Local tourism development | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    I couldn't believe it when I read that the amount of money that tourists (or is it simply "visitors?) spend in North Carolina in general and Beaufort County in particular is determined through a mathematical model: A proprietary model that the developers refuse to share with anyone.

    We are supposed to base public policy on the output of a mathematical model that only the developers know how it is constructed?? And they won't tell?? Interesting...

    What we apparently have in the State Department of Commerce is a group which would seem to be so enamored of the model that they allow it to be used to predict the past. They apparently have never heard of "actual data" (i.e. A quantification of what really happened) and as long as the model continues to support their thesis re: tourism they are satisfied to use it. Of course when the "benefits" being touted seem to be based on independent variables there may be no other way to obtain that information. The "tourism" numbers are the output of what the originators claim is a respected (albeit proprietary) model. Of course that adds credibility to the information provided (as long as no one pays too much attention to the details of the operation of the underlying model.)

    Mathematical models are marvelous things. They are often used to help understand what the future holds in very complicated situations involving a lot of variables all moving simultaneously. Many are developed based on "fitting" actual data (i.e. real numbers) into a series of equations to arrive at a fairly consistent replication of what actually happened. Then one can be fairly confident that the predicted outcome will be reasonable. The models with which I have been associated were being continually refined as more and more actual data was being fed through them.

    Or course, like everything else, models are certainly subject to mischief. In the case of the British Climate Scientists (so called), the mischievous "refinements" they made to their models was to adjust them so they would produce the results the "scientists" wanted (i.e. confirmation of man made global warming) without any concern of the possibility of observed changes being the result of the cyclical nature of the climate or anything else.

    Now, and apparently from the same mold, we have a group in North Carolina who are so jealous of their model that they (like the Brits) are reportedly unwilling to make it available for anyone to scrutinize. So much for rigorous scientific peer review and validation. Do you suppose they are concerned that someone might "steal" their model?? Or perhaps, more to the point, someone might question it - which would surely hurt their "consulting practice".

    What makes the situation particularly egregious is the fact that the NC Department of Commerce seems to condone the practice. What is really egregious, is the fact that the NC Department of Commerce seems to feed the prior year activity projected by the model to "local tourism promoters" where that information is used to get unthinking politicians to accept it at face value and use it as the basis for political and funding decisions. What a way to run a railroad... (And I'm not disparaging "railroad engineers"; I'm talking about "unthinking politicians" posing as County Commissioners.)

    In a recent article Thomas Sowell opined that one of the reasons the Prez manages to hold on to his popularity is the fact that he is so accomplished at disseminating what Sowell calls "plausible lies". As usual, Dr. Sowell is "right on". We see what looks to be the same thing here in the case of the NC Dept of Commerce when they disseminate the historical projections (Is that what oxymoron means??) of the contribution tourism makes to the local economy. (By using independent variables and dependent variables interchangeably, they build plausible scenarios. Then they refuse to allow someone else to check their numbers.)

    There seems to be little effort to correlate the claims made by the NC Department of Commerce and the amount collected through the imposition of the so called "Occupancy tax". Otherwise there would surely be some discussion as to why the "Occupancy tax" receipts (actual data) have been decreasing over the past three years while the model that predicts the past continues to tell us that tourism and the resulting "income" from that tourism continued to increase over the past several years. Something's not right here.

    In the case of the "occupancy tax", each proprietor is required to collect and remit a 6% "occupancy tax". The latest information related to this is for the 2010-2011 tax year. It shows that in Washington occupancy tax collections reportedly amounted to $239,560.00 of which $7,187.00 was returned to the city with the remainder provided to the WTDA. Click here to review the Tourism tax data reports.

    The following information is taken from the Tourism Development Reports. It shows the amount of "occupancy tax" (a "local tax") collected for the years indicated. For the 2007-2008 year, $256,838 was collected. For the 2008-2009 year the amount collected was $255,280, a decrease of .61% from the prior year. For the 2009-2010 year the amount collected was $244,628, another decrease, this time a decrease of 4.17% from the prior year. For the 2010-2011 year the amount collected was $239,560, this time a decrease of 2.07% as compared to the prior year.

    Compare those numbers with the output of the backward looking model and it is impossible to relate one to the other. Even though they both address the economic impact of Tourism, the state continues to tout increasing amounts of tourist revenue. It looks like a real "stretch" - but then it is intended to keep the program alive. Hmmm...

    Click here to see the information gleaned from the model. For the 2010/2011 period it shows an 8.3% increase. It does so by including a lot of things the model predicts, things which cannot be empirically validated. Good work if you can get it...

    D'ya think??