This wasn't a paper that we really wanted to write, but we did so because corrupt economic analysis was being used to promote bad policy. It was important to show why it was wrong in hopes of helping other communities where the model may be used to promote similar developments.

Here's one trick the commissioned model uses (trick is the right word). If you want to show that a stadium will be an economic boon, just assume a ridiculously high growth rate. You can't lose, bc even observed losses can be projected into huge surpluses that aren't falsifiable.

This is why media organizations should NEVER report findings of commissioned reports in news stories. If you don't understand how these models work, you can confuse complexity as evidence of competence when it's really done to obfuscate. If it's good, it will pass peer review.

This model did significant damage in Worcester, Massachusetts. The public funding likely wouldn't have passed without the "assurance" from the consultant who was paid $90K to concoct the model that "showed" it would work. And guess what...

@jc_bradbury @Mark_R_Pereira Did you find (or look into) impacts relative to the team’s “popularity”? E.g., the economic difference between an MLB team’s stadium and a A or AA team’s stadium?

@jc_bradbury There has to be 4 or 5 huge housing complexes either built or being built the latest in center field, the Publi Market etc. Just saying there has been a significant transformation in the area. I guess just leaving a vacant and abandoned brown field there was an option too.