The 0.25% public facilities sales tax for Peoria County passed by 409 votes. County residents were opposed 60%-40%, but city residents voted in favor by a 59%-41% margin. Here’s the breakdown:
| Yes | No | |
|---|---|---|
| City | 9947 | 6773 |
| County | 5357 | 8122 |
| Total | 15304 | 14895 |
The 0.25% public facilities sales tax for Peoria County passed by 409 votes. County residents were opposed 60%-40%, but city residents voted in favor by a 59%-41% margin. Here’s the breakdown:
| Yes | No | |
|---|---|---|
| City | 9947 | 6773 |
| County | 5357 | 8122 |
| Total | 15304 | 14895 |
Ya know… I’m all for educational opportunities in Peoria. Lord knows PSD 150 isn’t exactly providing them. I voted for the library referendum – I think PPL brought a great proposal to the table and alot of the branches – especially Main Street – need some updating.
I’ve told people that have asked me that I COULD have supported the museum if a realistic proposal were brought to the table, but there wasn’t. 240,000 people a year are not going to come to Peoria to visit a museum, I don’t care how great it is.
Someone pointed out the number of vacant buildings downtown… I have a better proposal – use the old Cohen’s building. THERE is history and a museum with a better pricetag. What about parking, you say? Why, the Civic Center and National City’s parking deck. Or if not the Cohen’s building, then why not one of the other buildings on Water St closer to the post office? That would be a proposal I could get behind… gets rid of some of the vacant buildings downtown.
CJ:
Now how much does a buyer save on a $20k auto if purchased in Tazewell rather than Peoria County?
If the difference is 1% and I can purchase at Bearce across the bridge rather than University Ford I save $200.00
But look at the relative gain to the county in which I made the purchase – approximately $1,500.00 vs. the county that I did not – which lost out on $1,500.00
Now look at this in terms of property taxes and annual consumption of goods for which the respective local governments are going to win or lose if a family decides to reside in one county over the other. In the case of your family, my guess is that the difference would be several thousand dollars per year.
My last year in the Econ Dept at Bradley, we had a symposium in professors houses, one of which took place at the home of Dr. Scott in Germantown Hills. I think it would be interesting to calculate the “Germantown Hills Effect” of a developing upscale suburb on the various taxing bodies in the region, and the supply and demand effect on housing where the existence of a supply in Germantown Hills reduces the demand for housing in neighborhoods in Morton and better neighborhoods in Peoria, to where those prices fall relative to what they would be if there was not a supply of Germantown Hills homes.
I think the complexity of this argument and the inferences that it draws are beyond the attention span of the majority of voters. I would also suggest that many who voted yes for Build the Block because they perceive it being in their self interest, will also be self interested enough to shop and purchase homes across the river in order to save money and enjoy long term real estate appreciation.
No?
Chase, I would agree with you.
I would also venture to say that there are those that disagreed with the Museum tax that did not understand any of the economics or statistics behind the bradley prof’s results.
With regards to shopping across the river, how big of a tax would it take for you to spend time and gas to go to the McDonald’s in Washington? My guess is more than 17 dollars a year.
Chase, I would also suggest that for your “Germantown Hills Effect”, you do a simple Google search. Suburbs and flight from Urban areas have been studied for a long, long time.
I think the museum tax exludes cars.
*excludes*
New Voice New Voice – tell you what. I wasn’t going to respond – since I don’t like getting into it in this forum but, I just couldn’t not respond.
First of all, thanks for proving the point that some individuals on the losing side of a proposition can’t believe/fathom/comprehend that the other point of view might have merit. I don’t like to admit it — but I can see why those who voted differently hold those views – I may not agree, but I can respect them for it. Hope you get to that point in your life someday.
Second — what’s in it for me? To be honest, not a damn thing. I haven’t been to Lakeview in years. However, I believe the new museum being planned is better than what is in place. I think it will be a benefit to downtown. I think that it was the BETTER of the two choices the voters had to choose from. However, do I feel that it was the best decision that could have been made if things were done differently five or ten years ago. NO, resoundingly NO. But I can’t travel back in time (and I’ll wager you can’t either).
Finally, regarding the once a year for twenty years bang against my head with a bag of pennies. Let’s pass on that! 17 dollar bills – ok.
However, I’ll make a deal with you, door number 1 or door number 2?
Door Number 1: If $17 annually is going to put you in the poorhouse, degrade your quality of life, etc.; let me know – I have a few money tips that can help you save much more than that annually in household expenses (course that might mean giving up booze!).
Door Number 2: If you promise to stop being a sore loser and ragging on here for the next year about the “injustice” of this election (image that – the voters get what THEY want); I’ll send a check to the BTB in the amount of $340 ($17 times 20 years) as a memorium to your point of view – heck I’ll even put it in your name if you’d like to join their fundraising mailing list. Again, I’ll take you at your word that you’ll honor your word.
Now that we’ve had our fun, let’s stop second guessing the will of the voter (and that’s all that really matters in the U.S.), and move on.
I don’t know that the Civic Center or the Museum or projects of their type “make or break” a downtown, city or region and that the strongest statements made to that nature tend to be from those who are in a political or economic situation to most directly benefit.
The state of Peoria, for better or worse, is a collective result of years of decisions and actions which are in relation to the totality of circumstances, are individually insignificant.
Further, much of the state of Peoria is as a result of external economic and social forces that have exacerbated or mitigated any internal stimulus.
In other words, it would be unfair to single out the downtown museum as the straw that breaks the camels back, when there are countless other straws that did not have the positive attributes of the museum.
Personally, I would have voted no because I don’t believe in taking and spending other people’s money. And I hope that you don’t lose any more law abiding neighbors over this issue.
There is nothing more condescending than stating that the reason people don’t have $17 dollars to give to your pet cause is because they can’t manage their money. There are plenty of reasons in this world to come up perpetually short that have nothing to do with 1. alcohol 2. cigarettes 3. cell phones 4. cable TV or any of the other things that people who don’t live the “Nickled and Dimed” life try to pass off as the reason for why some people are stuck in the cycle of poverty. Sales tax is one of the most regressive forms of taxation, and don’t give me that bull about food and drugs being exempted. I think most of us can agree that buying toilet paper and tampons would qualify as necessities, unless leaves and rags are part of your save 17 bucks a year plan.
BeanCounter: Amen.
Bean…didn’t mean to be condescending but I see it came across that way due to poor word choice … (I did state I wasn’t going to respond and probably shouldn’t have…)
I’ll leave it at this — my final word before i put my foot in my mouth again — the fact is that we all get in this election what the majority of voters want….whether that’s a sales tax to support the museum, or a particular candidate to represent them. The decision is made and we need to move on to the next issue.
Peo Proud:
Agreed. The decision is made and the voters decided. Now, the museum group needs to close the $10.1M private funding gap, the various contracts need to be vetted in the public meetings and so on ….. hope for success.
Yep that’s correct — we need to move on to the next issue because there is no comprehensive plan to have a coorindated approach to solve the multitude of issues in view.
“If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.”
— Lewis Carroll
Scott A,
I am thinking you were correct in your assessment of most no voters who “disagreed with the Museum tax [and] did not understand any of the economics or statistics behind the bradley prof’s results.”
You see, I understood the economics, etc. What I did not understand is why these two supposed scholars took data that they DID NOT accumulate themselves, they analyze it, go public and declare it “BETTER THAN GOOD! IT’S GREAT!” There you go. The PRM says they have all the proof they [and you] need to make this project go forward. I call that poor scholarship on the part of the two BU professors, and underhanded [again], on the part of Lakeview. Not so sure I trust these people to spend my tax dollars wisely!
Peoria Proud,
Let me vent. At least you got the $17.00 worth of pennies gag….not so sure about Diane, but what does she know, she sells houses for a living.
Anyway, we will just have to wait and see, but here is my last dig [maybe]. Your Door #1 or #2 reference was played to the max by the museum supporters. Lakeview, Journal Star, CAT, etc, all painted this doom and gloom scenario. If the museum isn’t funded and built GOD help us! What WILL become of the Sears Block?!? What will become of Peoria?!? THE HOLE, THE HOLE!!! Like so many of us tried to point out, the Sears Block [land] had been in the hands of the museum group for the past few years, and only NOW will they begin to develop it [maybe, $11 million short].
There it is.
NV, to be fair you should whap Peo for every voter who opposed the project, no reason for YOU to get all the revenge.
J/K though Peo, because I was for the project like you.
it’s all good 🙂
a few drinks with 11Bravo and New Voice could make for a fun evening…..
New Voice, no I don’t think that at all. What does frustrate me is all the public opponents that didn’t even ASK the profs about the report. That struck me as very fishy.
New Voice, tell me. Where were the proper projections? Where were the proper reports?
And, yes, I know one of them very well, and consider them a good friend, and to see them slandered (even CJ had to recant. and, tell you the truth, that made my respect for CJ shoot way the heck up.)
Anyone could have called these guys up and asked about it, but it’s just so much easier to say, “They don’t agree with me ergo they MUST be paid off with money or fear from higher ups.”
Scott A. writes:
“What does frustrate me is all the public opponents that didn’t even ASK the profs about the report. That struck me as very fishy.”
What would ‘facts’ would you be basing your statement on?
Where is the report available anyway, is it online?
I have an issue with economic impact studies in general, when have you EVER seen an impact study that hasn’t shown great numbers in favor of the project studied?
http://www.friendsofbuildtheblock.org/wp-content/themes/zindi/pdf/economicimpactreport.pdf
http://friendsofbuildtheblock.org/?p=64
Karrie, I don’t understand the question. I certainly don’t speak for any bradley prof if that’s what you’re getting at.
But why didn’t you have an economist examine the projections?
Bravo, that happens all the time. And in this case the profs were not paid. And yes, the report is available online: http://www.buildtheblock.org/build-the-block-article.aspx?ArticleID=29
I thought she did, it was in the paper a few weeks ago, one from Know and one from ISU who both said the report was full of issues.
Scott A: You wrote:
” What does frustrate me is all the public opponents that didn’t even ASK the profs about the report. That struck me as very fishy.”
Do you know that for a fact? What is the basis for you writing your claim?
.
Karrie, I just found this:
http://www.pjstar.com/archive/x1239302651/Economists-stand-by-museum-study
“We think that most of the questions they had would have been answered if they had contacted us and if they looked at the data we used,” Scott said. ”
Why do you think they were never contacted by any critical economist?
Karrie, did you ask for the data? I certainly don’t want to assume anything here, and my apologies if you did ask for it. I should not be assuming, you are correct.
Scott A:
Perhaps Dr. Scott and Dr. Lewer were not contacted by any critical economist because Dr. Scott and Dr. Lewer would not share the spreadsheet when asked on Feb. 4, 2009.
Later, when our schedules were finally coordinated, CJ and I did meet with Dr. Scott and Dr. Lewer and Mrs. Scott. Dr. Scott offered to show us the data — it was in his computer. We did not actually look at the data. It was a pleasant lunch. We showed them the other economist report prior to our press conference. At our press conference I even referenced Dr. Scott’s comment that Scott/Lewer performed an economic impact study rather than an operating revenue and expense analysis which was not requested of Scott and Lewer by the museum group.
Did you read the other reports?
NV: Has a point. It is not an independent analysis if you use numbers supplied by the group asking for you to conduct the economic impact study.
Perhaps now that this issue has been voted up to be a museum, Dr. Scott and Dr. Lewer will make their that information could be shared publicly. Since you are a good friend of one of them, perhaps you can get a copy of that information and share it with all of us.
The challenge always remains the same —- open, inclusive and transparent process. Scarcity vs. abundance mentality. That would make for true progress in Peoria.
Karrie,
A spreadsheet is NOT the data. Ask the economists, you don’t ask for the modeling output, you ask for the data.
Why in the world didn’t you look at the data when it was offered to you? You say you want openness, but don’t want to look at it when offered??
Karrie, you can ask Dr. Scott yourself for the data. He OFFERED and you refused. Why?
What would I have done with the data? How would I have analyzed it? The data was going to be sent to us after the luncheon and we did not receive it. They are the economists. And I will ask him for the data.
The economic impact is over the MSA — five counties — Peoria, Tazewell, Woodford, Stark and Marshall while Peoria County residents pay approximately 70% of the sales tax generated per county staff at the town hall meetings.
We asked about the attendance numbers and Scott and Lewer used what the museum group provided —- what new data were we going to receive?
Scott will you at least concede the 14:1 ROI is grossly misstated? As I have said before I am glad the project passed, but the notion that you get a 14:1 ROI by looking at ONLY the impact of the public funding ($40 million) when the total price tag is $140 million is a little disingenuous isn’t it?
I mean you don’t get a full return with only a partial investment, if that were the case we could have just left out the public funding and seen the same ROI on just the expenditure for the Cat Visitor’s Center (of which I am also excited about going to).
Bravo, I don’t know. But 7:1 would be just fine by me.
Karrie, you would have passed it on. I find it very odd that this was not an issue for you.
Are you saying you were promised the data from Dr. Scott and Dr. Lewer and they didn’t deliver it? That’s not what you said earlier.
Karrie, there was other data to be seen. You could have asked for a print out. I really don’t understand why you wouldn’t have made sure that any critical economist wouldn’t have seen it.
Karrie, you’ve now accused these professors of witholding the data. Please tell me of a single person that has asked for the data and did not receive it.
Scott, are you an academic? The reason I ask is because through undergrad and grad schools it was CONSTANTLY drilled into me that the burden of proof of an academic paper or report is on those who write it and that criticism and critical analysis is to be expected and that it is up to those writer(s) to address the criticism for the sake of their own credibility. It isn’t on Karrie to disprove the results, its the responsibility of the professors to address the critics, and among those critics are peers of theirs at other area institutions. They have yet to do so as of the last article written about the report by the PJSTAR.
Scott A: It was weeks from the initial request until the time we actually met. And yes there remains a yet to be fulfilled data delivery which is what I wrote and very different from your sentence which implies that I am implying that they are withholding data.
Do people forget to keep appointments, or to fulfill requests or simply just forget with the many requests of life to get all the things done on their to do list? Yes. There is no maliciousness implied on my part. It just is a factor of being human and life — neither groups followed up. Dr. Scott and Dr. Lewer and CFRS are all volunteers involved in trying to understand this issue.
You have now made two assumptions — one assumption that no one had asked Scott and Lewer and a second that I am accusing Scott and Lewer of withholding data. You are making these assumptions, not me. It would be more civil if you asked questions about my intent or motive rather than trying to read my mind and accusing me of accusing other people which is not what I am doing.
If you haven’t noticed, everyone has many aspects to their lives. This is a complex issue and CFRS covered many bases and tried to be thorough. We are not perfect either. If you want to put me in the stocks for public display on the town square — feel free to go ahead.
I will ask for the ‘raw’ data from Dr. Scott and Lewer and we can have further discussion.
Karrie, just to be clear. Are you talking about the spreadsheet request or the data request. The economists you spoke to should really have let you know the difference. And should have really pressed you to ask for the data. Not the spreadsheet. They are not the same thing.
Tell you the truth, this is what I thought happened: Someone asked for the data, ran the numbers came up with 1:10, and decided to sit on it.
My big frustration here, Karrie, is not that you didn’t ask for the data, but your implication about “openness and transparency” afterwards. I’m willing to accept this as a simple mistake (and poor consulting from your economists), but don’t turn that into implications:
“Perhaps now that this issue has been voted up to be a museum, Dr. Scott and Dr. Lewer will make their that information could be shared publicly. Since you are a good friend of one of them, perhaps you can get a copy of that information and share it with all of us.
The challenge always remains the same —- open, inclusive and transparent process. Scarcity vs. abundance mentality. That would make for true progress in Peoria.”
This implies that they’ve been less than so, you know that, Karrie.
And 11Bravo, yes, I’m a statistician. I’m well aware of the burden of proof. It’s my job. However, what you’re talking about is academic papers in academic journals. With criticism in academic journals, not just the journal star. If every consultant reacted to every piece of criticism from every report, nothing would get done. Ever.
But, wait, I’ll go one step further, you’re right 11Bravo. And if these critical economists had written their own analysis (with the data) , it would have been addressed.
They did respond to critism, Bravo. Check out the link from a few posts up.
Karrie – I know this is water under the bridge, but to be honest, the criticisms from the second set of economists (that were consulted by CRS) seemed very weak. How would anyone who was a professional in their industry, any industry, like to be criticized by one of their peers from the sidelines – and without having a full understanding of the facts? How rude and unprofessional. It was notable that the University of Illinois Proff stayed out of it. Shouldn’t that tell you something?
…and if it turns out to be 0 or negative ROI ??? How happy are you going to be with your cardboard river exhibit then? “We need more money or we have to close our doors”… just like WTVP and WCBU…
Museums are not supposed to be income generators… that is not their purpose. That’s why nearly every single great museum in the world is funded from private sources and has a name like Guggenheim, or Frick, Getty, Field or Adler.
This joke, is being sold as a money maker… why? Because Peoria is full of stupid greedy people, it seems, and that is all that matters to them.
When this turns out to enrich just a few people through the private and public donations, are you going to care about that Return on Investment then?
I hope “those” people realize, that now that they have public money donated, they can not steal anything anymore without some one looking over their shoulder… they are not accountable for using those public funds.
Scott A : YOU ASKED: “Where were the proper projections? Where were the proper reports? ”
What proper reports? They are all pie in the sky guesses… these you refer to were written by the Lakeview/PHS group to sell their program. They are just made up numbers…
So many people will visit @ so many dollars per visit and will spend so many dollars on hotels, food, The Civic Center etc while they are here… it is all made up… so many UNION construction workers will take so many man hours to construct it… so many local businesses will take in so much additional revenue from the construction and maintenance of the project… it is the same economic ponzi scheming that is destroying our economy… take one dollar, give it to a business… that business keeps 90% of it and spends 10 cents of it on something. (And does that 9 more times) The recipient of the 10 cents keeps 9 cents and spends 1 cent on something else (and does that 9 more times)… the city, public, (or the gutter of the curb) eventually ends up with what’s left over… 1 dollar is actually a million dollars… WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY!
Ever wonder why Eco-nomics and Eco-logy begin the same? They are both require lots of recycled bovine excrement.
“How would anyone who was a professional in their industry, any industry, like to be criticized by one of their peers from the sidelines.” I think academic professors, and quite a few other professions are okay with the concept of “peer review.” But that is the problem, the museum study isn’t representative of the type of work published professors do. They relied on their titles to lend an air of legitimacy that the whole thing never deserved. Most people don’t know what type of research profs do, and how it is different than this museum study. Anytime those differences were raised the opposition was accused of not knowing what they were talking about. After all how could they know better than ACTUAL BU economists So then the opposition finds different ACTUAL economists to point out how this shouldn’t be given the credibility of a real study with vetted data and peer reviewed results, and that there were some assumptions that reasonable people could disagree on, and they are accused of attacking the BU professors. Whatever, they couldn’t win.
Scott. A.,
In is own ‘unique’ way, kcdad sort of hit the nail on the head. Perhaps we should start with the museum group? How did THEY obtain their data? Their attendance figures, etc came under fire long before the BU guys got involved. Lakeview’s estimates of the economic impact of the ‘museum’ are without a doubt fantastic! The problem is, they don’t seem to jive with the stats provided from other museums comparable in size, population, etc, from around the country
Did the BU guys bother to ask Lakeview how they ‘acquired’ their data?
If someone approached me, and asked me to do an economic impact study on a museum [or anything else], the LAST thing I would do is simply except THEIR data at face value, especially if I am expected to go PUBLIC with my findings!! I would take all the time necessary to accumulate MY OWN data, research, and then release my findings.
This discussion, like Diane said “is water under the bridge,” but……………….
Diane,
The two BU professors, wrong or right, know that criticism is part of the game. Any type of ‘research’ is subject to peer review. ‘Constructive’ criticism is absolutely necessary. Malthusian theory, Social Darwinism [broadly speaking], etc. Alleged scientific findings of racial differences have been used to justify racial separatism [and far worse]. Scientific racism denotes the use of scientific, or ostensibly scientific, findings and methods to support or validate racist attitudes and worldviews. Anyway, you see where I am going with this, and NO, I am not suggesting the BU guys are unethical, etc. Even academics are [and must be] subject to close scrutiny……….
P.S. Maybe the U of I professor was smart enough NOT to get involved with this ridiculous project?!? HA!
Damn Bean Counter,
Can you give a guy a chance to finish typing his post?!?!?!?
Oh well. I am just glad to see their is someone out there as smart as I am.
Carry on.
Scott A — First, the Bradley professors held a press conference. At the press conference, they announced the conclusions of their study, but not their data or methods for reaching those conclusions. I immediately wrote and asked for that information. There were some missteps on my part along the way, but Drs. Scott and Lewer did release a written report and e-mail it to me. Note that I expected the report, like any robust economic study, to include all the sufficient data and methods to justify their conclusions; else, what was the purpose of the report? I sent this report to the economics departments of three area colleges/universities for their critique (peer review). Remember (Diane), I asked them to do this for free. I thought it was very generous that two out of three colleges/universities took the time to review it for me pro bono. The fact that U of I declined only tells me that they didn’t have the time or inclination to work for free, and I don’t fault them for that.
The ISU professors took issue with some of the specific methods employed by the Bradley professors. Dr. Stout from Knox College had a more general criticism which was basically that this report doesn’t help voters very much, since it didn’t address more important issues, such as whether the museum can meet its operating budget or if it would need ongoing subsidies for operations. When we asked Drs. Scott and Lewer about that (Karrie and I had lunch with them), they responded that such a report is different from what they were asked to provide. Fair enough. So, to me, it falls back on the museum group — they should have asked the professors to provide a report that would be more helpful to the voters in making a decision.
If the criticism is now that the report that was offered by the Bradley professors didn’t include all the data, and that we should have asked for more data, I guess I’m at a loss. What are these extra data that were not disclosed in the report? Why wasn’t that information in the report if it was pertinent to their methods and conclusion? Now that you have a link to the Bradley professors’ report, perhaps you can tell us what data is missing for which we should have asked.
“Note that I expected the report, like any robust economic study, to include all the sufficient data and methods to justify their conclusions; else, what was the purpose of the report?”
CJ, if you felt the report released was insufficient, why didn’t you tell them? And, no, economic studies do not release all data with articles. Pick up any copy of the Journal of Economics, you will not see excel files of data attached to any article.
I think there is a general misunderstanding of “peer review.” In the academic sense, an article is presented to a journal for a group of editors to examine. This is not the case in a consulting project. However, if you want to apply the “peer review” moniker here, a critical economist will take all raw data (Karrie acknowledges that it was offered to you) and rerun the analysis. This includes correcting for any numbers that they deem incorrect. This was not done here.
“Fair enough. So, to me, it falls back on the museum group — they should have asked the professors to provide a report that would be more helpful to the voters in making a decision.”
CJ, this is a fair comment, and I completely understand your point of view here. However, this is a far cry from:
“Perhaps now that this issue has been voted up to be a museum, Dr. Scott and Dr. Lewer will make their that information could be shared publicly. Since you are a good friend of one of them, perhaps you can get a copy of that information and share it with all of us.
The challenge always remains the same —- open, inclusive and transparent process. Scarcity vs. abundance mentality. That would make for true progress in Peoria.”
Plain and simple, what you should have done was ask for the raw data and passed it along to the economists you consulted with and ask them if they could come up with the same or different results. (A 1:10 ROI? A 1:1/4 ROI?)
Including corrections for any data numbers or projections they feel is too high.
kcdad and Bean Counter and NV and CJ : Amen.
Diane:
Karrie – I know this is water under the bridge, but to be honest, the criticisms from the second set of economists (that were consulted by CRS) seemed very weak.
What specific weakness were you making a reference to in the second set of reports?
Diane: It was notable that the University of Illinois Proff stayed out of it. Shouldn’t that tell you something?
No, Diane, what should that tell me? What should that tell any of us as to the specific reason or reasons for their non-participation? All we know is that they did not participate for any number of reason(s).
Would I know the reason why by mindreading? No. You display a habit of knowing people’s intent without asking them what is their intent. And your habit is your habit — I am making an observation from my point-of-view.
You wrote the other day on Billy’s blog —
DeWayne – he only narced on himself because he KNEW that Karrie would be unable to resist re-telling the story. He figured he would put his version out there first…
How did you know that I would be unable to resist re-telling the story? Did you ask me? Do you know my intent especially without asking me? No to both questions — you did not ask me nor do you know my intent.
You seem to imply something in your statement. What would that be? Possibly, that there would be a difference between the version that Billy would put out and the version I (Karrie) would put out.
Are you implying that there would be a difference? And what would have been that difference?
Here is my response to you from Billy’s blog ….
It would be inappropriate for an election judge to disclose personal information about a citizen’s ability or inability to vote. I would NEVER repeat this story.
The information that Billy had not re-registered is public information. I could have told that story but I would not. How would citizens feel if they knew their mistakes would be broadcast and their actions would be open to ridicule?
Billy is willing to self-disclose his situation and see the ‘humor’. He self-disclosed his ironic situation where I was the election judge to address his eligibility to vote. I did not disclose nor would I have disclosed his situation. Also, I did not disclose that he was the creator of Blog Peoria and Peoria Pundit to embarrass Billy as Billy wrote in seriousness or in jest — tongue in cheek at his site. I provided that as a point of reference for my husband, who was also an election judge, as there were several people who came into the polling place and greeted me by name and he had been asking me how I knew this or that person.
So back to the questions ….
What are the weaknesses from your viewpoint in the seond set of reports?
What would have been the difference in Billy and Karrie’s version of the Billy could not vote event?
Looking forward to your answers 🙂 .
“CJ, if you felt the report released was insufficient, why didn’t you tell them?”
I can see I wasn’t clear in my statement above. Let me rephrase. I assumed that the report included all the sufficient data and methods to justify their conclusions; else, what was the purpose of the report? I didn’t think the report omitted data pertinent to the study. It sounds to me like you’re the one alleging the report was missing additional data for which we should have asked. I’m asking you, what data? What wasn’t in the report?
As far as requests for raw data, that is precisely what I requested in the first place, which is why I assumed the report included it. My recollection of the lunch meeting was not that they were offering to show us raw data, but rather the spreadsheet they used in analyzing it. Can’t swear to it, though, as it was too long ago now.
Let me repeat myself, a report does not usually attach all data used at the end. There are no excel files attached to articles. Raw data is not simply a short series of a few numbers.
“As far as requests for raw data, that is precisely what I requested in the first place, which is why I assumed the report included it. My recollection of the lunch meeting was not that they were offering to show us raw data, but rather the spreadsheet they used in analyzing it. Can’t swear to it, though, as it was too long ago now.”
CJ, I would highly doubt that. Asking for the spreadsheet is essentially asking for all notes. Not common nor would a denial be deemed improper. You can ask the ISU economists. They’ll tell you the same thing.
Again, what should have been done would be to see if the results could be replicated. If the multiplier was deemed to high, the correct one should have been put forth. There is a huge difference between 1:10 and 1:.25.
Now, I understand you’re not an economist. I’m not saying these mistakes were intentional. I think you got not the best advice. But that’s not the fault of the Bradley profs.
Karrie- I asked if the fact that you did not hear back from the U of I professor told you anything. If you want to consider that mind reading so be it. CJ seems to think the answer is this:
“The fact that U of I declined only tells me that they didn’t have the time or inclination to work for free, and I don’t fault them for that.”
Would that fall under the category of “mind reading” too, or do you reserve that charge just for me?
Additionally, the remark on Billy’s blog was meant to be humorous, as the whole thread was humourous, and not intended any way as a slam on you. I apologize if you were offended.
I think at this point the conversation is trending counter-productive – so I’m over and out.
Diane:
Since you are ‘over and out.’ you will not be reading this post.
You wrote …It was notable that the University of Illinois Proff stayed out of it. Shouldn’t that tell you something?
Notable: 1. Worthy of note or notice; remarkable. 2. Characterized by excellence or distinction; eminent.
You wrote that it was notable and shouldn’t that tell you something. I do not know what it should tell me because unless I ask I do not know the answer and even then the intent of the U of I professors only that that no response had been received.
Neither you nor CJ nor I nor anyone else besides the U of I economists know the ‘actual’ reason why U of I economists did not respond. Mindreading if we do not have a direct answer from the source. Only that they did not respond.
I am not offended. I apologize for not making it clear that I do not like your humor in this instance. That is one of the challenges when posting on blogs — you cannot read body language which might give additional clues that it is humorouse rather than a slam. I apologize for my part. Our styles are different and that is what makes for diversity in our community! 🙂
Scott A:
I sent an email to Dr. Scott and Dr. Lewer and when I get a response I will post here.
Thank you for your suggestions about what data/information to ask for in the future.
Is there a way to have your contact information in place for for future community endeavors to help round out the information gathering and analytical team?
(nomuseumtax@yahoo.com)
Thanks, Karrie
I just read the PJS article about plans to move the museum site forward. I didn’t see anything about seeking a firm commitment from IMAX, did I?
Karrie, I appreciate your comment. Considering that Dr. Scott’s home has been mentioned on this blog (not by CJ), I will continue to be anonymous.
And if I disagree with anyone, I would certainly not like it implied that I had been unopen or transparent.
Of course, CJ knows where I comment from, but I’d like to keep it at that.
I don’t know Scott….. This entire discussion may be getting out of hand.
I just think the BU professors should have covered their asses a little better.
Really though, what I believe this all boils down to is from who/where did the original data come. Maybe the BU guys made every effort to find out, but as far as I know, they did not [or at least they didn’t go public with the info].
Another problem I have is how this so-called ‘analysis’ swayed voter opinion of this project. Far too many people I’ve talked with were voting yes because they believed the museum represented a major economic kick-in-the-pants for Peoria [area]. Thus………………………….
I am inclined to believe Lakeview ‘sugar-coated’ the stats, the BU guys took a look and just went with the flow…….
There are projections, and then there are projections!
Can I write “asses?”