First, here is a handy link to watch the debate last night between the three candidates for Nassau County Executive - incumbent Tom Suozzi (D), Ed Mangano (R), and Steven Hansen (C) (WARNING: This debate lasted almost two hours, but they cover the Lighthouse Project within the first half hour):
Also, you can click here to watch the much shorter (less than 30 minutes) debate between the contenders for Town of Hempstead Supervisor: incumbent Kate Murray (R) and Kristen McElroy (D). Click on the section in the bottom that says "Nassau Debates" - the Town of Hempstead version is on the last page.
I will be back in a few hours with another post before shutting down to watch the World Series. Let's Go Yankees!
(Blogger's Note: As with all opinion pieces, this is better if more people comment)
Now, as promised, a Special Comment about Charles Wang, owner of the New York Islanders and principal visionary behind the Lighthouse Project. Whether the Town of Hempstead acknowledges the legitimacy of it or not, Mr. Wang's October 3 deadline for "certainty" - meaning approval of re-zoning - is approaching rapidly. The horizon is fast approaching, with free agency for the New York Islanders awaiting on the other side.
Not surprisingly, this ticking clock is being met with a mixture of anxiety, fear, and outright anger from the Islanders' fan base, a group that has, through fraudulent owners, falling scoreboards, and silly trade after silly trade, already experienced enough heartache to last a thousand lifetimes. An upcoming game in Kansas City - which, by no accident, is being played the same day as the Lighthouse Project re-zoning hearing, serves to remind the frozen faithful that glittering new homes await across this continent if the local government is not willing to protect its asset.
Mr. Wang, whether we like it or not, has earned the right to explore all the options for a team that is, at the end of the day, his. We know his losses have been severe, and I know that, had I been in his shoes, I would have lost patience long before this. It is clear that, with a re-zoning hearing occurring on September 22 and a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) not near completion due to the antics of Frederick P. Clark Associates, the October 3 hearing will pass without a firm commitment. The Lighthouse process will not suddenly stop as if encased in carbonite; it will endure, and, hopefully, to a happy end. However, representatives from other cities dying to get their shot (or a second shot, in some cases) at NHL hockey will be at the ready to woo a four-time Stanley Cup champion team, and Mr. Wang should hear them out like any potential free agent would. It is not pleasant, but from a business perspective this may be necessary.
Let me be clear: I do not believe that this coming free agency period means the Lighthouse Project is dead or dying. In fact, we are the closest we have ever been to making our Island Dream a reality, even though Mr. Wang's self-imposed deadline will soon come and pass.
However, something about this does not feel right. The Lighthouse Project is a visionary proposal whose very existence has already altered the course of Long Island history, and the eventual decision rendered by the Town of Hempstead will do no less than shape the future of one of the first suburban communities in human history for generations to come, but we cannot forget that its initial existence was to ensure the survival of the New York Islanders, an anachronism of a team whose past success is perhaps the only reason the team has not yet moved to a major city with a glittering new arena and a sweetheart lease deal. The Lighthouse Project will all but certainly assure the New York Islanders make a permanent home on Long Island, and we cannot lose that in light of the myriad other benefits this proposal will reap for the community.
The Lighthouse Project will almost certainly pass, albeit after Mr. Wang's deadline. I look forward to the day I can meet all of you at a game, and I cannot wait to bring my future children to an Islanders game and tell them that we are there not only because of Charles Wang, but because of what we did in 2009. That may be the real story of the Lighthouse Project, one my friend B.D. Gallof's unfortunately-named contact "Ass-to-Mouth" even acknowledged, saying the Lighthouse Project is near the finish line thanks to us. The bloggers like Chris Botta, Doug Davidson, and Dee Karl, who had the courage to stand up to power and break through the nonsense. The citizens who inundated the Town of Hempstead with phone calls and letters. Joe Conte, whose courageous speaking out at Kate Murray's kickoff rally contributed to a chain of events culminating in the ouster of Joseph Mondello from his chairmanship of the State Republican Party. These people all stood up and fought for Charles Wang's vision because they believe that Long Island's best days can be ahead of it, and their efforts must be recognized.
In addition to these brave souls, I must also mention the reluctant ones. These fans and citizens have fallen on the crutch of cynicism, believing that the Lighthouse Project is a ruse that is meant, in actuality, to bolster nothing but Charles Wang's bank account. These people point to many examples, some borne out of not knowing the facts, such as those who wonder why Mr. Wang does not simply renovate the Coliseum, but others point to the actual terms of the agreement that Mr. Wang has currently proposed. As of now, Charles Wang, Scott Rechler, and the Lighthouse Development Group are seeking a 99-year lease on the Lighthouse site, virtually a sale by Nassau County, who will retain ownership of the land, but they are only proposing to extend the New York Islanders' lease through 2025. To many fans, this is tantamount to a head-fake, and even Joe Ra, the Hempstead Town Attorney, expressed his displeasure at this, fan-to-fan.
Charles Wang now finds himself in an interesting position. His dream is nearing the finish line, thanks in no small part to the effort of wonderful and engaged citizens like you. However, there are still hurdles to climb, as we saw with the Town of Hempstead's sudden decision to communicate requirements before it would feel comfortable approving re-zoning and clearing a path for the Lighthouse. At the same time, some people who want to support the Lighthouse cannot bring themselves to do it out of a deep-seated fear that this, like so many other events for those who have followed this hockey team, will end in heartbreak.
I believe Mr. Wang can kill two birds with one stone by making a simple announcement. On September 22, he should stand in front of the Hempstead Town Board, elected officials, media, and citizens, and make this announcement:
I promised to seek other options for the New York Islanders if October 3 passed without receiving certainty on the Lighthouse Project, and it now appears this date will pass without action. I am disappointed in this, and I must fulfill my obligation to entertain other suitors for my team. However, I want to prove my commitment to Long Island, my lifelong home. If I receive approval on re-zoning, I will negotiate with Nassau County to extend the Islanders' lease in a reborn Nassau Coliseum for 25 years past the current end-date, through 2040.
This action would serve numerous positive goals for the Lighthouse cause. It would eliminate a Town of Hempstead talking point about not putting Islanders fans first, it would convince the lingering doubters of his sincerity, and, finally, it would prove the Lighthouse is truly Mr. Wang's priority for his team, his community, and his legacy.
While correct in the abstract, it would also represent a business sacrifice. Such a long-term deal, especially when the Islanders are currently not a money-making franchise, can be very risky. As Islander505 pointed out, this could hurt some flexibility in the longer term. However, stewardship of the land should help to ease this burden, and, in this case, it is a sacrifice that I believe must be made. 30-year leases, which this would effectively be, are common in new buildings, and you must treat the renovated Coliseum as if it were a new arena.
This may not be Mr. Wang's chosen action, but, regardless, I believe his words and actions must prove, beyond a lingering doubt, that he will do right by those of us who have fought for his dream, and his motives lie in making things work right here, on Long Island. This process has come too far, and too many people have sacrificed too much, for this to be derailed now.
Mr. Wang, we have stood behind you and helped in your fight to make the Lighthouse Project a reality. Now, you hold a trump card in your hands. You can eliminate all lingering doubts, and you can convince the reluctant among us that this truly is for Long Islanders and the Islanders. Please, sir, understand that duty and that responsibility, and strike the decisive blow for the Lighthouse Project.
As the great Edward R. Murrow would say, goodnight, and good luck.
We had a rather uneventful day at Town Hall. My worst fears were not realized, and the Town of Hempstead voted unanimously to schedule the Lighthouse re-zoning hearing for September 22 at Hofstra.
At this point, I think I need to make a few things clear, because this may come as a surprise after my last post. There is not a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) as of right now, and it is unlikely they will have one by the September 22 hearing date. I was concerned that the F.P. Clark issue would overshadow everything else and the Town would table the vote because they have, up to this point, been unwilling to perform pieces of the process in parallel. Thankfully, this did not happen, and we were able to move forward.
First of all, re-zoning is not the same as environmental review. Even though F.P. Clark's refusal to work has delayed the FGEIS, the Town did not need a completed Environmental Impact Statement in order to open up a public hearing (without a final vote) on the Lighthouse re-zoning. (Blogger's Note: I wanted to speak to F.P. Clark today, but they were not present)
Second of all, there is one more piece to the SEQR process that it is important for everyone to understand. I said in Part III of my series looking into the process that SEQR is a law, nothing more, and it can be used as either a tool for fulfilling obligations or a weapon against a developer. In this case, the Town of Hempstead followed the letter of the law and moved forward in full compliance with its legal responsibilities. There is a legal burden on the FGEIS to be both complete and correct, but there is an additional legal burden SEQR places on the Town of Hempstead as lead agency. The lead agency is responsible for moving the process forward as quickly as things allow, and they legally cannot be an impediment to overall progress. This means that pieces of review should be done in parallel when needed, such as opening the re-zoning hearing while completing the FGEIS.
Overall, we took another baby step toward completion today, and the graph will be updated to illustrate our new place in the process. However, at this point, there are a few issues that need to still be addressed:
- Will the billing dispute that led to F.P. Clark's indefensible decision to stop working be resolved quickly? This could become an unwelcome distraction for the Lighthouse and impede the process if it is not addressed.
- Will we hear more about process from the Town? I mentioned at the hearing today that my chart may be out of date, and I hope the Town will publish a new list of steps between our current location and shovels in the ground to make sure we are all on the same page.
- When does F.P. Clark plan to finish the FGEIS?
- How quickly can there be a vote on re-zoning after the hearing?
Our work is not done, but I am glad that our fears were unfounded in this case. Despite the game-playing, our Island dream is one step closer to reality.
Coming Soon: Stay tuned over the next week and a half, I'll have some investigative pieces into the process, a deeper look at Frederick P. Clark Associates, and some explanations on the terms and the next steps in the process.
Old habits and old attitudes die hard. The NIMBY mentality has run Long Island for decades, and you would not expect those people to give up their perch without a fight just because the Lighthouse Project is on the agenda.
The opposition to the Lighthouse Project has not, so far, been organized, but their tactics have been insidious. People with an agenda and their enablers in the media have pushed these lies as if they are fact every chance they get.
First, Lighthouse supporters were dismissed as "just" Islanders fans, as if a group of Long Islanders could not stand for progress unless they are guided by blind loyalty to a hockey team.
When it became clear that people realized this was for Long Islanders, not just the Islanders, the talking points shifted. How, people claimed Lighthouse supporters were blindly in favor and did not know any specifics, another insulting position that falsely assumes that only a certain side of a debate is using its head.
As Lighthouse supporters made clear, at public meetings and on blogs like this one, that they knew exactly what was going on, opponents shifted tactics once again. Now, they claimed Charles Wang was paying us, as if some unseen cosmic force ordained all Lighthouse opponents as principled citizens and relegated all supporters to little more than paid dupes. We most famously saw this in May, when state GOP Chairman Joseph Mondello told Lighthouse Supporter Joe Conte to "blow it out [his] dufflebag" and suggested Mr. Conte was being paid by Charles Wang because he had the nerve to show up to a public event and let his voice be heard.
As hearing after hearing came and went with overwhelming support for the Lighthouse - at least 90% present were in favor at each event - skeptics began to sing a new refrain: wait until the public hearing.
Astute reader mrlbem asked the right question in yesterday's piece, when I reported that, according to Town of Hempstead figures, 503 comments favored the Lighthouse, 322 opposed it, and 4 were unclear (no, I don't know what the "Unclear" comments looked like either). mrlbem is absolutely correct that this is a much lower percentage of support than we have seen at any of the public hearings, and we should wonder if there is some kind of silent opposition that is afraid to show itself in public.
In my honest opinion, I don't see it at this point. We know the NIMBY history of Long Island in the last few decades, and we realize that the Lighthouse Project is on a scale that has been, to this point, unheard of on Long Island. Given that history, and my knowledge of the SEQR process, I feel pretty confident in saying that these sort of public comments periods attract only the most ardent supporters and the most ardent opponents. In addition - I can't imagine this sort of project attracts lukewarm opposition; in my view, most people either support it, conditionally support it, or are dead-set against it (this is not a catch-all - our friend NYI Fan has admitted the Lighthouse could be a catalyst for the area if the traffic situation is solved - I agree).
Despite all this, 60% of comments were still in favor, and this doesn't account for the overwhelming support seen in person at the public hearing, which is also part of the public record. This looks pretty good for us.
The Article
Despite this, yet another article appeared in Newsday that appeared to go out of its way to play a different angle. It was written by the same reporter who passed along the news of Kate Murray's stimulus "offer" with a non-critical eye and who sought out the only 3 people wearing Islanders gear at the February hearing to interview, on-camera.
The article pushes the meme that Lighthouse supporters mostly live outside the Town of Hempstead, while a small majority within the Town oppose it. The piece relies on two samples: a look through the first 200 comments, in which opponents outnumbered supporters, 59-57, within the Town of Hempstead, and another random sample of 65 letters from supporters, in which 38 came from "out-of-towners."
The article also discusses letters from opponents, highlighting one opponent from Garden City who used words like "tremendous," "gargantuan," and "impossible" to discuss issues like the size of the project and traffic - without mentioning any of the arguments from supporters.
The premise of this argument is flawed from the beginning. First of all, it is crazy to assume that people from all over Long Island and, indeed, the world would not be interested in the first true suburban "game-changer" since Levittown. James Castellane, who leads the Nassau-Suffolk Building Trades commission, says that the construction trade unions on Long Island have 35% unemployment; those workers, no matter where they live, are interested in a project that will bring jobs and investment. Businesses who may want to locate offices or retail stores at the Lighthouse - thus creating jobs - have every right to care about what is going on. People who do not currently live in the Town of Hempstead but who would want to live or work at the future site also have a right to make their voices heard.
Long Island has for too long been limited by parochial thinking, in which villages act independently of each other without an eye toward doing something as a whole. That same thinking must not be allowed to poison the current debate surrounding the Lighthouse Project.
Second - the "sample." A random sample of what amounts to less than 300 comments does not and cannot tell the full story. The author did not share her methodology for picking these letters; it could have been just as easy to pick 65 support letters that were overwhelmingly from Town of Hempstead residents. In addition, there are important pieces to this discussion the author left out:
Every comment made at the public hearing is added to the public record. At the hearing, most speakers were Town of Hempstead residents, and the turnout was overwhelmingly positive.
Charles Wang, during his opening address, unveiled 15,000 letters - all from supporters - that were added to the public record. Many of these letters came from Town of Hempstead residents, and counting this figure would undoubtedly tip the scales in our favor.
The public comment period is supposed to have the most bearing on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), but it is not the only measure of support. Don't for one second think the Town of Hempstead is now ignoring the huge favorable turnout at all the Lighthouse hearings because of a random sampling of letters as part of one step in the process.
The issue of ardent supporters from earlier is very telling. In my immediate family, there are 6 voters, all of whom support the Lighthouse and live within the Town of Hempstead. Only 2 - including me - sent in comments. This likely played out in many other families as well, though I imagine opponents took every opportunity.
Next, I need to address the framing of this debate. The author goes out of her way to discuss issues like traffic and water quality, and she mentions a letter from an opponent that used words like "impossible" to describe the issues surrounding the Lighthouse. There is no mention of the comments from agencies like the New York State Department of Transportation, which, as part of the public comments period, was required to give its opinion on traffic, or the Nassau County Department of Public Works, which can do the same. According to the official Lighthouse Project blog, these agencies support the Lighthouse Project's methodology and findings, and I have not found any information that would contradict this. Given the importance of these issues, the reporter should have taken steps to include comments from those relevant agencies in the article.
The most troubling sign? This has previously been a Town of Hempstead talking point, as a TOH insider told my friend BD Gallof months ago that the Town noticed many of the check-in cards at Lighthouse meetings came from Suffolk County residents. To have this point mentioned now, using a clearly flawed methodology, must raise serious questions.
The Lighthouse Project is a pivotal point in the history of Long Island, and it will shape our destiny for generations to come, whether or not it is approved. It is therefore insane to let the debate fall into innuendo, half-truths, and questionable methodologies. It is just as misguided to see this as a "Town of Hempstead issue" rather than what it is, a Long Island issue, and, in some instances, a national issue. Therefore, I am very sad to see that too many people reporting on this issue are treating it as if it is the Bellmore Army Base.
In the same vein, I am disturbed that certain people with an agenda seem to be going out of their way to give the opposition equal air time when it has been proven time and again that those citizens are a minority.
To me, it begs the question: At what point do you stop trying to appease opponents that have yet to show up in an organized way? When do you concentrate on the citizens who have overwhelmingly supported the Lighthouse and who are determined to not repeat the mistakes of the past?
If you are in the media, and you have an agenda, please say so in an open, honest way. Your responsibility comes from reporting the full story, and that does not mean reaching for negative stories about a widely-supported project in pursuit of some dictum of balance. The media's responsibility is to report the facts, not to play referee between two points of view, regardless of how divorced from reality one or both of those points of view may be.
Over 60% of the public comments submitted supported the Lighthouse, and that does not count the 15,000 letters and thousands of citizens who have shown up to the public hearings and rallies to make their voices heard. To write a piece like this, which again seeks to de-legitimize us, is an insulting reach.
What can we do? We can continue to stand up and combat the Lie du Jour, like all the previous false memes. Those with an agenda and their enablers in the media have been pushing lines about us since the Lighthouse was first conceived, and nothing has been able to stick. We must continue to positively advocate for what we know is right for our home, and we must not be afraid to stand up as one to defend these positions.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=1e4be3fc-a400-4db2-b897-f9fb0dd94d23)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=4cbc5525-9e0c-4d82-8401-3b98a9cbfd6d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=d0090d2f-70c7-4055-91bd-94c5623d8455)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=044ce4f1-a54e-4e00-bf49-10ff715da5d7)
