Kate Murray Slits Long Island's Throat

(Blogger's Note: I'd like to publish a quick correction, because I feel silly.  The quote I paraphrased and attributed to Mark Twain in a comment yesterday is actually from muckraker Upton Sinclair, famous for his expose "The Jungle" on the Chicago meat-packing industry.  The full quote: "It is difficult to make a man understand something when his job depends on his not understanding it."  How sadly fitting for this situation...) 

The Lighthouse Project was introduced at a seminal moment in Long Island's history, a point when we found ourselves at a crossroads.  We gave birth to the modern suburban concept after a long-forgotten Hempstead Town Board approved what was, at the time, a radical idea: Levittown, a collection of pre-fabricated homes, parks, and shops that provided an individual piece of the American dream to thousands of returning World War II GI's and other people wearied by the cities, which, after decades of ascension, were beginning a slow, painful decline.  Levittown led to a movement that carried Long Island and the suburbs to previously unheard-of heights.

In recent decades, the classic suburban way of life began to show cracks, and the world began to change again.  Young people began fleeing high taxes and a higher overall cost of living, the cities began to rise, and main employers such as Grumman began re-locating or shuttering entirely.  It was clear that, at this defining moment, we needed to decide how Long Island was going to be suburbia in the 21st Century.  Advocates for a new way forward suddenly discovered their rallying point: the Lighthouse Project, borne out of New York Islanders owner Charles Wang's vision once then-Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi told him there was no public money to replace aging Nassau Coliseum and the owner would need to come up with something creative to raise the money to replace or renovate the arena.  Residents rallied to the project in record numbers, outnumbering opponents 2:1 in every poll and up to 9:1 at all the public hearings.  While we knew negotiations would be necessary, residents were genuinely attracted to this vision, this new Island dream we could call our own.

Yesterday, Kate Murray threw on the brakes and spit in all of our faces.

Let's get one thing out of the way: The Lighthouse Project did not die yesterday.  Reports of the Lighthouse Project's recent death have been greatly exaggerated (see, THAT was Mark Twain), because in all honesty the vision as first proposed has been dead since last October.  It was clear that the Town of Hempstead, which controls zoning over the Nassau County-owned land and for the Lighthouse Project, which was approved by a 16-2 vote of the Nassau legislature in 2006, had serious reservations about the size and scope, as evidenced by repeated comments about "preserving the suburban way of life".  

Before going dark, even Charles Wang acknowledged the likelihood of a scale-down, repeatedly begging the Town of Hempstead to "just tell me what I can build."

We all expected the Town to reduce the project.

None of us expected this.

Welcome to The Shire

Newsday had a rather innocuous headline introducing the issue: "More Modest Future For Coliseum Site."  I prefer my headline, because it's the truth.  Kate Murray has slit our throats.

The Town of Hempstead's alternative plan, which cuts the project by over 60% and other pieces, like residential, up to 75%, has transformed our Island dream into a hobbitt village.  Goodbye to The Lighthouse, hello to The Shire.

Make no mistake about it: What Kate Murray unveiled yesterday is a brainless, gutless, visionless insult to anybody who dared to break the cycle of defeatism and dream that we on Long Island could become more than we are.

I've wondered at times whether Kate Murray thinks we're stupid, and I think this latest option proves it.  The project claims to be mixed-use, yet it doesn't follow even the most basic economic principles.  First of all, the Town is completely misrepresenting the square footage, including the 2 million square feet of parking in their claim of 5 million square feet of new construction.

The traffic plan also intrigued me, because opponents reflexively yell "TRAFFIC!" in an attempt to kill any infant project while it's still in the cradle, and these ideas would be closely scrutinized.  Imagine my shock when I watched the video on Newsday.com and saw the exact same offramp renovation that was roundly panned for over half an hour at the re-zoning hearing last September!  Councilman Darcy was especially interested in planned multi-way traffic lights, claiming they were not workable because "someone could run the lights" (I kid you not).  It's amazing that they could just slide this in and have nobody question it...

Kate Murray, in her introductory press conference, made a statement so shocking and so galling that I have to question her fitness to hold elected office.  Murray admitted that she never considered whether the plan would be economically viable for any developer to actually do it, and developers questioned by Newsday have already panned the zone and claimed they would not bid on the project again should another RFP be released with the current terms.  I understand that Kate Murray has to think about what she believes is the best project for the Town, but to avoid basic fact is both stupid and dangerously naive.  If the project is not economically viable to build, no developer will bid, and the project will never exist.  If the project doesn't exist, it will by definition do absolutely nothing to benefit the community.  For Kate Murray to stand there and say she wasted $200,000 of my and your tax dollars on a plan when she has absolutely no clue whether or not its viable is naive at best and negligent at worst.  As I've said, behavior like this has to make me seriously question her fitness for office.

I can't believe this needs to be said again.  People are in business to make money.  Since it's been proven an arena cannot be profitable if built as a stand-alone, and the government will not provide any funds (usual amount is about 65%, according to Andrew Zimbalist), developing the land to raise money for a new arena is the only solution.  In addition, as mentioned, the Lighthouse was designed as an integrated whole, so changing pieces in non-uniform ways could throw the whole thing off kilter.  As I've said, the shopping was meant to support the 2300 residential units planned.  That's not a mall; that's supporting people who live there.  Gutting the residential units down to only 500 without corresponding cuts to the retail will do MORE to exacerbate the problem of vacancies in commercial space.  The Lighthouse intended to grow the market, and this action will do nothing but shrink it.

Instant reaction from Long Island residents has been highly negative, with only people who opposed the original development (remember, they were outnumbered 2:1 by supporters) hailing this move.  Lighthouse supporters are now beginning to fracture, breaking down into recriminations from activists and sects of Islanders fans who are fed up and simply want a hockey solution.  What a mess.

Kate Murray is not the marauder going after wholly innocent Charles Wang, don't get me wrong.  Mr. Wang needed to more clearly explain the economic reasoning behind the project and try to do more than simply ask Islanders fans to join the community activists in support.  The fracturing of supporters shows the base of support could have been very fragile, and that some people, after all these years, still don't understand why this came to be.  That's a terrible tragedy and a missed opportunity.

Thanks, Kate Murray!

You read the headline right.  In the vein of her self-serving commercials, I have to reach out and thank Kate Murray, because she has taught me so much.

Thank you Kate Murray, for making it clear that new ideas and new investment are not welcome in the Town of Hempstead, and that anyone who wants to quit the ostrich impression and take their head out of the sand needs to shut up and fall in line.

Thank you Kate Murray, for making it clear that young professionals have no place on Long Island.

Thank you Kate Murray, for continuing to tell half-truths and misrepresent your heroic attempts to "jump-start" a project you've been hiding from since 2003.

Thank you Kate Murray, for doing your best to ensure Long Island continues to be on the wrong side of history, and for continuing to believe that denying a problem exists means there is no problem.

Thank you Kate Murray, for proving that all those things people said about you having no vision were accurate.

Thank you Kate Murray, for treating a group that wanted to invest billions of dollars in the Town of Hempstead as an inconvenience. (Blogger's Note: I'm not saying Charles Wang should get whatever he wants, but I'm definitely saying that the Town should've been more amenable to proposals that could kick-start the local economy).

Most of all, thank you Kate Murray, for proposing an alternative so clearly ridiculous that Long Island may be faced with a much worse alternative.

Moving Forward

Developers and economists, save Martin Cantor of Dowling College, who famously stated last year that buildings should not be built in 2020 due to the bad economy of 2009, have roundly panned Hempstead's new proposal, even though Kate Murray continues to defend it and insist there will be no negotiation.  

This ridiculous "plan" has also fractured the Republican party, pitting County Executive Ed Mangano against Murray and the Town of Hempstead.  Mangano released a joint statement with the Lighthouse Development Group panning the project as not viable, either for the owner of the site (Nassau County) or the group still bound by a Designated Developer Agreement (The Lighthouse).  Kate Murray has made it clear that she believes there should be no negotiation from here, so the County Executive is ostensibly going in a different direction...

As sources stated to Islanders Point Blank (and as I heard in Ed Mangano's office last week), Nassau County is attempting to pivot toward a casino at the Coliseum site in partnership with Charles Wang and the recently-recognized Shinnecock Nation.  As was the case with the new Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh, the Shinnecock Nation would be expected to provide the money to replace Nassau Coliseum in exchange for receiving development rights to a casino and entertainment complex on the property.  Some believe this is an attractive option because the land would be granted to the Shinnecock Nation as a federal "land-in trust."  This would be approved by the state and not subject to the zoning regulations of the Town of Hempstead, nor would it be susceptible to local lawsuits.

However, let's not get ready for the roulette tables just yet...The project has been roundly panned by the public, and the Shinnecocks have repeatedly stated they will not go where they are not wanted.  Residents who opposed the Lighthouse or expressed serious reservations due to resource usage, traffic, and other issues can't be expected to turn around and support a casino, which has all of these problems and then some.

Let's also remember that neither Mangano nor the Shinnecocks actually have a casino plan.  The Shinnecocks received federal recognition last month after over 30 years of effort, and Ed Mangano's office seems to only have some rough revenue projections based on loose requirements.  It's not like this plan could go through tomorrow, or possibly even within the year.

In addition, you have to consider both the additional revenue a casino would bring in and the additional costs to the community through crime, public safety, etc (expect much much more on this later in the week).  Let's also not forget the other potential casinos planned for the area.  The NY State Assembly is controlled by Democrat Sheldon Silver of Manhattan, and two potential "racinos" are proposed at the Aqueduct site and the Belmont site.  Would Silver and the assembly approve a project at the Coliseum that prevented either of those from happening?  Would Sheldon Silver voluntarily pick the pocket of the New York City Democratic apparatus that is his base of power?  I highly doubt it.

We also have to consider that this could be a ploy.  Kate Murray may have said that the proposed disgrace new zone is not negotiable, but she could quickly change her tune when she sees what could alternatively be done with the site.  At this point, it's a long shot, but the casino is by far the greater of two evils, and Kate may try to come back to the table as a result.

We've reached a point where we all want a resolution, but this news has seemingly put us farther away from that.  Expect this to get a lot uglier before it gets better.

One thing's for sure: the chances that we will get anything close to a visionary project are growing slimmer by the day.  In the end, we may be left with nothing more than the cheap cash grab of a casino....or a vacant parking lot and the distant memory of the New York Islanders and what could've been.

Thanks, Kate Murray.

PLEASE 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS 

IN

 COMMENTS. PETITION. EMAIL. TWITTER. FACEBOOK.

Kate Murray's Lighthouse Scale-Down Press Release

This was too good to keep from all of you...

I'll let the fur fly tonight, but in the meantime, check out Kate Murray's press release announcing the Lighthouse scale down.  This is the unedited release.  Have fun!

Murray and Goosby Produce Alternate Development Zone For Lighthouse Site



July 12, 2010






Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray and Councilwoman Dorothy Goosby, along with Council Members Anthony Santino, Angie Cullin, Gary Hudes and James Darcy, Town Clerk Mark Bonilla and Receiver of Taxes Don Clavin, released details of a new development zone for the 77 acres of property surrounding the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. The new zoning district crafted by the town will be presented as an alternative to the Lighthouse Project in an environmental report (Final Environmental Impact Statement [FEIS]). The alternate zone would be considered by the town board at a public hearing. The new zone facilitates a vibrant mixed-use development that is sustainable and would complement the suburban character of surrounding communities.






"We are taking proactive steps that can bring about meaningful development, along with all of the associated benefits, to the hub of Nassau County," stated Murray. "Creating a zone that encourages reasonable development is key to supporting our tax base, offering construction and long term jobs, stimulating the region's economy and facilitating a renovated Coliseum which would help keep the Islanders hockey team here where they belong."






"Developing an alternative zone which will allow development that fits on the property surrounding the Coliseum was a priority for the town," said Goosby. "This zone meets that objective and can be supported by local upgraded roadways as well as other infrastructure components."






The proposed alternative zone provides for 5.4 million square feet of construction (includes all buildings and parking structures) comprised of many of the same types of development that were sought by the Lighthouse Group. At the same time, the zone scales back the density contemplated under the Lighthouse plan. Among the many types of development that will be permitted in the newly created zone are convention facilities, hotels, retail, restaurants, offices, residential units, entertainment uses and a refurbished Coliseum.






Additionally, the town-crafted alternative zone embraces smart growth principles such as mixed-use structures, roadways and pedestrian areas that encourage walking and bicycling, as well as "green technologies" in building construction. Mixed-use development accommodated under the new zone could include retail and/or office structures with homes above those facilities, all within the same buildings. Roadways that incorporate bicycle lanes, street furniture along pedestrian walkways, as well as street side cutouts for parallel parking, will all combine to create a walkable community and a genuine destination for people who are looking for an exciting location to live, work and enjoy recreational activities. Other smart growth elements considered in the zone include "shared parking" that helps optimize the level of development and integrated parking facilities that combine the parking structures and retail/offices.






The new zone alternative provides for up to 500 new homes to be developed. Those housing units will be required to include affordable and next generation/workforce homes.






The density and building heights accommodated in the town's zoning alternative are substantial and sustainable. In fact, the density proposed would be the most intense zoning in the township. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR [the ratio of total square footage of construction as it relates to the square footage of land upon which it is built]) for the proposed zone is 1.6. By contrast, the FAR for the RXR Towers is 0.89 and the Omni Building totals 0.56. The Marriott Hotel has an FAR of 0.92. Moreover, the new zone's development total of 5.4 million square feet contrasts with an estimated 10-13.5 million square feet of development under the Lighthouse proposal.






The maximum building height contemplated under the town's zone is 100 feet or nine stories and applies to hotels. Mixed use, office and most other structures would be capped at four stories. Exclusively residential buildings would be restricted to three stories.






Town officials emphasized that the alternate zone is flexible in that it does not dictate which specific types of development prescribed in the zone must be sited on the individual parcels that make up the 77 acres around the Coliseum. The zone only requires that two of the permitted uses, other than the Coliseum, be included in the developer's proposal for each parcel.






Hempstead Town's zoning alternative also provides for traffic mitigation. The mitigation includes roadways within the Coliseum area which would redistribute traffic, addressing the burdens that would otherwise be created by a development of this significance. The plan also contemplates "smart" traffic signals and a reconfigured interchange at the intersection of Meadowbrook Parkway and Hempstead Turnpike.






"The Town of Hempstead has been working hard to facilitate reasonable development at the site surrounding the Nassau Coliseum," concluded Murray. "We committed to 'jump starting' a stalled development process, promised to provide for reasonable development that is progressive, and we have been clear that we would only permit a zone that can be sustained by the environment and local infrastructure. We've produced a zone that is true to those goals. What's more, making sure that the zone would be consistent with the suburban character of our area, support our tax base, stimulate the economy, facilitate the renovation of the Coliseum and help keep the Islanders hockey team here have also been key determinants in producing this alternative."

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.

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.

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.

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)

Forget the Last End-Game...THIS Is End-Game

In a stunning move that reverses years of policy, the Town of Hempstead has truly entered end-game in the Lighthouse Project negotiations.  At a press conference that began at 11 AM today, the Town called on Charles Wang to pay the over $150,000 in outstanding bills to environmental consultants Frederick P. Clark Associates, and they then took an even bolder move.  The Town announced it has retained F.P. Clark to devise a "zoning plan" for the Coliseum property, the most direct sign we have ever had that the Town will only accept the Lighthouse Project in a scaled-back form.

This represents the biggest news since Mr. Wang's "deadline" passed on October 3, something I'd been saying for weeks, if not months, earlier.  Since then, the Lighthouse has gone dark, allowing its opponents, people with an agenda, and bloggers with very little information (not a swipe, I'm including myself in that) to control and dictate the public discourse.

The whole time, Mr. Wang has repeated his mantra, which became hardened in the steamy summer months: Just tell me Yes or No.  Interestingly enough, the Town of Hempstead appears to have adhered to his previous mantra: Just tell me what I can build.


While Mr. Wang repeated his mantra, however, the behavior has been downright odd.  An organization that built its base of support through open engagement, which allowed the Lighthouse to be the most widely-supported large building project in perhaps Long Island's history, suddenly turned inward.  F.P. Clark was not paid, as the Lighthouse is obligated by law to do.  In fact, source within the Town claims the environmental review could be finished by now had the bill been paid.  Requests and pleas for any kind of indication largely fell on deaf ears.  Lighthouse representatives, including Mr. Wang himself, repeatedly denied that meetings happened with the Town since the October 3 deadline, even though multiple sources are reporting they have.

This sort of behavior is inexcusable, and it's not a stretch to ask why an organization supposedly committed to doing something on Long Island was suddenly acting like it wasn't.

The political chickens began coming home to roost, as well, an unfortunate consequence of the Lighthouse deciding to tie itself closely to a Democratic Party that no longer controls any piece of this process.  Representatives of Ed Mangano, the new Republican County Executive, claim their calls to Mr. Wang have gone unreturned, and the Town of Hempstead has allowed itself the ability to spread misinformation (such as the asinine "the Lighthouse is as dense as Manhattan's Upper West Side" argument).

The Town, as I mentioned, has decided to force Mr. Wang's hand, because they believe these amount to stall tactics.  They don't believe the Lighthouse has financing, with some sources claiming that people connected to Scott Rechler have admitted as much, and they want to back the developer into a corner.

Here's the biggest piece: a new zoning plan, puts the chance of a groundbreaking in 2010 in serious jeopardy, and it opens up the possibility that the project will be handed to another more connected developer if the Lighthouse chooses to walk away.


As per the press conference, Kate Murray re-iterated that she does not want the New York Islanders to move, and she stressed that the plan will include a renovated arena.

In fact, sources say the Town of Hempstead will vote on this "vision" tomorrow night at the Town Board meeting.  (I'm sure they'd love to see all of us...Hint, Hint.)

The Lighthouse has engaged in severely misguided behavior over the past few months, but that does not mean I'm ready to throw the Town of Hempstead a parade either.  I heard from multiple sources involved with the discussions at the time that Kate Murray has refused to participate in discussions along these lines for 7 years, citing the ridiculous reasoning that she would eventually have to vote on the project.  She believed that simple fact absolved her from any responsibility for shaping the project and any role in guiding the approval process. An open discussion could have resolved any issues before they started


Now, all of a sudden, it's happened.  What changed?  Is the Town of Hempstead suddenly not concerned about this policy, and, if not, why have they hidden behind it for years?


A source in the Town of Hempstead believes the passion of citizen supporters motivated the Town to suddenly take the Lighthouse Project seriously, since most considered it to be a sideshow.  This is not an achievement of representative government, nor should the Town be credited for suddenly taking its fingers out of its ears.

However, regardless of how we got here...we're here.

The Town is voting on this vision tomorrow night, and we now have a clear path to end-game.  There are 3 main variables:

Will the Town of Hempstead be willing to budge? As we've seen, the Town of Hempstead is prone to overreaching and has a reputation of being arrogant in its dealings with developers.  Will there be any wiggle room, or will this zoning plan be treated as a take it or leave it offer?

Will Charles Wang play ball?  The Town is doubting his motives, and the recent dark period has all but obliterated all the positive momentum. However, I have heard from sources the plan was built with compromise in mind, and we know from our back to basics post how economic benefit will be calculated.

How far apart are the 2 sides?  It has been clear for months that the Lighthouse Project will not be approved in its current form.  It will be interesting to see how much smaller the Town of Hempstead's proposal will be, because if the 2 sides are far apart and cannot bridge the gap the whole project could fall apart.

Are we nearing the end?

Ed Mangano has repeatedly said he wants the project to move forward, and now it's time for him and all the rest of us who want this to step up.  Now is the time for Ed Mangano to bring the sides together like he told me he can.  Now is the time for all of us to make one last push, urging both sides to come to a mutually-beneficial solution.

We've done so much...and we need to move forward one more time.  It appears this will be over soon.

After all, despite the rancor from both sides, one thing is clear: the easiest solution for all parties is for the Town and the Lighthouse to come to a deal.

UPDATE: The Supervisor also shared that she called Charles Wang an hour before the hearing and had a "pleasant" conversation.  She claims Mr. Wang said he is "looking forward" to the new plan.  Stay tuned tomorrow for more details.


MEDIA ALERT: Looks like I'll be sharing a reaction with News 12.  Stay tuned for more information.

Please share your 

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