Academic Zimbalist says studies for sports venue proponents are "elaborate press releases based upon inappropriate methodology & unrealistic assumptions.” Like his in Brooklyn?

An Aug. 1 American Prospect article, Neighborhoods Play Hardball, has the subheading, "For decades, wealthy owners and financiers have gotten cities to pay for their sports stadiums. It’s not so easy anymore."

Indeed, as exemplified by the pushback in Philadelphia and Arlington, Va, toward new arenas, it can be tougher. (Then again, the Buffalo Bills.)

But one paragraph in Gabrielle Gurley's otherwise laudable article prompted a spit-take:

A decision to proceed or pull back hinges on the results of long-delayed city impact reports that have been paid for by the Sixers. Many economists take a dim view of these types of studies. [Andrew] Zimbalist of Smith College says this research is done by consulting firms that cater to their clients’ interests: “Those are called economic impact reports, but really what they are is elaborate press releases based upon inappropriate methodology and unrealistic assumptions.”

Ya think?

Zimbalist, from his academic perch, can sound like the ever-reasonable scholar.

Consultant Zimbalist

But Consultant Zimbalist is guilty, many times over, of delivering studies not worthy of peer review but rather "elaborate press releases based upon inappropriate methodology and unrealistic assumptions." (See Neil deMause's coverage, including this wholesale slam.)

Most of what I wrote in March 2006, dissecting the $6 billion lie behind Zimbalist's economic impact report for Atlantic Yards developer Forest City Ratner, remains sound.

For example, how could he give the project credit for the income taxes of new residents? Wouldn't that make any speculative condo development a gold mine?

"This is a very problematic assumption, tantamount to assuming that residents bring their own jobs to the City when they move in to a new housing unit," as a Pratt Institute critique, written by economist James Parrott, explained.

But one thing both Zimbalist and critics like me ignored was the possibility--nay, likelihood--that the project would not be built in the time or configuration as promised, thus attenuating future benefits and raising public costs.

In other words, as I've learned, all scenarios are best framed as ranges of possibility: best-case, worst-case, and in between.