DID YOU KNOW That A Disclosed Conflict of Interest is Worse Than A Non-Disclosed Conflict of Interest?

This past week, the HIstorical Resources Advice Committee (HRAC) of the City of Redwood City met to review and ultimately approve a Planned Community Permit for an eleven story building on the north east corner of Jefferson and Marshall at 601 Marshall St.. Among the presenters was a historian paid for by the developer. The Historian offered an opinion that the project would not adversely affect the local community but he did so by his own acknowledgement due to the fact that the particular block on which the building is planned is not designated a historical district. However when one of the committee members asked him about the fact that the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) not only supports preserving historical buildings in designated historical districts but also in areas that are non-historical but have clusters of historical buildings. The historian acknowledged he hadn’t considered the project in that light.

Professor Dan Arielly from Duke University a professor of psychology and behavioral economics has done quite a bit of research in the areas of conflict of interest and as he notes:

“ Only, disclosure doesn’t seem to help. Several studies have shown that when professionals disclose their conflicts of interest, this only makes the problem worse. This is because two things happen after disclosure: first, those hearing the disclosure don’t entirely know what to make of it — we’re not good at weighing the various factors that influence complex situations — and second, the discloser feels morally liberated and free to act even more in his self-interest.” ( http://danariely.com/2012/07/09/disclosure-not-good-enough/)

The reality therefore is that for most people this is a problem. A fair discussion as one of the members of the public noted was to also have a historian that was not paid for by the developer. A historical designation is inherently a very grey area, there was discussion as to what “substantial” and “cluster” as in cluster of historical buildings really meant. With only one “expert” opinion, three of five committee members voted to approve the permit.

Among all the discussion, whereas and therefore’s of the recommendation http://www.redwoodcity.org/government/bcc/hrac/agendas/2015/hracagenda_20150122_Special-Revised.pdf page 5), three out of five of the committee members agreed that:

The goal of the HRAC is to ensure that “the City ( to) honor its past, and preserve the historic character inherent to many Redwood City neighborhoods. Preservation of Redwood City’s historic resources is of great significance for those who live and work here today, and for the generations who will be here in the future.”

So they amended Therefore section 1 to read: “The HRAC has reviewed the proposed plans and historian’s report, and has determined that the associated Project WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT (my caps for clarity) on the two historic resources directly adjacent to the Project.”

But amazingly they kept Therefore section 2 as originally submitted: “The HRAC hereby recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE (my caps) the Planned Community Permit for the project, consistent with the Downtown Precise Plan and associated EIR.”

That is the kind of result that Professor Ariely’s research could almost have predicted: “we’re not good at weighing the various factors that influence complex situations” and so we end up making decisions that are completely contradictory.