The Unveiling Is Tomorrow

As we still argue over whether or not the Queens news first reported by Chris Botta on AOL Fanhouse is accurate or inaccurate (given the repeated connections the mainstream hockey press has been able to make between the Islanders and Mets, I believe accurate), and Ed Mangano continues to hallucinate that a casino would be a smart idea for the Nassau Coliseum site, the Town of Hempstead has finally agreed to unveil its vision for a gutted scaled-back Light Project (pun intended) tomorrow morning at 11.

First of all, nice touch to announce it late on a Sunday night so there's no chance people with jobs and families can actually go.  It's a pattern that emerged after the Town of Hempstead finally realized that the opposition isn't coming but the supporters are.  Instead of engaging us, they've decided to manipulate the circumstances in order to prevent us from coming.  You stay classy, Kate.

I'll be honest: I have no idea what to expect, but based on what I've heard from sources, I'm not optimistic.  At all.  Chris Botta reported on Friday that the "scale-down" is going to be 50% of the original plan, with sources I've consulted speculating that the number is actually over 60%.  The Town spin machine is already in action, and that signals to me that we are looking at something drastic.

I'm intrigued to see what the Town does, because they never seemed to fully grasp why the Lighthouse Project came to existence.  Remember, Mike Deery (TOH mouthpiece) claimed that Charles Wang was yoking his new arena to the development out of egotism, rather than the clear economic reality that building just an arena with private funds is tantamount to flushing money down the toilet.

The Town is working through their consultant, Westchester-based F.P. Clark, which produced the much maligned Baldwin re-zoning plan, along with similar projects, and this does not bode well.  The Town spin machine claims that the new proposal will keep many of the pieces of the Lighthouse Project in a more "sustainable" way, but some reports claim that the housing will be cut by over 75%.

Here's the problem: That math doesn't work.

The retail exists largely to serve the planned residents of the site.  If the residential units are gutted, there will either be excess retail, or they would have to cut the retail by the same percentage.

Simply saying the project should be smaller doesn't change the economic reality.  The Nassau Coliseum can not be replaced without either hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in a bad economy or development that allows the developer to make enough money to finance construction.  Residential is the most profitable construction, so I fail to see how this becomes better.

It seems to me that the Town of Hempstead is trying to have its cake and eat it too, but they have badly overreached here.  I've been concerned that the Town would offer a counter-proposal so insultingly small that Charles Wang and Scott Rechler would have to walk away, leading the Town to paint them as the villains.  I genuinely hope this doesn't happen.

However, we need to keep a few facts in mind:

- Charles Wang's behavior over the past 9 months strongly suggests he does not want to move the Islanders from that spot.

- Ed Mangano, who is facing a $275 million budget shortfall and won his seat by a razor-thin margin, does not want to be the County Executive who lost the Islanders.

- There is no formal casino proposal, just some rough plans and revenue projections.  It's not something that people have seriously pursued, despite noises from some people in the Mangano administration (more on this later)

- Charles Wang and Scott Rechler own all the major non-collegiate properties around the Nassau Coliseum site - it's not like they can just go away.

I've said it before - the easiest thing for all sides is to make a deal, but this news throws the chance of that happening into greater doubt.

As I've said many times, the Lighthouse is the right project at the right time for Long Island.

If not Charles Wang and Scott Rechler, then who?

If not the Lighthouse Project, then what?

This will come into deeper focus after the Town's flash press conference tomorrow morning.  Buckle up.

NOTE: I was not invited to the press conference, and have to work, so I suggest you check Newsday or Islanders Point Blank for the straight news and come back here tomorrow night for reaction.  As always, thanks for sticking with this.  I think I'll be writing more now, since there's more news.

Please share your thoughts 

in

 comments. Petition. Email. Twitter. Facebook.

Still Waiting on the Town of Hempstead's Response

It's been a long while since the last post here, and I apologize for that.  I need to be better, and the fact that I've been very busy should not be an excuse.  I hope you will forgive me, and while I can't promise that the frequency will be quite what it was in the beginning, I will do everything in my power to chat with you guys more often.  That likely means some shorter posts and quick ideas instead of saving them for a big blog post that I end up pushing off repeatedly.

At this point, there has been precious little news on the Lighthouse Project, save Ed Mangano's ridiculous casino idea (more on this over the weekend), for many months.  The Lighthouse web site is gone, replaced with a placeholder that still manages to get a dig in at the Town of Hempstead, and the Town, which promised action on an alternate plan by Memorial Day, is now 2 weeks late.

It's become par for the course in this theater of the absurd.

Jump-Start?

The Town of Hempstead has constantly received credit (to be fair, from itself) for "jump-starting" the Lighthouse process, after Charles Wang stopped paying F.P. Clark, the Town's environmental consultant, and seemingly shut down all operations.  It's true that, on the surface, the Town has done something substantive, but reality is a little different.  As I've said repeatedly, sources allege that the Town had refused to meet with the Lighthouse or anyone involved (including then-County Executive Suozzi) since 2003, citing ridiculous claims of "conflict of interest" that have never made sense.  Every time I think of this, I pine for what could have been, because I can't imagine that a Town that gave a damn from the beginning could have produced a plan that worked.  We could have at least a new Coliseum by now, but instead the Town chose to hide behind a moronic policy and empty proclamations of sitting like "judges," which conveniently ignores the fact that judges and umpires can be biased and, yes, even fallible.  The tragic case of MLB umpire Jim Joyce is a constant reminder of that, even if his actions after the blown call were nothing less than noble and admirable.

Now, after 7 years of hiding behind this policy, the Town has done an about-face, a move which begs a simple question: Why?  What was the impetus for the Town's sudden movement after years of intransigence?  As I mentioned, what could have been accomplished had this been the idea from the beginning?  Was this a cynical ploy hoping that the unthinkable would happen and Tom Suozzi would lose, in order for the Town to put its own stamp on things?  We may never know....

Do They "Get It"?

I think there's an even more basic question to ask here: Does the Town of Hempstead really "get it"?

I keep coming back to an article written in April in Newsday (subscription required) that sent a shiver up my spine.  Town spokesman Mike Deery shot back at yet another claim from NHL commissioner Gary Bettman that the Town was stalling the Lighthouse Project and needed to get its act together.  His response included this gem:

"Unlike the five other metropolitan-area professional franchises that opened magnificent new facilities in the past year, Mr. Wang has tied the Coliseum's future to the construction of a mini-city along Hempstead Turnpike.'' - Mike Deery

Where do we even begin with the things wrong with this?

Newsflash Number 1: The Lighthouse Project can't be compared to the other buildings opened in the past year because it's apples to oranges.  Yankee Stadium and Citi Field both received direct (infrastructure) and indirect (tax-free bonds) support from the government.  The Prudential Center in Newark was constructed with funds from the city and a naming-rights deal.  The Jets and Giants pooled their assets, sold those hideous Personal Seat Licenses (PSL's) and received a sizable sum of money from the NFL's stadium fund. 

The Lighthouse Project is not getting ANY of these things.

We've been over this so many times on this blog: arenas are usually heavily subsidized by the public, and when they are not the team involved must come up with other ways to raise the money, such as developing the surrounding land.  

Newsflash Number 2: This is about more than a hockey arena for a hockey team.  The Lighthouse Project represents things Long Island badly needs to avoid stemming the tide of brains and businesses (including, in the weeks and months ahead, sadly, my own) off the island in search of better opportunity.  Is the Town of Hempstead so narrow-minded that they genuinely believe this is just a sports issue?  Are they willing to spit in the faces of the thousands of people that could benefit from the new wave of thinking the Lighthouse could signal because they think it's nothing more than a ploy to get a new arena?  What a joke....

I may not post as often, but this still riles me up the way it always did.

So, Now What?

Everything is in a holding pattern until the Town of Hempstead returns with its alternative plan.  I am very apprehensive about what we will see because, quite honestly, F.P. Clark does not have a reputation for developing over-arching visions for mixed-use.  There are many outstanding questions:

What Will We See?

Nobody is truly sure what kind of a plan the Town will propose.  It could be a 10-20% reduction, which would likely be acceptable to the Lighthouse group (assuming they still want to do it).  It could be a 30-40% reduction, which may be open for negotiation, or it could be something far more drastic.  A more drastic cutback would almost certainly lead to the Lighthouse walking away.

When Will We See It?

The Town is still silent....I have no idea when they'll stop being silent.

How Closely Is the Town Working With the County?

It seems a bit strange that Ed Mangano would announce this casino nonsense without consulting the Town, but the Town seemed just as surprised as the rest of us. 

What Will the Lighthouse Do?

Right now, the Lighthouse in general, and Charles Wang in particular, might be the biggest wild card in this process.  Scott Rechler has a reputation in the development community, and Ed Mangano, as the new County Executive, does not want to own this problem, especially since his narrow margin of victory immediately calls his chances of being re-elected into question.  I'm sure that, in a vacuum, these 2 would want to make a deal.

Charles Wang could be another story.  He and Kate Murray have sniped at each other throughout most of the process, and he may already be negotiating for other options.  It will be interesting to see, and it's difficult to read the tea leaves because nobody is talking.

Bottom Line

We continue to be in a holding pattern with the Lighthouse Project, waiting for some sort of clarity.  Until the Town comes back with its alternative plan, things will still be stalled.  Hopefully, an acceptable alternative comes along, or the Town proposes a plan that maintains the spirit of the Lighthouse Project.  Only time will tell....

Please share your thoughts in

 comments. Petition. Email. Twitter. Facebook.

"It All Starts With Al D'Amato"

(Blogger's Note: I didn't doctor this picture at all.  Google "Al D'Amato - this is apparently a real picture of former Sen. D'Amato)

I remember back to the bad old days of 1996-1998, when I was a young Islanders fan who just wanted to see his team get a new arena.  I may not have been as business-oriented as I am now, but I knew that other teams were getting new buildings and the Islanders would probably need one too.

I remembered reading some kind of a political puff piece that spoke about how the will was there to get the Islanders a new building, and that it would happen in short order.  I don't remember who said it - could have been former owner John O. Pickett, could've been a commentator, could've been former County Executive Tom Gulotta - but there is one sentence I remember loud and clear, that summed up the Islanders' favorable position: "It all starts with Al D'Amato in the Senate."

Many have whispered since this blog's inception that Mr. D'Amato was pulling the strings for some unseen political opposition to the Lighthouse Project.  I never saw it, and the former Senator was rarely mentioned save for a Newsday article that claimed a falling out with Charles Wang as a result of Mr. Wang's refusal to hire D'Amato's brother, Armand.

That's all changed as of yesterday, when Mr. D'Amato took to the pages of the LI Herald to criticize the Lighthouse Project and advocate the casino fantasy as a workable solution.

Unfortunately for Mr. D'Amato, there are some holes in his logic.  This in particular is my favorite:

In my opinion, in today’s economy, [a casino on the Coliseum site] makes a lot more sense than the previously proposed Lighthouse Project. For six years, real estate developer Charles Wang, the majority owner of the New York Islanders, has been pressuring elected officials from the Town of Hempstead and Nassau County to authorize this $3.7 billion project.

Mr. D'Amato is a savvy politician, and he is carefully framing this issue in a way that is, in my opinion, not accurate.  Nassau County voted in 2006, by a margin of 16-2 (with current County Executive Ed Mangano in the majority), to name the Lighthouse Development Group the developers of the Coliseum site, fulfilling a vision put forth by former County Executive Tom Suozzi.  Politicians at all levels, from Gov. Paterson to both U.S. Senators to every member of the Long Island congressional delegation (except for my representative, Peter King), have come out in favor of this project.  It is also supported by a record number of citizens.

The Town of Hempstead, according to numerous sources who were familiar with the negotiations at the time, has refused to meet with the Lighthouse to discuss their vision for the site since 2003, citing conflicts of interest that were never there.  This position is of course made more laughable since the Town has now "jump-started" the Lighthouse process and is working on its own competing proposal.  It has long been a position of those opposed to the Lighthouse that this is Charles Wang's whim and he is desperately fighting to get elected officials to buy into his vision.  The facts, including initial conception by Tom Suozzi and prior approval by Nassau County, do not support this assertion.


D'Amato cites the colleges directly adjacent to the Coliseum property (Hofstra University and Nassau Community College) as reasons why the Lighthouse Project should not be built, using the classic bogeyman of traffic.  This would be fine, if not for the fact that a casino would likely bring in more traffic at less regular times of the day.  In addition, as my friend B.D. Gallof reported last week, Gamblers Anonymous has reported large spikes in gambling addiction among college-aged Long Islanders, an issue that would almost certainly be exacerbated by having a large casino literally a stone's throw from college campuses.

To make matters more interesting, D'Amato acknowledges the need for mass transit at the site even if a casino is built, thus provoking the same opposition from communities such as Garden City who would seemingly prefer nothing done with the site than a light rail coming within 300 feet of homes.  In addition, unlike the Lighthouse Project, which is positioned to be an economic catalyst for the region, casinos are largely self-contained and usually result in property values dropping between 10-20% in the surrounding areas.  I can't imagine a scenario in which the neighbors would stand for this.  Mr. D'Amato calls the casino "creative," but let's get real: casinos are the cheapest revenue grab in the book for a government.  Mangano's proposal betrays a stunning lack of creativity and a surprising tone-deafness for the needs of the area.

Mr. D'Amato also fails to acknowledge his own role in the current state of both Nassau Coliseum and the Islanders.  D'Amato is the person who engineered the arena deal with SMG, a deal widely regarded as the worst in sports history, that has bled the County and the Islanders of millions of dollars since its signing.  Mr. D'Amato is also the person who convinced hockey neophyte Charles Wang to purchase the Islanders, citing fan passion and the guarantee of a new arena/Coliseum land development to offset the costs.  It's disingenuous to suggest Mr. D'Amato is merely a concerned observer in this process.

The former Senator also trotted out one of the more popular Town of Hempstead talking points (which is only fitting for a former Town Supervisor): financing...namely, Charles Wang's supposed complete inability to obtain it.  This has been a major talking point since the beginning, with the issue of potential financing from China brought up with sneering derision at the 9/22 re-zoning hearing.

First off, this is a simple economics issue.  As a friend who works in finance told me, Charles Wang could not be blamed for spurning banks that would not provide financing in favor of banks that would.  In addition, why would Charles Wang continue this farce if he wasn't able to gain the financing to do the project?  Why did a source tell me Scott Rechler was incensed at the news of the casino "plan"?  Why isn't the Lighthouse more openly seeking other options?  Why are people connected to the project continuing to insist that things are still on and they are waiting for the Town's response?  It doesn't make any sense.

There's a first time for everything....I agree with NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman on the financing issue.  If the Town is so convinced that Charles Wang is bluffing and can't get the financing, Green-Light the Lighthouse Project.  Make the Lighthouse prove that they can come through, and place the burden of the project's ultimate success or failure squarely on the shoulders of Wang and partner Scott Rechler.


Interestingly, these aren't my biggest issues with Mr. D'Amato's self-serving piece.  I'm far more concerned with the fact that the former Senator did not disclose information that could help readers better understand his position.  First of all, Mr. D'Amato did not disclose his previous relationship and subsequent falling-out with Charles Wang, something that could absolutely influence his position on the Lighthouse. 


There are other interesting connections.  Mr. D'Amato is Chairman of a pro-poker special interest group called the Poker Players Alliance, which seeks to "protect the rights of poker players."  The former Senator is also reported to have paid Ed Mangano a visit in the County Executive's office around the time of the casino announcement, and representatives from D'Amato's lobbying firm, Park Strategies, have been actively involving themselves in this issue.  Given this information, I think it's fair to ask whether Mr. D'Amato's advocacy for a casino stems from something in addition to the reasons he laid out in his piece.


In the same vein, sources continue to whisper behind the scenes of a deep connection between Mr. D'Amato and the Shinnecock Nation.  We have not been able to confirm or deny these rumors, but they persist, and I will continue to search the back channels for information.  It's important to determine whether the former Senator is merely a concerned citizen, or whether he would stand to gain more deeply from the approval of a casino.


Bottom Line


We have truly entered the silly season now, with odd pieces of information percolating from all sides.  Charles Wang and the Lighthouse continue to be silent, ceding the floor to a suddenly-silent Town of Hempstead and a Nassau County that seems to be living in a state of suspended reality.


Once again, Long Islanders in general, and Islanders fans in particular, are becoming pawns in a tit-for-tat between political and business forces with their own interest.  Mr. D'Amato's self-serving op-ed represents his first true emergence from the shadows and adds him to the silliness that is emanating from Ed Mangano of late and the Town of Hempstead since, well....forever.


Long Island will lose if we leave these individuals in charge of our future.  We are and should be the final voice for these matters, and we must take a stand to re-assert our belief in the Lighthouse Project, our rejection of this casino fantasy, and the ultimate potential of Long Island's future.

Please 

share your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email. Twitter. Facebook.

Lighthouse Takes Down Web Site, Replaces With Placeholder

For the last few weeks, we have heard very little about the Lighthouse process that was not rumor and innuendo.  Anxious bloggers and supporters (myself included) still hoped against hope that we would hear something from the Lighthouse to break their silence, especially in the face of rumors from well-connected sources that the Lighthouse Principals could be dissolving their partnership, thus  effectively ending the project.

In fact, the most vocal person in the past several months has been NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, who has never missed an opportunity to speak to the media and accuse the Town of Hempstead of "stalling" the project and "dragging it out" for years.  As the Town took control of the process and sent even more misleading and anti-project letters to area citizens (more on that later), we still have not heard anything from the Lighthouse.

Yesterday, in a way, the Lighthouse Project spoke, though it is likely not the way any of us would have hoped they would (hat tip to Islanderbill for first alerting me to this, by the way).  Now, visitors to the Lighthouse Project web site are not greeted with the grand, $3.7 billion vision for suburban renewal; rather, they see this:

(Click Here to see full-size)

Many, including myself, were taken aback by this, because it is the clearest broadside against the Town of Hempstead in months.  Since the Lighthouse Project refuses to speak on the record, even though some sources are still insisting behind the scenes that it's not dead, we are forced to come up with our own suggestions and questions.  As I've seen before, there is an optimistic view to this, a pessimistic view, and questions that need to be answered:

Optimistic View

Until there is official word from someone directly involved in the process, we can't assume the Lighthouse Project is dead.  In addition, the Town of Hempstead and the Lighthouse are still operating under the Designated Developer Agreement between Nassau County and the Lighthouse that was approved during the administration of the current County Executive, Tom Suozzi (current County Executive Ed Mangano voted in favor of the measure as a County Legislator). Some people believe that this is simply a gesture by Charles Wang and the Lighthouse that they are willing to work with the Town of Hempstead in an attempt to make a deal.

If the original plan is no longer available online, then it has become clear that Mr. Wang and his group recognize that they will not be able to build the project as originally proposed.  They are now signaling a willingness to work, as long as it achieves the goal of a good project that will be profitable, benefit the community, and allow the New York Islanders to remain in their rightful home.

This point of view reflects what I have previously called the "dirty little secret" in the Lighthouse process: it is easiest for both sides to come to a deal, since the alternatives are difficult for both sides:

Lighthouse Project: The options for moving the Islanders within the area, or of another project with similar commercial benefit, are slim at this point.  The Brooklyn arena continues to be built, with the last hold-out having finally sold his property last week, but it would still require a retrofit, and some, especially those against the Atlantic Yards proposal to begin with, have called Brooklyn a "fantasy" of desperate hockey fans and political hacks like the Brooklyn Borough President.  In addition, as mentioned before, Queens would require a similar process, which the Lighthouse acknowledges has already gone on for 7 years here.  The city would be on board, but the local community would not be in any way close to what we see with the Lighthouse.  I don't know whether the Lighthouse Project would want to either start over or become a tenant somewhere else, regardless of how badly many hockey fans hope it happens (count me in that group, in the event the Lighthouse can't happen).

Town of Hempstead: The Town has botched the Lighthouse process since Day 1, refusing to meet with the developers and relying on tricks like that phony stimulus drive which merely assume the stupidity of Town of Hempstead voters.  Even though Kate Murray and the Town Board were overwhelmingly returned to office, you wonder if the Town could handle the debacle of losing a project the vast majority of citizens want (remember, in the latest News 12/Hofstra poll, supporters outnumber opponents 2:1, and if you scaled the project down that number nears 3:1).  The Town loves to harp on financing, but any other developer would encounter the same financing issues as the Lighthouse Project.

In the same vein, the Town seems prepared to gut the Lighthouse Project beyond all recognition, if you trust the rhetoric.  However, as another blogger has pointed out, what message would that send?  If the Town starts using a machete on the project, the headlines write themselves:

TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD IS AGAINST A RENOVATED NASSAU COLISEUM

TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD IS AGAINST AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD IS AGAINST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD ADVOCATES MORE OF THE SAME

It's much harder to spin that, and we are not as gullible as the Town would like to believe.

Pessimistic View

Many others believe this is a charade that is delaying the inevitable.  To these people, the Town is going to gut the Lighthouse Project beyond all recognition in an attempt to win the post-game spin.  You could just hear the Supervisor parroting the half-truth that "The Town offered Charles Wang a reasonable proposal, and he decided to walk away."

The Lighthouse, in the same vein, could be making vague signals about cooperation, but they still stopped paying environmental consultants F.P. Clark over half a year ago.  Some, including astute reader Derek, believe this is because the Lighthouse wants to place the onus on the Town of Hempstead to tell them what can and can't be built, but still others believe that it's yet another case of actions speaking louder than words.

I do not know which side is right, but you could definitely see how many can interpret the statement on the Lighthouse web site as an opening salvo in the spin wars that will almost certainly ensue in the event the project ceases to be.  

Questions

As we move forward now, we need to ask certain questions of both sides to increase our understanding:

• Are the 2 sides meeting and negotiating?
• Are the 2 sides both demonstrating a desire to get a project done?
• What kind of reduction will either side accept?
• How hardened are those positions
• When will someone say something in public?

We may not know the sound of 1 hand clapping, but with the Lighthouse gone silent and the Town spinning and exaggerating with seeming impunity, we do know the sound of 1 side debating.  It's enough.

Bottom Line

I've said (in more of a hopeful tone than anything else) that we will likely have closure on the Lighthouse Project issue in a matter of months.  We are all hoping for a solid resolution to this that will improve our community and provide a stable home for the New York Islanders, but, more than that, we want to know the truth.  We need to know if the sides are negotiating in good faith, or whether this is just the start of what promises to be a bitter and ugly blame game.

No more slogans.  No more finger-pointing.  We want answers.

Please share your thoughts in 

comments. Petition. Email. Twitter. Facebook.

Lighthouse Project and Angelina Jolie: An Unbiased Comparison

I realize that it's been a while since I've posted here.  I've been busy, but more than that it's been a struggle to find the motivation to find new ways to write about a process that's gone very far south.  I will do my best to keep on top of things, even if it means more frequent but shorter posts.

I thought this fun idea - with a gratuitous picture of Angelina Jolie thrown in for good measure - was a good place to return.  Enjoy:

An Unbiased Comparison: Angelina Jolie vs. the Lighthouse Project


Conception


Angelina Jolie: Born June 4, 1975, in Los Angeles, California.

Lighthouse Project: Conceived in 2002-2003

Genealogy


Angelina Jolie: Daughter of actors Jon Voight (who may or may not have previously owned George Costanza's LeBaron) and Marcheline Bertrand.

Lighthouse Project: Conceived by main visionaries Charles Wang and Scott Rechler

Debut


Angelina Jolie: Made professional acting debut in 1993's Cyborg 2 as "Cash" Reese

Lighthouse Project: Unveiled September 2004 as a 77-acre, $1.6 billion project

Perhaps Best Known For...


Angelina Jolie: Her relationship with Brad Pitt

Lighthouse Project: Being the most widely-supported large development in Long Island history, with supporters outnumbering opponents 2-1.

Re-Invention


Angelina Jolie: Became known for her international humanitarian work and the children she has adopted out of terrible circumstances, both by herself and with Brad Pitt.

Lighthouse Project: Re-born as 150-acre, $3.8 billion project after Charles Wang brought Scott Rechler and Rexcorp aboard.

Number of Times Mentioned by Name in Ed Mangano's State of the County Address

Angelina Jolie: 1

Lighthouse Project: 0

Bottom Line


The Ed Mangano of recent weeks has been a far cry from the staunchly pro-Lighthouse candidate who sat down with me back in October.  He didn't mention the Lighthouse by name, merely devoting a sentence in his State of the County to congratulating Kate Murray for moving the process forward.  In the same vein, as reader mrlbem pointed out, Mangano spoke at a breakfast March 12 at Crest Hollow Country Club and sounded downright ambivalent about the Lighthouse Project.  He has been deferring to the Town of Hempstead with greater regularity on the project, and he seemed to believe it would be fine to either move forward with the Lighthouse Development Group or spend months/years finding someone else.

At the same time, sources have whispered about Charles Wang increasingly stepping away from the project in recent months.  The radio silence has gone on, and it took a mention of Angelina Jolie - where there was none for the Lighthouse Project - to make me truly realize that we need answers.  Now.

Please share 

your thoughts in 

comments. Petition. Email. Twitter. Facebook.

St. Vincent's - A Lesson

(Hat tip to my good friend Kathy for this one - I hadn't known the full details until she motivated me to read up)  

I've wondered for a long time about the nature of the relationship between the Lighthouse Project, Nassau County, and the Town of Hempstead.  The Lighthouse has hardened its position of late, but before that the County was content to sit on the sidelines, and people within the Town of Hempstead have openly admitted that they expected the proposal to simply go away.  In the meantime, a small group of opponents who refuse to accept that 25% is not a majority have been trying to curry favor in an attempt to neuter the project beyond any level of usefulness to the community.  I marveled at how the sides did not seem to view each other as partners, with the Lighthouse and former Nassau executive Tom Suozzi repeatedly accusing the Town of Hempstead of dragging its feet and the Town of Hempstead calling Charles Wang a bully.  

I've also wondered what would truly happen if the project were to die....and all of this leads me to the saga of St. Vincent's Hospital in Manhattan.

St. Vincent's, as many know, is a hospital located at the tip of Greenwich Village, and it gained notoriety for treating many people affected by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  The hospital has recently fallen on hard times, with a reported $700 million in debt that, as a private institution, it could not easily recoup.  St. Vincent's resorted to a controversial, but creative, plan: build a new campus across the street (current site of the O'Toole Building...which is either a masterpiece or the ugliest building in Manhattan, depending on whom you ask) at a cost of $1.6 billion, partly financed by selling their current hospital building for $300 million so it could be converted to condos....Sound at all familiar?

The plan met with fierce opposition from the community for everything from the proposed height of the new hospital to the demolition of the O'Toole Building, which has landmark status.  Despite approval to revoke landmark status and clear the way for construction, the sides continued to bicker, and St. Vincent's sank deeper into debt.  The hospital recently had to receive a $6 million emergency loan from New York State in order to remain in business, and with hopes of a development dwindling it is highly likely that the hospital will either close or be taken over and re-opened in a scaled-down capacity.

Predictably, many residents are now upset about the very real prospect of losing their hospital, one of the very few in Manhattan below 14th Street, and being left with either an empty or under-utilized shell of a building.  It also means that amateur architects may be able to debate for a few more years (or decades) whether or not the O'Toole Building is ugly (hat tip to Curbed.com on that one).

(Blogger's Note: I'm not saying I'm in favor of the St. Vincent's development, or that I'm against it - I believe it's an interesting case study whose lessons we can apply to the Lighthouse.  No more, no less)

How Does This Relate to the Lighthouse?

You're probably wondering why I am talking about some hospital on a blog about the Lighthouse Project, but I believe it has everything to do with what we're facing now.

The Town of Hempstead has taken full control of the zoning process, leaving many (including our guest blogger, Marc Nicols) concerned that they will scale the project down to such a degree that it's not worth doing for the developer and does not provide the benefit to the community.  It's a very real concern, because we still have little insight into the Town of Hempstead's vision for the site.

I just ask you, quickly, to imagine what happens if the Lighthouse group leaves...

The Islanders are almost certainly gone, depriving Nassau Coliseum of its main tenant and throwing into doubt whether it makes financial sense to renovate the arena at all.

It would likely take years to find a new developer, who would build something that was neither big nor bold.

In that time, the blight would get worse, traffic would get worse, and more people seeking new opportunity will go somewhere other than Long Island.  Neighboring communities like Uniondale, Garden City, and Hempstead will feel the lack of opportunity.

Then, just like those who so bitterly opposed anything that could save St. Vincent's, the people who so roundly oppose the Lighthouse Project will rise up as one and ask:

Why can't we do something?

I don't want to wait that long, when it's too late to effect the greatest possible change.  I call on the Town of Hempstead and the Lighthouse Project to collaborate in the spirit of building something all Long Islanders can be proud of, and something that will put us away from the path of becoming New York's "Sixth Borough."

Let's not end up like the sorry tale of St. Vincent's - let's do something now.

Please share 

your thoughts in 

comments. Petition. Email. Twitter. Facebook.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Death of a Megaproject: The Long Island Press reports that... (curbed.com)
• Critical Care: The Decline of St. Vincent's (nytimes.com)
• O'Toole Suit Lives With Help From Friends (Of the Court) (curbed.com)
• Offer to Take Over Ailing Hospital Stirs Outcry (nytimes.com)

Guest Post: The REAL "Sixth Borough"

Marc Nicols, a loyal reader from Deer Park who has been here almost since Day 1, sent me this guest post, and while I cobble some things together for the site, I thought it was too good to keep from everyone.  

Marc writes as a Long Island resident and a father who is concerned his two young children will not have a future on Long Island once they are old enough to move away.  He speaks to many who believe Long Island requires a new way forward and that the Lighthouse Project is the perfect starting point.  

(Interesting sidenote: I witnessed the encounter with an older gentleman who opposed the Lighthouse that he describes in his piece)

Remember, you can email me if you have a guest post you'd like to share.  Also remember that the views in Marc's piece are his own, and by posting it I am saying I believe Marc is making a good, eloquent statement.

Without further ado, here's Marc:

The Town of Hempstead and the Lighthouse Project

by Marc Nicols

There's an old Yiddish saying "A cat who gets bitten by a snake is afraid of rope." This saying always come to mind when I hear opponents of Long Island developments claiming how any change to an area will turn us into a city, or "the sixth borough" of New York City. They seemed to be scared of something based on past experience without taking a good look at exactly what it is.

While the Town of Hempstead has finally take a pro-active step with the Coliseum property re-development by performing it's own zoning study, proponents must be fearful of seeing elected officials lead and determine the scope of this project. While developers Rechler and Wang have been described as "visionaries", I doubt Supervisor Kate Murray or anyone on the Town board has been described that way. Watching these bureaucrats for a few hours at the zoning meeting on September 22nd confirmed that. They reminded me of another saying, provided to me by my Micro-Economic Theory professor 16 years ago: "Anything the government does is inefficient." Let's hope Hempstead doesn't scale the project down so far that it defeats the purpose of turning the site into a destination spot and economic incubator for the area.

For those who fear that a large development will turn Nassau County into the 'sixth borough' of New York City: One must realize that the failure of Long Island to develop and sustain its own economic engines and provide apartment style housing will result in the region being wholly dependent upon New York City for jobs and housing for young adults who were educated on Long Island. That will turn us into a borough faster and deeper than developing 77 acres of asphalt in the middle of a downtown commercial area.

At the zoning meeting, several of us were involved in an animated discussion with an older gentleman, a Garden City resident, who I classify as a prototypical Lighthouse opponent and NIMBY. He was against everything and anything being built on the site for fear that it might disturb his quiet home. He was against any project that might result one more car per day to traverse his tranquil village. When I asked him what he did want, his answer was terse and forceful: "I want to be left alone."

Unfortunately for Long Island, if projects such as the Lighthouse and the Heartland in Brentwood do not move forward, Long Island will be left alone. Our young adults, many of whom were educated on Long Island with our tax dollars will continue to flee to New York City, North Carolina or Arizona. These young adults who someday might purchase a home in Garden City, will buy a one somewhere else. Jobs and industries will continue to leave the area, weakening our tax base. In the past 20 years, nothing seems to get done on Long Island. We've lost Grumman, Roosevelt Raceway, the Jets, and countless companies. With the possibility of losing the Islanders and the Belmont Stakes in the next few years, what will become of Long Island's identity?

I've met many Lighthouse supporters in the past year: Many Islanders fans who just want the team to stay; young adults, looking and hoping for a way to remain on Long Island; and many in my situation - Yes, I'm bleed Islander Blue and Orange, but I'm approaching middle age, I own a home in Suffolk County, and I have a stable job (knock on wood) in downtown Manhattan. Odds are great that I'll never personally benefit from the jobs or housing in a mixed-use development such as the proposed Lighthouse project. 

But, most importantly, I'm also a parent of two young children. As my children become adults in the next two decades, I don't want to be "left alone." I don't want to have to take a plane ride to see them. If they don't want to have the long commute into New York City for a job, I want local opportunities to be available to them. I want to be able to see my future grandchildren as often as possible. Maybe this is as selfish as the Garden City NIMBY. Yet I feel there is a profound difference. I'm for progress that will benefit the current and future generation of our area. In my field, technology, one quickly learns that you can't stop progress, you can only ignore it. And if you ignore it, you will be left behind. Maybe that's fine for a group of senior citizens in an affluent neighborhood, but it's not for an entire region.

At the August public comments meeting, I had a brief discussion with an older lady who was vehemently against the project. She asked me where I lived (Deer Park) and told me that if it was my backyard I'd be against it also. This is another easy thing to say, but it is in fact incorrect. In October 2007 the new Tanger Outlets opened up less than two miles from my home. I was in favor of the project before, and now. The added traffic that everyone was so concerned about is negligible, except during the holidays. Yet, I am okay with it since I benefit from the tax base and the discounts I receive get while shopping for clothing for my toddler and infant. Also, the proposed Heartland project, whose proposal is bigger in scope than the Lighthouse, is less than 5 miles from my home. I am also greatly in favor of the project for the housing and jobs it will bring to the area.

Long Island was once a brave new place, yet in the past decade we seem afraid to take any risks that might change our landscape. Maybe the Lighthouse and the Heartland projects are a bit too grand, maybe they need some scaling down. Yet, before we make deep cuts in the proposals, let's remember one more saying: "One who is afraid to go out on a limb will never get the fruit."

Please share 

your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email. Twitter. Facebook.

Guest Blog: Charles Wang's Responsibility

When I'm approached by people with something valuable to say, I do my best to accommodate them on this blog.  Today, we have a guest post from Joe Conte, a great friend of this blog (and someone who bears a striking resemblance to Frans Nielsen, for all you Isles fans).  You know Joe from the "Blow it out Your Dufflebag" incident with former State GOP Chairman Joe Mondello, and you know him most recently as the man who volunteered to captain Kristen McElroy's sinking ship in the last month of the campaign.  

Now that the Town of Hempstead has made its move and authorized its own re-zoning plan for the Nassau Coliseum property, Joe has turned his eyes to only the Islanders.  

Please understand, also, that while I completely agree with Joe's sentiments about Charles Wang, I do not necessarily share his pessimism about the recent news.  As I've said, there is an optimistic view of the news, and there is a pessimistic view.

With that, here's Joe:

Charles Wang Has One Responsibility Now: Keep the Islanders in New York

by Joe Conte

As a fervent supporter of the Lighthouse Project-and no its not because I’m an Islander fan, its because I’m 25 and will follow most of my other college educated off the Island due to a myriad issues the Lighthouse would have moved towards solving (and which Nick so eloquently lays out), I now turn my attention to my other Long Island cause célèbre, and that IS the Islanders.

Throughout Mr. Wang’s impassioned selling of the Lighthouse Project, one theme he constantly stressed was that fact that he is a Long Islander, it is his home, and his passion to build stemmed from that burning desire to give something back to the place that gave him so much.

Now that the town has seemingly wrestled the fate of the project away from the Lighthouse Group, there is another way Mr. Wang can give back to the people of Long Island-and that is committing to keep the Islanders in New York.  If he and the town can agree on a development of Nassau’s hub-great, but if not, it is on Mr. Wang to find a way to get the team to Brooklyn or Queens.

Mr. Wang owes it to Islander fans to make this commitment, and here’s why: Islanders fans, some of the most tortured in all of sports, have stuck by this team through thick and mostly thin.  And when Mr. Wang asked for us to support his Lighthouse Project, we responded with a tremendous amount of time and energy.

As it appears the team has finally turned the corner, the elephant in the room is will the Islanders be around for Long Islanders to enjoy their future success.  Well, it’s an uncertainty that shouldn’t be.  

Mr. Wang must commit to a New York home for the Islanders.  When he needed us, we were there for him, and it’s not unreasonable to expect the same. 

(Blogger's Note: You can email me if you'd like to submit your own guest blog, and I will run it if I believe it adds to the experience)

Please share your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email. Twitter. Facebook.

Movement

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

(Media Alert: I was on the excellent Preds on the Glass radio show this past Monday, sharing the new Lighthouse news and handicapping yesterdays Islanders/Predators matchup.  The excellent Michelle Kenneth and Anthony Curatolo of Crash the Crease and The Hockey Guys podcast also appeared.  Check it out)

Yesterday at Town Hall, before a "roll back the raises" protest began, the Town of Hempstead voted unanimously to authorize its environmental consultant, Frederick P. Clark Associates, to prepare an alternative zoning plan for the Nassau Coliseum property.

This represents a major reversal for the Town of Hempstead, which has since 2003 refused to meet with the Lighthouse Development Group or Nassau County to discuss their vision for the 77-acre county-owned property, even though they hold final zoning authority over whatever is built there.

The Town of Hempstead credited itself for taking this "unusual step" in an effort to "jump-start the zoning process," which has stalled in previous months as the Lighthouse Project has gone dark and apparently ceased paying its bills to F.P. Clark, as it is required by law to do.

The Town of Hempstead, which appears to be financing this alternative zoning plan itself, outlined three main goals for the plan, which they expect will be finished in the summer of this year:

1. It has to be a mixed-use development.
2. A renovation plan for Nassau Coliseum, to keep the New York Islanders in the Town of Hempstead, must be included.
3. The plan must serve as a model for "responsible" development.

The Town of Hempstead repeatedly indicated a willingness to work with Charles Wang, who was not present, because of the still-in-effect Designated Developer Agreement (DDA) between Nassau County and the Lighthouse Development Group.

Very few speakers attended, though our old friends from the Garden City Eastern Property Owners' Association made sure to tell the Town every problem they had with the project, and to characterize the behavior of Lighthouse supporters and the hearings in general as "awful" (I know, nice touch).  Many others continued to use the same tired and discredited arguments against the project, such as citing current vacancy rates for office space and retail (Long Island has an abundance of Class B office space but is in dire need of Class A - the Class A space in the Lighthouse would actually grow the market, as would the retail, rather than cannibalize what's currently there).  Still others cited the terrible conditions of the economy, because apparently the current conditions will hold in perpetuity and we should not do anything, anywhere, ever.

You can look at this development, the first significant movement in the Lighthouse approval process in months, with either an optimistic or pessimistic view:

Optimistic View

The Town of Hempstead is finally coming forward with its own counter-proposal, and it is pledging to work with the Lighthouse every step of the way in an attempt to craft a compromise.  Given the changes and issues we have seen, and the issues facing all other options for Charles Wang, the political will shown from the County and Town should provide the push to get this done.

Pessimistic View

The Town of Hempstead has repeatedly stressed the need for "responsible" development at the Coliseum site.  That could be interpreted as either seeking prudent compromise or seeking to gut the very boldness that made the Lighthouse Project such a seminal moment in Long Island history.  The pessimistic view is that the Town will gut the project to such a degree that the Lighthouse has no choice but to abandon its pursuit and clear the way for another developer.

Bottom Line

Yesterday was a step toward final resolution of the Lighthouse Project.  Hopefully the negotiations will proceed in a positive way, but I am for now reserving judgment.

Coming Soon

We will be discussing transportation, financing, political issues, and many many more things.  I have no shortage of material, just time.

Please share your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email. Twitter. Facebook.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bettman Voices Support for Islanders' Arena Project (nytimes.com)
• Wang on thin ice in Long Island (nationalpost.com)
• Islanders Foe or Prudent Politician? Hempstead's Murray Stands Her Ground (nytimes.com)