest critic, calling the study’s assumptions “absurdity upon absurdity.”
…
Brandman, however, said he was fully convinced of the Texas consultant’s findings.
“I absolutely believe the report,” he said. “It’s a reputable company.”
When read Adibi’s comments about the study, Brandman said he respected the Chapman economist – but it didn’t change his view.
“Everyone has the right to disagree,” Brandman said. “Economists do it all the time. There may come a time when we get another study, but this study is solid and I believe it.”
The importance of the Angels deal — particularly the non-Angels, direct benefit to Arte Moreno, portion of it — to Anaheim’s future can hardly be overstated. The City has decided to approach the negotiations from the standpoint of its being prepared to pay just about any price to keep the team in Anaheim — this without any really credible threat of its leaving — because the economic importance of the Angels to the city is so enormous. That invites the question: “how enormous is that impact?” This 12-page study was designed to answer that question. If it was poorly done, the entire rationale for capitulating collapses.
In other words, it’s really, really important. It’s far too important to be approached with bullshitting.
The verb “bullshit,” by the way, is not really a mild obscenity — it’s a technical term of art from the academic study of Philosophy. It was the subject of Harry Frankfurt’s slender book “On Bullshit,” which became popular in 2005. (Note: I’m publicly acknowledging that this following quote is from Wikipedia.)
Frankfurt argues that bullshit either can be true or can be false; hence, the bullshitter is a man or a woman whose principal aim — when uttering or publishing bullshit — is to impress the listener and the reader with words that communicate an impression favorable to the speaker, with no concern for the truth of what they’re saying. Likewise, the bullshitter is not concerned with consistency between what they’re saying at the moment, and anything they’ve previously said. Consequently, “the bullshitter is faking things, but that does not necessarily mean he gets them wrong.” He simply doesn’t care. In contrast, the liar must know the truth, of the matter under discussion, in order to better conceal it from the listener or the reader being deceived with a lie; while the bullshitter’s sole concern is personal advancement and advantage to his or her agenda; bullshit thus is a greater enemy of the truth than are lies. [citations omitted]
If Truth is moral and Lies are immoral, Bullshit, then, is amoral. It’s not even bothering to lie — or to remember one’s statements or explain and defend them. It’s just giving bland reassurances and hoping that people go away and stop asking questions. It’s arguably the worst enemy of political virtue — partly because, unlike a well-constructed lie, it’s so damnably easy to do. For the most part, all a bullshitter needs is vagueness and an inattentive audience.
You may notice that I’ve highlighted some of Councilmember Brandman’s statements in red. They are:
- That he is fully convinced of the Texas report’s findings.
- That he absolutely believes them.
- That this is because they are a reputable source.
- That he respects the Chapman University economist cited by the Register.
- That he nevertheless dismisses that economist’s statements out of hand.
- That he respects people’s right to disagree.
- That economists always disagree so the disagreement doesn’t bother him.
- That the study is solid.
- That he believes it.
I’m not saying that Brandman is lying here. (Well, his believing that CSL is a reputable source might be.) I’m saying that it looks to me like he may be bullshitting. Look at those comments: he doesn’t actually have to understand or know a single thing within the report to say any of it! He just has to be sufficiently convinced to convince everyone else to pipe down go away, because “reasonable people can disagree.” If you’re not familiar with William James’s discussion of the “will to believe” — have a look at it.)
But maybe Brandman really is an expert. Maybe he really can defend the study. I say: give him that chance!
Brandman against Tait — mano a mano. Televise it.
- Start with the decision to engage CSL (who decided, with what purpose, based on what reputation?)
- Then address what the study was supposed to accomplish; why was it important?
- Then describe how the City Staff should have assessed the study before it began — and its success or failure afterwards. By that, I don’t just mean temporary staffer Charlie Black; I mean the permanent staff. What did the City Council expect of them?
- Then address what a member of the City Council should do when assessing it for themselves. Should they even bother forming their own opinion, or just take the assertions of staff as a basis for “absolute belief” in the findings and the study’s being “solid.”
- Assuming that their own opinions did matter, what questions should Council Members have asked? Is it important to consider alternative information — or can they just be dismissed because “people always disagree”? If people trying to be objective do always disagree, how should one go about determining the truth at all — let alone the sorts of confident assertions Brandman makes above?
- Is this decision important enough to require serious investigation — or not? Why?
Maybe Brandman isn’t just bullshitting here. That would be nice. But we’ll only know if the basis for the confident assertions he makes about in dismissing, among other things, Wisckol’s strong and appropriate journalistic efforts here by putting him to the test. And, based on the article, Tait seems to be the one able to provide it.
(One final note to my friends from my political party: if you think that we want ours to be a party that supports bullshit, I disagree with you. I think that rejecting bullshit is the only way that we survive as anything resembling actual Democrats in difficult terrain like Orange County’s.)
Let’s not forget Brandman`s “ironclad” Gardenwalk giveaway study as well.
Of all the things for Brandman to opine upon, he chooses to present himself as the arbiter of what makes a solid report from a reputable company? The guy is just asking for the “wikipedia award” to be presented at Tuesday’s Council meeting. Talk about leaving yourself wide open.
First, you’re dealing with a character that did a copy-paste “report” of his own for Tom Daly that was utterly worthless, but that cost $25,000.
Second, you are dealing with a twelve page “study,” four pages of which deals with the non-economic, feel-good stuff the Angels contribute to our community – an odd inclusion given the idea that the “study” is supposed to be about objectified impacts. Take away the pictures and the drivel-talk and you have a couple of paragraphs of assertions that are not backed up by anything or are just bland assumptions. Of course the thing was utterly laughable.
On to philosophy: I find the distinction between the bullshitter and the liar to be somewhat irrelevant. In this case either would be advocating something that is injurious to the public. The practical consequences of dealing with Brandman the Bullshitter or Brandman the Liar are precisely the same (see William James’s “Pragmatism”).
Here’s the kicker, though. Why is the this study being trotted out at all, except as a way to grease the horrible giveaway and get the “business of baseball” idiots like Dan Chmlewsky to get all frothed up? What the Angels are worth to Anaheim is only tangentially useful in negotiations. A true negotiation would be getting as much as you can and giving away a little as you have to. And that Dan C., is the business of business.
The City Council already gave away a three-years extension for free and are set to extend the lease for a possible minimum of only seven years’ added term. They have created a framework of negotiations that will give away real estate worth millions for free and likely tax rebates, too, are are getting virtually nothing they didn’t already have. There is zero link to a new stadium or stadium improvements.
And perhaps worst of all, they have created a framework where they are dealing with two separate legal entities and that will benefit the same man, but that have nothing else to do with each other.
Bullshit or lie? Who cares?
Exactly. Why was a study that bolsters the Moreno argument paid for by the city?
The liar tries to convince on the merits with alleged facts; the bullshitter tries to avoid the merits with an ipse dixit, making a debate impossible.
Exactly. There is no public debate. Lie? Bullshit? Same end result.
It’s called playing with House’s money. The Four know there’s no repercussion.
Maybe — but it’s easier to fight against a lie. Look at Brandman’s comments — which of them is easily rebutted? They’re based not on assertion of fact, but assertion of opinion. The best way to show that he’s bullshitting, and thus to undermine them, is intensive cross-examination that demonstrates that his opinions are based on pretty much nothing — and he doesn’t care.
By the way — is Matt off the clock on the weekends or something? I’d have expected to see his humphing here by now. (Did they wise up and fire him?)
The fight is over. It was over before it even started.
I have to admit that when it comes to bullshit Diamond is an expert.
I’m forming the opinion based on your other debate here right now that you’re negligible, so I’m going to negligate you.
Just don’t WEAR a negligate!
Need I remind you gentlemen, the freedom you enjoy here.
On other blogs such profanity will get you banished (or at least bashed).
The OCR was full of interesting senseless bullshit today. What else is new.
So where did Jordan Brandman get his Ph.D. in economics from?
Oh, that’s right, he got a Political Science degree from UCI and has been nothing more than a political apparatchik his entire life. I sure as hell threw my vote away when I voted for Duane Roberts, but at least I’ll never have to be ashamed about casting a vote for this anti-intellectual, anti-democratic (both small-d and capital-D) tool. This is the point where I’ve crossed over from disassociated, abstract dislike into active, full-bodied loathing.
I have been negligated by Diamond. Is there a treatment for that?
It depends if you have a bronze, silver, gold, or platinum plan.
Repentance is always a good start.
I would like details of the cause of my negligation before I consider repentance.
Hell, I got carpetbagger to expose himself as a complete fuckin’ moron – that should redound to my credit.
I don’t see any posts like that around — anymore. (If you want them reinstated, though, they will be.)
So you are requiring repentance of me for something you will not explain to me and for which you have no evidence to present – sweet.
Clearly, you don’t know the first thing about negligation.
I’m too busy to play in your sandbox right now.
Here’s something funny: I was looking over the Anaheim City Council minutes for Sept. 24, which will be approved today, and I happened to find this:
A DIRECT loss of $120 million PER YEAR. Really. I wonder how she calculated that.
Through the Magic of . . .
… Jiminy Cricket!
You know what caught my eye in the Minutes?
Mayor Tait stated that he had voted for the contract to have the Chambers administer vouchering for the Chambers, however, he did not support the contract amendment last May to prepay the Chambers rather than after service was performed and to increase the contract to a total of about $600,000, over four to five years. He indicated he voted against it because it was understood that the State was canceling the Enterprise Zone program and because an audit had not yet been received from the Chamber.
He wondered why an audit that was to be submitted months ago was still not available. Ms. Vander Dussen responded the audit was drafted prior to the State terminating the EZ so some of the findings in the audit no longer applied and if the council ended the contract at this time, there would not be a reason to make some of the revisions in the contract recommended by the auditor.
She added there was an exit conference between the auditor, the Chamber and the city this week and it was anticipated that both parties would have 30 days to prepare written comments in response to the audit and following that process, the audit would be completed. She added the audit would look at the performance during the period that was audited and in addition, the city would receive reports for review as well as the annual report and would either release the holdback funds or potentially request funds back from the Chamber if they failed to perform their responsibilities under the contract. Mayor Tait indicated he would not support this item because it was not good business to continue to expend funds when an audit had been months overdue.
Yeah…so someone tell me how the State’s cancellation of the Enterprise Zone in 2013 in any way affects the 6 month and 12 month audits performed for the Chamber’s administration of the program in 2012? Can we just come right out and admit that the Anaheim City Council simply feels it is bad form to require special friends to actually comply with the terms of a Contract for which they were paid obscene amounts of public funding and be done with it?
How, you ask, does the cancellation of Enterprise Zones affect the audits of Chamber of Commerce activity that was completed before the cancellation occurred?
Come on, that one’s easy: it gives the Council cover — and least among people who aren’t paying close attention.
Per the contract with the ACC, the City was to commission 6 and 12 month audits.
It’s contract with the auditing firm turned these time frames into “reviews.” However the firm wasn’t even hired ’til 11 months into the EZ project so something went wrong right off the bat. The scope of work in the contract was simply the firms proposal – a sign that nobody in City Hall or the Chamber knew what was going on.
The proposal was actually structured as a method for proper implementation during the first year, which makes one wonder if that was really the intent of the “audit” process in the legislation. It certainly would call into question any succeeding audit work by the same firm.
My guess is that the “performance” auditor couldn’t do what it was supposed to without making the City and the Chamber both look really bad.
Anaheim happens to have an excellent internal audit staff. It’s interesting they haven’t been tasked to check the numbers for the CSL study, nor the “fantastic” deal in the Disney area. One thing I haven’t seen mentioned, that auditors would probably look at, is the collateral costs of both deals. The proposals would put greater demands on the city’s traffic and utility infrastructure, and larger crowds would require more police presence. To be financially advantageous for a city, a development has to generate more in direct and indirect revenues than it costs in terms of direct (subsidy) and indirect (support) outlays. The in-depth long-term financial analyses these kinds of deals require shouldn’t be entrusted to companies or organizations that have a vested interest in their approval.
Perhaps they simply don’t want to have to threaten such an excellent staff with termination if they should come up with the wrong result.
After all — if auditors know about anything, it’s how to Tall(e)y.
Very punny!