Betting on Failure? A Let There Be Light(house) Investigative Report

Ladies and gentlemen, hang on to your hats.  This is a Let There Be Light(house) world exclusive. 

Follow the Money

The oldest cliche in the book when it comes to politics is "follow the money," and I have been doing just that over the past several months after both a tip and a hunch.  It is fairly easy to do this since New York State maintains a surprisingly intuitive online search engine for political contributions.  We used Ed Mangano's campaign as a test bed because he represents the incoming administration, and, not surprisingly, we found many large donations from individuals and Political Action Committees (PAC's) connected to large real estate developers. 

However, the surprising part is this: a large portion of these donations came after Election Day, when it became fairly clear Mangano would win.

The Players

We discovered an interesting array of donors since Election Day to the Mangano campaign, whom I have contacted for comment and which, at the time of writing, has not responded. 

Our first interesting hit came from a group called the Long Island Prosperity PAC, which donated $3,500 on November 10.  This was a day after a $5,000 donation to the same PAC from a man named David Mack, whose name should be familiar to anyone who has attended or visited Hofstra University.  Mr. Mack served as Vice Chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) from 1993 until his term expired on June 30, 2009 (I have not been able to find whether he was re-appointed).  Mr. Mack is also a Director of the publicly-held Mack-Cali Corporation, a provider of class A office space with many properties in the region.  The interesting part? None of Mack-Cali's properties are in Nassau County - in fact, none of them are on Long Island.  (A Mack-Cali representative declined comment for this piece)

Case #2: Bruce Blakeman, former Nassau County Legislature and current Trustee of the MTA (along with David Mack).  Mr. Blakeman has donated over $5,000 to the Mangano campaign since Election Day between himself and numerous affiliated PAC's.

Case #3: Association for a Better Long Island, a local PAC which donated $7,500.  The Association's President and Chairman is Mr. Ed Blumenfeld, a prominent real-estate developer who submitted a joint bid on the Coliseum property with Sterling Equities, a group headed by New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon.

There are also the usual suspects, including $10,000 from the Renew New York PAC, a group heavily funded by former Sen. Al D'Amato, who has long been rumored to be working behind the scenes against the Lighthouse Project due to a falling-out with old friend Charles Wang.

Together, these 4 donations count for a little more than 1/3 of the total Post-General funds Mr. Mangano has received.  The identities could be telling.

Disclaimer and Background

Before anything else, I need to make a very large disclaimer: I am not accusing Ed Mangano, anyone in his incoming administration, or even the donors mentioned of any wrongdoing.  I am pointing out some developments that clearly present potential issues for the Lighthouse Project should the plan falter.

As I have said many times, the Lighthouse Project is, at its heart, a business deal, and, more particularly, a real estate deal.  This is a project that is, in my view, 100% correct for Long Island and its future economic viability, but it sits on a patch of land that has not fulfilled its major promise since it was ceded to Nassau County in 1962, a piece of land that may be the most valuable on Long Island.

Major developers have wanted a piece of the pie for years, and they have taken interesting tactics to get it.  For example, as I reported previously, some sources close to the negotiations have claimed other developers were the main reason soon-to-be-former County Executive Tom Suozzi was forced to revoke his original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Charles Wang and put the property up for competitive bid.  The issue, as usual, was money, namely, that they would not be the ones standing to receive it.  Luckily, Scott Rechler became a partner in the new Lighthouse Development Group, the overall proposal became stronger, and Mr. Wang, who was really the only person who could have won such a bidding process, re-won the right to be named developer of the Lighthouse site.  It was confirmed by the Legislature by a vote of 16-2, with then-Legis. Ed Mangano among the Yes votes.

As we all know, we are now in a period of radio silence, with a complete blackout by the Lighthouse and not much coming from the Town of Hempstead, either.  However, with a new sheriff coming to town, and Newsday previously reporting their obvious interest in the crown jewel of Long Island, some are beginning to jockey for position behind the scenes.

Moving Forward

This clearly signals the beginning of a full-court press from other developers who wish to curry favor with the incoming Mangano administration and remind the County that, yes, they are here in case the current plan falls through. For example, Mr. Blumenfeld already bid on the property once, and he has issued a willingness to do it again should this proposal fall through.  Mr. Mack is director of a firm that does not have any properties currently on Long Island, and you know he would like a foothold into such a lucrative marketplace.  Mr. D'Amato is heavily connected to the real estate industry as well, and he may also be attempting to curry favor along these lines.

A bigger issue is what would actually be done with the site should the Lighthouse Project not succeed.  The Town of Hempstead has questioned the ability of the Uniondale School District to handle the children from the proposed Lighthouse Project, so it is highly doubtful that a purely residential community would be proposed.  Mack-Cali is purely a commercial real estate company, so there is a chance an office park could be proposed, but with vacancy rates being so high that may be too much of a gamble.

Therefore, what would these organizations likely provide? A dense, mixed-use development, one that may not have as many community amenities (Coliseum, Convention Center, Celebration Plaza, Performing Arts Center, etc.) because, as many developers admit, they are simply not cost effective.

The people do not win if this project does not succeed - and it is becoming more clear who would.

Bottom Line

We will likely be re-visiting this, because it's clear that some people who could gain financially from the failure of the Lighthouse Project are attempting to curry favor with the new County Executive (who has, let's not forget, repeatedly endorsed the Lighthouse Project).

It is now put up or shut up time for the Lighthouse Project.  While the two sides are apparently now negotiating on changes to the size and scope (more on this later), the wolves are gathering at the door, ready to pounce should there be the slightest bit of vulnerability.

This is the right project for Long Island.  Mr. Wang and Mr. Rechler are the right developers for Long Island.  We must take a stand and make sure this is not thrown away for an uncertain future.

Also, I'd like to extend a sincere thanks for the help both given and offered for the research - you (and you know who you are) made this much easier for me.

Please share your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email Me. Follow me on Twitter. Become a fan on Facebook.

For Some, it IS Just Real Estate

 Even though it contains many pieces important to our community and, in my opinion, the long-term economic viability of Long Island, I've always tried to remember that the Lighthouse Project is, at heart, a business deal.  This business deal, as we now know, came about because Nassau County does not have the money to renovate or replace its arena, Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, and it is often not profitable for private enterprise to just build an arena.  We have a development that is meant to support the re-development of the Coliseum, and I'm thrilled for that.  I never understood the perspective of disgruntled Islanders fans who claimed this as proof Charles Wang only cares about hockey, and I'm especially confused by the more hysterical among us who actually think Charles Wang and Scott Rechler's potential for making money off the deal single-handedly makes the Lighthouse Project wrong.  To me, it has been a fact of life, and it makes me happy they proposed a project I can wholeheartedly support rather than only trying to line their own pockets or extort taxpayers for the money to build a new arena.

The Lighthouse Project wades into a situation that has been in flux since 1962, when John F. Kennedy was President, the second season of Mad Men was set, and Nassau County first received title to the land.  Original plans from then-County Executive Nickerson included an entertainment and transit hub that would later live on in some form...you know it as Lincoln Center.  Nassau Coliseum itself, as I've said before, was, according to original plans, supposed to be a 20,000 seat arena with an underground Long Island Rail Road Station.  Instead, it is a compromise of a compromise, sitting in an asphalt jungle that has been badly in need of re-development.
This 77-acre stretch of asphalt has long been the Holy Grail for development on Long Island, and we were again reminded of this on Monday, when Newsday's Randi Marshall reminded us that other developers were interested in the property, and an overzealous headline writer claimed that, if the Lighthouse Project failed, "Hope is on the way."

I think Ms. Marshall did a great job in reminding people of this, and at this point I think it's important to discuss a few things I've found out, as well as some key take-aways.

The Coliseum Property is Valuable

They don't call the area around Nassau Coliseum the "Nassau Hub" for no reason - this is a valuable site that, as I said, we have been trying to develop for 47 years.

Other Developers Want the Rights

Image via Wikipedia

According to a few sources who are familiar with the convoluted Lighthouse approval process, this is not the first time other developers have involved themselves.  Some have said that other developers were the main driving force behind Tom Suozzi backtracking and throwing the property out to a Request for Proposals (RFP) in 2006 - not because it was a "sweetheart deal," but because they wanted the deal for themselves.  The Lighthouse proposal became bigger (and, in my opinion, stronger) as a result, because Scott Rechler and the 73 surrounding acres his Rexcorp controls became involved, but it still took valuable time (as much as a year) out of the process.
At this point, some of these same developers just want to remind us they're still around.

What Would Change?

It is well-known that Long Island is in dire need of many types of development the Lighthouse Project would offer.  Tourism representatives have said Long Island loses millions of dollars every year because we don't have suitable convention space, and it is forcing people who want to spend money here to spend it somewhere else.  At the same time, the dire need for increased density (which, according to the Long Island Index, people support) and apartment-style living have created a crisis on Long Island, as younger people who are educated with the choking school taxes we pay choose to make their lives somewhere less expensive.

At the same time, it is known that certain developments (sports arenas, convention centers) do not make money for private developers, and this is why governments often step in to provide funding.  Other developments (condos, apartments, commercial/retail space) are known money-makers, which is why so many developers are active in these types of buildings.

We also know that walkable, mixed-use communities are the wave of the future, and they have been successfully implemented everywhere from Ballston in Arlington, VA to the Westgate complex in Glendale, AZ, to Town Square in Las Vegas (which I had the pleasure to visit - huge hat tip to Big Van Vader for letting me know it was there).  Communities must adapt or die, and mixed-use is clearly the best way to go.

Given all these facts, here's the point: how would any other developments be vastly different from the Lighthouse Project?  

At the end of the day, a new developer would probably approach the Town of Hempstead years down the line with the same proposal - a walkable, mixed-use suburban oasis - but likely without the Coliseum or convention center.  The millions in convention dollars wouldn't come, and the millions of dollars (estimated at around $250 million) the Islanders add to our local economy will be gone.  How is this a better deal for us?

We face large problems on Long Island, and I doubt any new project would be half as bold as the Lighthouse (something Matthew Whalen of developer Avalon Bay admits as likely within the Newsday article).  Big problems require bold solutions - not the kind of half-assed compromise that got us here in the first place.

Proving My Point

Since this blog was 2 days old, I've been hammering the idea of the Coliseum as a "loss leader," something that loses money the developer hopes to make back with the other pieces of the Lighthouse.  It's a simple economic fact, and one Mr. Whalen acknowledges in the piece:

"There are only so many ways to build buildings and make money on a site that would justify redeveloping the Coliseum.  You're not going to get a park. It doesn't work like that." -Matthew Whalen, Avalon Bay, Long Island Builders Institute

It reinforces something I've been saying since this blog began, and for years before that: we have painted ourselves into a corner.  Nassau Coliseum as-is is is not a major league sports facility, despite the delusions of some developers who think they could attract a NEW team to the building.  Unless the government is willing to put up hundreds of millions of dollars it doesn't have and is unwilling to spend, a project like the Lighthouse is the only way to save the Islanders, renovate the Coliseum, and move our Island forward.

Symbolism is Strong

Many developers who commit to bidding in a new RFP if the Lighthouse fails are not so gung-ho to see it die.  Many acknowledge something else Lighthouse supporters have been saying all along: this is a project that has come to symbolize what Long Island wants to be in the futur

Bottom Line

It is no secret that many people hope to be known for finally overcoming the red tape to develop Nassau's Hub into what it always should have been.  However, the Lighthouse Project, given its inclusion of the Islanders, a new Coliseum, and other things the community needs (convention center), is still the best option for the site, and a few of the developers interviewed by Ms. Marshall even admit this.
We cannot sit back and wait for someone to ride into the sunset and "save" us when this project, which is the right solution for Long Island, has come so far.  I hope our political leaders recognize this as clearly as many of us do.

Once the dust settles, I hope the Town can hold substantive talks with the Lighthouse Project in the interest of getting things done.  After all, I think it's become clear who wins if the project fails.

Please share your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email Me. Follow me on Twitter. Become a fan on Facebook.

(DISCLAIMER: I am not attempting to unlawfully disseminate Newsday's intellectual property.  I acknowledge they hold all copyrights to the article in question; I am merely trying to share it with my readers who may not currently be able to see it.  I do not reap any financial benefits from this site, so I am also not making money off Newsday's intellectual property.  Thank you)

 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Welcome: We'll Leave the Light(house) On! (islesofficialsoutlook.blogspot.com)
• All That Blood, Sweat and Tears... And For What? (islesofficialsoutlook.blogspot.com)
• Islanders Foe or Prudent Politician? Hempstead's Murray Stands Her Ground (nytimes.com)

The Bumpiest Smooth Ride I've Ever Seen

The Lighthouse Project has been in an almost complete media blackout for the last few weeks, trying to get the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) finalized and waiting for the County Executive election (and Ed Mangano's almost certain victory) to be resolved.  The Town of Hempstead has been similarly quiet, although we now have a piece from LIHerald.com in which Kate Murray inexplicably says the process is going "smoothly."  The piece also quotes Councilman Gary Hudes, who represents surrounding communities such as Salisbury and East Meadow, saying publicly (potentially for the first time) that his constituents favor development at the site but want the Lighthouse Project "scaled back."

At this point, I think it's time to discuss both the public nature of these negotiations and something that has, in my opinion, been the largest detriment to the overall process: the Town o Hempstead's policy to not meet with developers because they will eventually vote on the zoning variance.

Negotiating in Public

I was incredulous when Kate Murray not only said the Lighthouse is going smoothly, but it is in fact going "more smoothly than they have in a while," but the Supervisor may be on to something.  For too long, both sides have been talking either to the media or at each other instead of fulfilling their obligations and getting this project to completion.  The Town of Hempstead was in the papers (and raised the ire of Lighthouse supporters) through such actions as the phony stimulus drive, the slanted mailers asking residents what they did not like about the Lighthouse Project, and the refusals to meet with the developers, citing "policy" and non-existent conflict of interest.  It helped to set up an adversarial relationship, one that was exacerbated when sources inside the Town of Hempstead began telling B.D. Gallof and others that Charles Wang was a bully.

The Lighthouse Project has not been purely innocent, either.  (Soon to be former) County Executive Tom Suozzi tied himself very closely to the project, constantly bashing Kate Murray and the Town and urging them to move forward.  The Lighthouse constantly staged photo-ops over the summer with high-profile supporters such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, and Gov. David Paterson, applying the pressure in a public way.  This was solidified when, flanked by Mr. Wang and Islanders legends Mike Bossy and Bryan Trottier, Suozzi dropped the puck on Opening Night at Nassau Coliseum.

Another source of stress that has died down recently was Mr. Wang's October 3 deadline, in which the owner promised to "explore other options" if the project was not approved in its entirety.  The Town of Hempstead bristled, saying they did not put deadlines on the Islanders to win the Stanley Cup and should therefore not be pushed to approve it quickly.  The Town constantly trumpets its speed of approval and sites the morass in which many other large projects find themselves as evidence that the Town is moving in good faith.

I wonder if there was a middle ground with this, and I wonder if we're not seeing that playing out right now.  I understand Mr. Wang's deadline, because the Town of Hempstead has a bad history with large projects.  It took 18 years from closure of the Roosevelt Raceway to ground-breaking on the condo projects, and others such as the Courtesy Hotel (West Hempstead) and the Bellmore Army Base have languished for over a decade despite viable options.  The Supervisor's citing of long time to approval rings hollow, because, as I so love to say on this blog, past failure is not an excuse to fail again.  It's clear the Town needs to be pushed to move quickly, but there needed to be some kind of give-and-take.

As one person connected to the political scene told me, "What would you do if you were Kate Murray and saw Suozzi constantly criticizing you and blaming you for the project not going through?  Would that motivate you to move faster?"

A Strange Policy

Councilman Hudes is at least one of the first people to directly say the Lighthouse Project may need to be scaled down to receive ultimate approval, and it shines a light (no pun intended) directly on the Town of Hempstead's strange policy against meeting with developers before an actual vote.  Other Town Supervisors on Long Island, including Jon Kaiman of North Hempstead and Phil Nolan of Islip, cite meeting with the developers early and often as one of the key reasons large projects have been brought to a successful completion.  However, the Town of Hempstead took a different tactic, instead sitting like "judges" and waiting for the environmental review process to practically finish before making their position known.

This tactic has been in place from the beginning.  Let There Be Light(house) has learned that meetings were held at the highest levels when the Lighthouse was first proposed publicly in 2004, and Kate Murray refused to participate for the same reasons she did not meet with the developers until the middle of this year. 

I understand the sentiment to a point, because meeting with the developer so often would create the illusion that the project would be rubber-stamped, but there had to be a better way.  At this point, we have gone over 5 years, and the Lighthouse has spent tens of millions of dollars on review, and we still don't know exactly where the Town of Hempstead, which holds zoning authority over the site, stands on the project.  That is ludicrous.  I can't help but think that, if the Town had involved itself from the beginning and been open about what they would and would not approve, the Lighthouse Project would have already been completed.

To make matters worse, I also believe this policy is the reason the Lighthouse now seems less willing to compromise.  At the beginning of the year, Lighthouse leaders, including Mr. Wang and President Michael Picker, practically implored the Town of Hempstead to tell them what they would or would not approve so the Lighthouse could take the next steps.  When that communication never came, the position seemed to harden, and now the Town is trying to paint Mr. Wang as unwilling to negotiate.

Regardless of the outcome of the Lighthouse Project, I think we can agree that the Town of Hempstead's policy of not meeting with developers is a disaster, and it should be immediately put under review after this project's studies have finished.

Moving Forward

As we have speculated for months, it is now clear that the Town's major objections to the Lighthouse Project are from its size and scope.  Even though I support the Lighthouse Project as it is proposed and am disappointed by this news, I have to admit that there will not be an agreement unless there is an agreement with which both sides can feel comfortable.

One positive side of this is that the Lighthouse Project will almost certainly be approved if it is changed to a degree that the Town feels comfortable with.  My intelligence confirms what B.D. Gallof has previously reported on Hockey Independent: there are 7 votes on the Town Council (including Kate Murray), with 4 votes needed for the project to pass.  Currently, 2 Council members are in favor of the project, with 1 against (I will not publish names - email me if curious).  The other 4 (Kate Murray among them) are thought to be amenable to a project that adequately addresses their concerns.

This will require delicate negotiations, but this is a time to be bold.  The Town of Hempstead must be specific in its requirements rather than asking Charles Wang to bid against himself, and it is my belief that the Town may have to make a proposal bigger than they would otherwise want in order to ensure a successful completion.  Too many bold proposals have been rendered inadequate because of the phony dictum of "compromise," as if a project nobody really wants is a better solution than one side being extraordinarily happy or angry.  This is something we need on Long Island, and we must not let it fail now.

The Town failed to provide a clear path to approval when things were done originally, but the opportunity is now there to right those mistakes.

Also, I have heard nothing about the ongoing environmental review.  I will try to see what I can find.

Bottom Line

Both sides have made their mistakes in this process, and the project is undoubtedly delayed as a result.  I do not expect any movement before the new Legislature (and possibly Ed Mangano) are sworn in on January 1, but there is still time to break ground in Summer 2010 if all sides are committed to doing that.  When all is said and done, the Lighthouse Project is the right one for Long Island.  We must remember that and not get caught up in the back-and-forth.

Please share your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email Me. Follow me on Twitter. Become a fan on Facebook.

8 Days Out: VOTE!

I apologize for being MIA for the past week, but I was working on a few things that did not end up panning out, and I don't like to write when I have nothing to say.

Anyway, let's get right into it, because Election Day is only 8 days away, and the Lighthouse is shaping up to be an interesting issue. The most important thing we can do is vote and continue to spread the word to make sure the pro-Lighthouse contingent, which is the vast majority, has a large impact on Election Day.

There are a few reasons that I believe voting and educating citizens about the Lighthouse are vital activities:

Need for Education

The Lighthouse Project is, as I've said so many times, a truly revolutionary proposal, and the largest building project Long Island has seen since Levittown. There has been heavy coverage in the blogosphere, and the mainstream media has contributed in many ways as well. Turnout has been heavy at public hearings, and attendees have been overwhelmingly in favor of the project. My theory was proven correct when Newsday released a scientific poll showing that supporters of the Lighthouse Project outnumbered opponents by a margin of 2-1.

However, there is a problem lurking right in plain sight: almost a quarter of respondents to the poll either had no opinion or were not sure.

This is surprising to me, as I'm sure it is for all of you who have followed the Lighthouse Project so closely. However, it's clear that many residents either do not know enough about the project, or, like those one commenter on this site encountered at the August hearing who were upset about eminent domain that will not be exercised, residents are not sufficiently informed. All of us need to do our best to make sure that people are making an educated decision on whether to support the Lighthouse.

Lighthouse as Island-wide Issue

Many people, both on this blog and in other places, have expressed frustration at the approval process for the Lighthouse Project. These citizens rightly recognize that the Lighthouse is an issue that will shape Long Island's destiny for decades to come, whether or not it is approved, and that its impact reaches far beyond the borders of the Town of Hempstead. However, since the Town of Hempstead solely controls zoning, they are more inclined to listen to residents of the Town and dismiss those from outside. In fact, it has previously been a Town of Hempstead talking point (parroted by some mainstream media) that the only voters who support the Lighthouse don't live in the Town itself. These citizens are rightly concerned that they do not have a voice in the process.

However, you do have a voice, and there are a few potential ways to exercise that voice. First of all, you can still speak to local politicians about the broader questions surrounding the Lighthouse. This is not just about a land development in Uniondale; this is about how we want to be suburbia in the 21st Century. This is about whether Long Island wants to remain stuck in the long-gone suburban ideal of nothing but single-family homes surrounded by white picket fences with all the jobs in the city, or whether it wants to adapt to a clearly-changing world. Even if you do not live in the Town of Hempstead, you can still seek positions from your elected officials (and candidates) on this crucial issue.

In the same vein, residents can still vote based on the Lighthouse Project if they do not live in the Town of Hempstead, and they can speak to Town of Hempstead residents in order to make sure those people make an educated decision on whether to support the project.

We Get What We Deserve

It seems too easily forgotten in this day and age, but the people possess ultimate political power in the United States. It is not correct or useful to complain about politicians and their actions if we do not exercise our duty to hold them accountable. If we continue to not educate ourselves on local issues, and if we continue to blindly elect and re-elect the same politicians, we will have a government that does not represent our interests....and we will deserve it.

Bottom Line

Local elections usually experience the lowest turnout, and that allows for a small group of people to dictate the representation for the rest of us. We must not allow this to happen this year. Become informed on your local candidates, force them to answer questions about the Lighthouse Project, and hold them accountable at the ballot box.

Our future is too important - let's take a stand next Tuesday.

Coming Soon

Expect a few interesting discussions over the next week, as well as discussions on transportation, new media, and a post that throws cold water on those who assume Queens is a slam-dunk move for the Islanders.

Please share your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email Me. Follow me on Twitter. Become a fan on Facebook.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Finally...Compromise (islesofficialsoutlook.blogspot.com)
• A STATEMENT FROM CHARLES B. WANG"We will not discuss meetings in the media" (islanderspointblank.com)
• OPTIONS: BROOKLYN, QUEENS, SUFFOLKIf Wang wants certainty, he needs an alternative (islanderspointblank.com)

Sifting Through the Rubble

Today, at around noon, Charles Wang issued a statement affirming that the Long Island Press story from yesterday declaring the Lighthouse Project "dead" was not true. This ended roughly 19 straight hours of speculation, as the Lighthouse went into a total media blackout after the story broke. This was truly a unique situation in the whole Lighthouse saga, and we should take a look at the key take-aways from this.

First, three quick things:

Appearance on HNLI Tomorrow

Tomorrow, I will appear on Hockey Night on Long Island at 5 PM to discuss the latest news related to the Lighthouse Project. I should be on for about 10 minutes, and I hope you will tune in.

Quoted in Newsday

I was quoted in Newsday's article discussing this strange scenario and the anxiety it caused fans and supporters. I'm not surprised they used that quote, and I stand by what I said. I reserved judgment on this, but people were very upset.

Kristen McElroy Interview Tomorrow

I am scheduled to sit down with Kristen McElroy, Democratic challenger for Town of Hempstead Supervisor, tomorrow afternoon. If you really want me to ask a certain question, please email me or leave it in comments.

Analyzing the Incident

The news hit many people like a gut punch yesterday, and some responded better than others. If the Lighthouse was truly caught off guard by this, and by all indications they were, I understand their desire to remain out of the media spotlight. However, that was no consolation to the people who felt like they were left twisting in the wind after a potential bombshell revelation. I understand why it was done, but I don't know if I would have made the same decision in that situation.

We had an interesting aftermath to the original story - all the major media outlets on Long Island spent hours trying to confirm the story, and they never posted anything last night save for a small blog post on Newsday that also cited an anonymous source. At the same time, the author of the original story doubled down, saying on Twitter and to Newsday that he believed the Charles Wang press release was not true and it was consistent with a group that wanted to bury a potentially devastating story.

As a pretty savvy media watcher, the thought that this was a deliberate, high-level leak does not jibe with everything we have seen. We had an anonymous, unconfirmed source who spoke to the Long Island Press, a paper which serves a reader base but has never broken a major story on the Lighthouse Project. The conspiracy theorists among us would say that this proves the Lighthouse did leak this bit of news because it was so easy to deny, but it would not make a bit of sense to do this.

At the end of the day, I believe there is one plausible explanation to this: somebody with a connection to either the Lighthouse or the political situation (or both) in a tangential way overreacted to a potential story and relayed the information to an equally-overzealous writer. The Lighthouse Project has done a very good job managing the media throughout this whole process, and if they legitimately had such devastating news to report, they would not suddenly change their tactics. This leak could have then caused the organization to go into lockdown and identify the source before making any public pronouncements. This would have the sad side effect of leaving supporters searching desperately for information, but, again, this is the only situation that, in my view, would explain everything that happened after this story hit the wire and was gobbled up by the national hockey press.

Next Steps

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Hidden inside the Newsday article was yet another gem from Kate Murray: she apparently called Charles Wang to suggest another meeting to discuss scaling down the project. Apparently the Supervisor does not understand the request from October 3 to keep the negotiations out of the media (though I'm not surprised).

This move by Kate Murray raises the legitimate question of why this had not been done in the 5 years since the Lighthouse Project was first publicly announced. As I have said many times, the two sides should be speaking, but the Supervisor is not a hero for suddenly doing something that she should have done from the beginning.

The Lighthouse is vehemently against any potential scale-down because work that has already been done would have to be re-done for the new project, of smaller size. I am trying to get more information on this so we can better understand the exact situation now.

While I am not encouraged that Kate Murray is once again up to her usual tricks, I am encouraged that the sides have spoken and agreed to speak again.

Bottom Line

A reader pointed out earlier today that solely discussing events like this distracts us from the true goal, and I could not agree more. This process has been fraught with more drama and political calculation than most people thought possible, but that is not why I am writing this blog, and I also know that is not why you are reading it. We are here because the Lighthouse Project is the right one for Long Island, a visionary undertaking that can bring badly-needed jobs, private investment, and maybe even an economic engine for a Long Island that has been stagnant for nearly 25 years, especially since the departure of Northrup-Grumman.

Ironically, yesterday started with another major point that has become lost among the tit-for-tat, the political gamesmanship, and the barely-sane commenters at Newsday who seem to believe that their opposition means the project needs to die as quick a death as possible. Newsday commissioned one of the only scientific polls on the Lighthouse Project, and the results were consistent with everything I have seen and heard throughout this process: 51% in favor, 25% against, and 23% with either no preference or no opinion. All major demographic groups and political affiliations supported the project, and only one group (women) showed less than 50% overall support.

Despite this wonderful news, I need to point something out: the insistence of many media outlets, including Newsday in this particular piece, to label the Lighthouse Project "controversial." Isn't something widely supported and endorsed by the people, by its very nature, not controversial? Seems like poor word choice to me.

The Lighthouse has, in many circles, become a proxy for the factions that currently disagree over the future direction Long Island should take. It is clear that a majority of Long Islanders understand that the current situation is unsustainable, and they endorse the vision put forward.

This, at the end of the day, is the most important thing. The people of Long Island have stood up and said how they want to be suburbia in the 21st Century. Every time we the people have shown our support publicly, the politicians that work for us (so many have forgotten that...) have taken notice and moved the process forward.

We are now at the 11th hour, and we are needed again. If we want our Island dream to become a reality, we cannot sit back as passive observers. We must continue to fight in public (and at the ballot box) to make sure yesterday's scare does not become tomorrow's reality.

Please share your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email Me. Follow me on Twitter. Become a fan on Facebook.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Thank Goodness That's Over (islesofficialsoutlook.blogspot.com)
• A STATEMENT FROM CHARLES B. WANG"We will not discuss meetings in the media" (islanderspointblank.com)
• NEWSDAY: Wang Source - Project Not AbandonedMy take: the LDC could not have played this worse (islanderspointblank.com)

Still No Word - Who's Playing Games Now?

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

 UPDATE 12:30 PM: Official Statement from Charles Wang released, posted on The Light Post.

UPDATE 11:00 AM: Charles Wang tells Newsday, of this report that ripped through Islanders Country last night: "It's bogus." It took that long?

UPDATE: Chris Botta is reporting that the Islanders staff is telling fans the project is still on, and a statement is planned for later today. Glad to know they can still speak, though I didn't know it took a full day to write a statement.

It is now about 17 hours since the Long Island Press first reported a story that the Lighthouse Project has been abandoned. Despite serious questions about the piece's credibility and the Press' maddening insistence on calling the Lighthouse Project "controversial," the Press has doubled down on the story, re-Tweeting it at least twice since the initial announcement. Newsday could do no better than run a story saying an anonymous source connected to Charles Wang (but not Mr. Wang himself) says the Lighthouse has not been abandoned.

This refusal to speak on the record has gone from maddening to disrespectful, and I have to call it what it is. These same people who never had a problem calling or sending an email when they needed something now left the tens of thousands of people who all sacrificed something toward this common goal twisting in the wind for almost a full day. I'm not even talking just about the bloggers; there are plenty of people who wrote comments, signed petitions, made signs, and took precious days off from work to attend Lighthouse Project hearings, all because they believed in the future of Long Island and endorsed the vision put forward by Charles Wang and Scott Rechler. These people deserve better.

To make matters worse, this is the same group who repeatedly (and in many cases, rightly) accused the Town of Hempstead of playing games every step of the way. I do not like to feel used, and that's where I am right now.

To the Lighthouse: TIME TO SPEAK UP. Our patience is running thin.

Remember the Perspective

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

This week has largely been spent speculating about the next steps between the Lighthouse and the Town of Hempstead. Nobody within the Lighthouse, as I mentioned, would even confirm or deny that a meeting took place, and my friend BD Gallof spoke to sources who claim that Charles Wang and Kate Murray had a meeting this past Wednesday, one-on-one, and each side agreed to meet again in the future.

All sides have started to wonder where the Town and the Lighthouse stand on the issue, and many media outlets are giving voice to citizens on both sides of this debate. However, I believe some people are losing perspective, and I think it's a good time to bring that perspective back.

The Court of Public Opinion

I was deeply disappointed while watching Long Island Talks on News 12 a ew weeks ago, where the major topic of conversation was the Lighthouse Project. A pro-Lighthouse speaker was repeatedly challenged by the host, who did not seem to grasp some facts related to the project, while a citizen who stood against the project spoke against everything from the height of the buildings to....the 5-acre park (currently called Celebration Plaza) currently included in the plans. Let's forget for a second any discussion of how far we've fallen when a park is now a target of NIMBYism and stick with the main point here. At the end of the show, there were people, including myself, still waiting on the call-in queue, so the host decided to read out those people's names and their position on the project. Once that was over, the host closed with this gem:

"As you can tell, just like everywhere else when talking about this project, it's split about 50-50."

I nearly split my evening cup of tea across the room in utter disbelief of what I'd just heard. The callers were evenly split for that particular show, but the host failed to mention a key point:

The previous week, in advance of the re-zoning hearing, News 12 (aka, the network at which this host works) conducted an online poll on the Lighthouse. 71% of respondents were in favor.

Tracking the Support

I realize that the News 12 poll is not scientific, so let's get that out of the way before we continue our discussion. Instead, let's look at what we know from all the hearings:

• Environmental Scoping Hearings (May-June 2008) - 90-95% Support
• Environmental Scope Adoption Hearing (February 24, 2009) - 90% Support
• Public Hearing (August 4, 2009) - 80% Support
• Public Comments (Closed August 17, 2009) - 60% In Favor
• Re-Zoning Hearing (September 22, 2009) - As High as 80% in favor, never lower than 60%

Opponents, and their enablers in the commentariat, have continuously tried to dismiss the large levels of support. First we were naive, then we were paid dupes, then we were ringers from outside the Town of Hempstead....and yet, the support remains. This is the main thing to remember: The Lighthouse Project is more widely-supported than any large-scale building project in recent memory.

Don't get me wrong; this doesn't mean that the project should be rammed through without any mind toward environmental issues or anything else, but this should not be discounted, either. The majority of residents clearly want a deal done, and I think all sides would be better served by trying to answer the bell rather than returning to the tit-for-tat discussions that have taken place as recently as last week.

Bottom Line

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

At the end of the day, we need to remember that the main issue is not the continued political game of chess between the Lighthouse, the Town of Hempstead, and Nassau County. The main issue is that the Lighthouse Project is the most widely-supported project in Long Island history, and ultimate political power (in theory) rests with the people. We need to be the ones who stand up and assert ourselves into this debate, and we must also share our views at the voting booth next month.

Question to Ponder

I'm hoping to do a little group brainstorming here, so I hope everyone who comments will (in addition to sharing whatever is on your mind) think about this question:

How can we, the people, best ensure that we are always at the center of the debate?

Please share your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email Me. Follow me on Twitter. Become a fan on Facebook.

Cold Political Calculations

Sunday's feature in Newsday brought some badly-needed investigative reporting to the Lighthouse Project issue, as Randi Marshall did a superlative job pulling back the curtain on the political machinations that have guided the Lighthouse Project behind the scenes.

I've had a chance to speak to a few more people with knowledge of the political maneuverings behind the scenes, and one thing has become abundantly clear: my posts from the winter warning against politicizing the Lighthouse Project were naive. The project has been politicized for over 4 years.

Gregory, Alphonse, and Joe

(To the tune of "Abraham, Martin, and John" by Dion and the Belmonts)

As we know, the Lighthouse Project initially came into being because Nassau County was unable to provide public funds to build a new arena, and a new arena is not in this instance a good investment for the New York Islanders. Charles Wang and his team created a project, unveiled in September 2004, that aimed to change the very makeup of Long Island, a place that has been designed to serve an inanimate object (the automobile) for over 60 years. It would be an ambitious under-taking that would suddenly become the "town square" Long Island has never had.

The goal was to make the Lighthouse Project apolitical - something on which both Democrats and Republicans could agree. According to many sources, politician feedback behind the scenes was nothing but positive, and it was a rewarding culmination of a process that began in 1999, when former Sen. Al D'Amato convinced Charles Wang to purchase the Islanders as a civic duty.

Rosy scenarios had the Lighthouse sailing to bipartisan approval.....but we all know it can never be that simple in the cesspool of Long Island politics.

According to Newsday's investigative piece, and other bits of news that I re-read from the time, the tide turned in 2005. Tom Suozzi was a popular incumbent County Executive who received a lot of credit for taking Nassau County back from the brink of financial ruin. The Lighthouse Project began to bring Suozzi's vision for a "new suburbia" into focus.

The Republicans needed an issue to win, because at that point Suozzi seemed ensured of re-election against a weak opponent named Gregory Peterson. Mr. D'Amato and GOP Chairman Joseph Mondello (who still has not apologized to Joe Conte, over 4 months later) knew they had little chance of winning, but they came up with a potential solution: they decided they could win the 2005 campaign by opposing the Lighthouse Project.

The origins are debated (Newsday believes Charles Wang's refusal to hire Al D'Amato's brother was the turning point; others are not sure), but Al D'Amato gave a broadside to his former friend and associate during the 2005 GOP Convention. He railed against the Lighthouse Project as a nightmare that would turn a supposedly idyllic suburb into the "sixth borough" of New York. Mr. Mondello joined the chorus, and Mr. Peterson based his entire campaign around fighting the "urbanization" of Nassau County.

The Lighthouse now became a political issue.....and Tom Suozzi cruised to re-election with slightly under 70% of the vote.

The Aftermath

Now that research has largely confirmed this, I have to say that the behavior of D'Amato and Mondello infuriates me. These two men made a cynical calculation that opposing a project that is in the best interests of Long Island would help them win a political campaign. I feel vindicated that the strategy failed so badly, but it is hard not to wonder how things could have been different if that mistake was never made. Negotiations could have taken place in 2005, and the arena part of the development could be done by now. As it stands, this halted progress until after the election, and Tom Suozzi's decision to run for governor (and put the Coliseum property up for competitive bid) in 2006 stretched the period of inaction even further.

It is possible that this behavior poisoned Charles Wang's relationship with Al D'Amato, which had once been very close. Many people I've spoken to cite Charles Wang's tendency to fall in love with people. This is not inherently a bad thing, but there is a flip side to this. That same tendency can manifest itself in the other direction, and people who fall out of Charles Wang's good graces do not seem to ever find their way back in. This cynical calculation likely severed a key line of communication and led to rampant conspiracy theories among residents that Mondello and D'Amato were the unseen puppetmasters in this sad affair.

This type of dirty politics aims to serve politicians and shaft the people. We must not accept it anymore, and we must not allow the Lighthouse Project to become mired in any more issues like this. The Town of Hempstead has the project now, and as things progress I hope the re-zoning decision can be made in good faith.

Bottom Line

Any attempts to avoid politicizing the Lighthouse are in vain because the project has been politicized from the beginning. This could have contributed to the bad feelings that seem to still linger at times when the Lighthouse (rightly) discusses how long the path to approval has been.

At this point, both sides are playing a dangerous game, since Charles Wang's deadline is approaching, and he will declare himself free to entertain other options at that point. Right now, the onus is on the Town of Hempstead to make the next move. The Town should come back with a new proposal to kick-start negotiations because Charles Wang and the Lighthouse are not 100% sure of where the Town stands on the overall project. As we know, the first rule of negotiating is that you should not negotiate against yourself, and it would make no sense for the Lighthouse to offer a changed project without an understanding of what the Town is willing to approve. We will not be able to figure out the Town's position until they return with a proposal that is acceptable to them and both sides show a willingness to negotiate.

Charles Wang's October 3 deadline is approaching, and I hope he continues to show a willingness to see this through (while entertaining other options, which is his right). It is clear that Mr. Wang, after building Computer Associates up (and leaving under less than happy circumstances), is now looking at his legacy Some compare this to Old Plainview, a development with the Town of Oyster Bay that Mr. Wang pulled in the face of community opposition. This is not the same scenario, because the Lighthouse is both more supported and further along than that project.

Others wonder if past behavior is a sign that Messrs. Mondello and D'Amato will lead to a rejection of the project. I don't see it happening, and I hope the Town of Hempstead will judge the project based on its benefit to the community.

However, this aborted power play may actually portend something good for the ultimate fate of the Lighthouse. The Mondello/D'Amato ploy failed miserably in 2005, and since then the Lighthouse has become bigger and far more widely supported among both elected officials and the people (most polls - including Newsday and News 12, show the project at almost 70% support, which is absolutely unheard of). If the Republican leadership was willing to take a position on the Lighthouse for the sake of politics in 2005, the same could happen here. It's not out of the question that the large levels of public support could motivate the very same people who tried to defeat the Lighthouse for political reasons to now work toward making it happen.

Therefore, as we truly enter a sensitive part of the Lighthouse process, the following questions need to be answered:

• How committed is Charles Wang to the Lighthouse Project as his long-term legacy to Long Island? How closely will he listen to offers to sell or move the Islanders?
  
• How willing will the Town of Hempstead be to negotiate with the Lighthouse?
• Will the Lighthouse be willing to negotiate once the Town makes its required next move?
• Will those who once opposed the Lighthouse for political reasons now realize that it is bad politics to come out against such a widely-supported project?
• What role, if any, will the Lighthouse play in the upcoming political campaign? In the same vein, will the Lighthouse's role reflect politicians' ultimate attitude toward the project?

We have had partisan squabbling and party before people for far too long on Long Island. I hope the Lighthouse, the Town, and the County can rise above that and fulfill the goal of doing something truly great for Long Island. Enough of the politics, enough of the posturing, let's get it done.


"If that is the way the winds are blowing, let it not be said that I do not also blow." -Mayor Joseph "Diamond Joe" Quimby

Please share your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email Me. Follow me on Twitter.

Related articles by Zemanta

• READERS: TAKE A STAND, SIGN YOUR NAMESign up FOR or AGAINST the Lighthouse Project (islanderspointblank.com)