Legality < Margin

Hey everyone - I worked a brutal week last week, so I didn't have the time I thought I would to write.  I'm back, to the best of my ability.

We had a recent mini-controversy about the "areener" referendum, as some suddenly questioned whether holding the referendum was legal.  I find this pretty amusing on first blush, for 2 reasons.  First of all, as my last Underpants Gnomes themed post says, there are no details of the referendum, and the text hasn't yet been written by the clerk of the legislature.  It makes no sense to say that something which doesn't even exist yet could be illegal.  I'll defer to Legis. Denenberg on this one: the referendum vote is to determine whether or not to create a tax line to be used for paying the debt service, and it's still valid even if the bonding then fails.  Nothing to see here, folks....though I do find it interesting that Desmond Ryan, head of the hilariously named Association for a Better Long Island, is again in the middle of this.  After playing nice-nice with Chris Botta, he's then turned around and blasted these plans up and down....and nobody mentions that he is affiliated with major developers who would want the rights to the land themselves!  As a consulting client I've worked for says, that's not a believable source.  Reserve judgment until the details come, and they should be due any time.

However, when you consider the referendum, there is something much more important that we need to consider: turnout is key.

We've mentioned before that the referendum is not the be-all and end-all of whether or not a new arena is built.  There are still 2 steps after: the county legislature has to approve the bond issue with a supermajority, and NIFA needs to provide final sign-off on the bonding.

I've already mentioned that the details are important, the numbers must work, and there are politics at play as to whether Democrats would give Ed Mangano his super-majority in light of the serious questions raised 2 weeks ago.

Some say the bonding is a slam dunk if the referendum passes.

Not so fast.

Turnout on non-election days is notorious for being pathetically low on Long Island.  How many people do you know that vote for the school budgets that are stashed during the week in May or June every year?  In the same vein, turnout for the primary elections is usually very low, and some believe the referendum was scheduled on August 1 for a similar reason.

If the referendum passes, but turnout is below 10,000, could that really be seen as the "will of the people?"

If the referendum passes with less than 60% of the vote in favor, can this be considered a slam dunk?  Will NIFA have to accept it?

Not at all.

The truth remains: if people truly want this to pass, they need to drum up turnout and make this pass overwhelmingly.  This is the only thing that can't be explained away or rationalized.  That is the only thing those with final authority will listen to.

(Blogger's Note: This is a new idea - smaller posts to keep the flow going in between larger pieces, which is reflective of my reduced levels of free time.  Please let me know what you think)

PLEASE 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS 

IN

 COMMENTS. EMAIL. TWITTER. FACEBOOK.

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.

The Mangano Countdown Has Begun

Happy New Year, Everyone!

Not much news to report on the Lighthouse front, but one big bit of news happened as we flipped the calendar to 2010:

On Friday, Ed Mangano, who told me he favors the Lighthouse Project, was sworn in as County Executive, bringing the Republican Party back to power after 8 years of Tom Suozzi and a Democratic County Legislature.

In addition, the clock began ticking.

I reported at the beginning of December that we will know whether the Lighthouse Project is a priority for the incoming Mangano administration very quickly.  So far, we have heard the positive - pro-Lighthouse Republican Rob Walker being named Mangano's Deputy County Executive - the negative - thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from developers who may be interested in the Nassau Coliseum property - and the interesting coincidences - Michael Martino, the Long Island Press reporter who published the erroneous October report that the Lighthouse Project was dead, being named Mangano's press secretary.

The clock is ticking, and I am running it through Martin Luther King Day (Monday, January 18).  If the Lighthouse Project is a high priority for the incoming Mangano administration, we will hear him talk about it within the first two weeks, and we will hopefully see some sort of high-profile photo-op meeting indicating that the light is still on.

For now, I congratulate Ed Mangano on his ascension to County Executive, and I wish him success in governing our County.  We will see his true commitment to the Lighthouse Project quickly.

(Image courtesy of the Long Island Press)

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

Special Comment: Lighthouse Must End Media Blackout

Now, a special comment on the Lighthouse Project and the decision that now risks losing them everything for which they claim to fight.

From the beginning, the Lighthouse Project promised something fresh and new for Long Island: a future containing badly-needed apartment housing, mixed-use communities, and a fresh perspective on the suburban concept we pioneered with Levittown many decades ago.  The developers, Charles Wang and Scott Rechler, sought to deliver Long Island from the backward thinking that has paralyzed our economic progress and seen us search for an identity since Grumman left, taking the last vestiges of Long Island's aerospace industry with it.  Outreach meetings were held, plans put out in the open, and dissenters both engaged and challenged.  This active engagement led to near-record levels of support for the project, and a passionate turnout among supporters that in many ways motivated the Town of Hempstead, which expected the idea to simply fade away, to take the thought of this new island dream seriously.

Community activists who had been clamoring for this type of development for years were suddenly joined by casual observers and, in some cases, Islanders fans, some of whom merely supported their team and wished they could spend more time talking about the intricacies of the team's power play.  Despite many events being largely jersey-free, fans delivered, coming out in force and ensuring that many public hearings had over 90% supporters in the audience.  Nobody can say these folks did not go above and beyond their duties.

This support level culminated on August 4, where all speakers in favor of the project were greeted with thunderous applause, including Mr. Wang himself.  It appeared, at long last, that a new day was dawning.

The wheels began to fall off during a re-zoning hearing filled with grandstanding on the stage and acrimony in the seats.  Some Lighthouse consultants seemed unprepared to answer even basic questions, and the project presented some numbers, such as new vehicle trips to the region, that seemed a stretch at best.  Some within the project, and their enablers in the blogosphere, took up the cause and railed against the Town of Hempstead for doing something that is both largely kabuki theater and completely normal for a hearing of that type.  Dissenting voices, which are far outnumbered in the general populace, began to feel emboldened.

Then, it came, like a swift punch to the stomach, as I sat in a business conference in Midtown Manhattan: a report from the Long Island Press claiming the Lighthouse Project had been abandoned.  Anxious fans vented on blogs – some even calling or texting me to beg for any information (of which I had none).  Faced with this report, the Lighthouse Project made the biggest in a string of mistakes: it sat on a statement denying the report until almost noon the next day – a full 19 hours after the report first surfaced.  It seemed, to many, to be an insult to those who volunteered their time and energy to push for this project out of nothing more than ardent belief.

Since this incident, the Lighthouse has gone into complete media blackout, refusing to speak to anyone on the record for nearly 2 months.  Tom Suozzi, the main cheerleader for the Lighthouse Project, seemed to forget that running for a new term actually involved running, and he fell victim to an orchestrated tax-based revolt led by Ed Mangano of Bethpage.  Suddenly, the entire equation has been thrown into flux, with all players needing to adjust to this new reality.

The silence has motivated many to go digging in places that may have otherwise been left alone.  Randi Marshall of Newsday reminded us that other developers would want to step in should the Lighthouse fall by the wayside, a fact that seemed to encourage opponents who now believed they had an effective counter for the "If not this, then What?" attitude of many supporters.  Many sources began to raise questions about Mr. Wang's ability to gain financing and his conduct, with the Long Island Business News naming him one of the political losers of 2009.  B.D. Gallof uncovered a bombshell on Hockey Independent, hearing from a source familiar with the negotiations that the Lighthouse Project owed F.P. Clark, the environmental consultancy, over $200,000, had stopped payments, and refused to back off of estimates that have been roundly criticized, claiming traffic estimates must be sound because the state signed off on them.  I followed up on a tip and discovered tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to incoming County Executive Mangano since Election Day, all coming from either large developers or groups connected to prominent politicians.  This seemed to momentarily put a jolt into some political operatives, since a Republican source was quick to alert me that Newsday tweeted about Ed Mangano's key supporters being pro-Lighthouse in the aftermath of this revelation.  Reports are flying that the Town and the developers are far apart on a proposed reduction in scope, with sources and bloggers close to Mr. Wang pushing a 10% reduction and some connected to the Town floating numbers closer to 35%.  Even in light of this string of revelations, including some that threaten the very viability of the Lighthouse Project, the developers have said nothing.

Meanwhile, the very hockey fans that formed a motivated core of support (though did not turn out in force for the election) are beginning to fracture under the weight of uncertainty.  Some believe it would be most helpful to argue over new options, such as Brooklyn, a project that appears to be breaking ground in the immediate future, as Fast Company magazine reported today that traffic detours are being put in the neighborhood (though it would require new plans if it were to accommodate a hockey rink).  There are also rumblings about Willets Point in Queens, which recently closed a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), an initial step in what  will not be a quick and painless process.  Opponents have become even more brazen, seeking to cheapen the goals of the Lighthouse and boil something that was never just about hockey to an issue surrounding a hockey team.  General consensus seems to be that the Lighthouse Project is dead, merely waiting for some merciful soul to call time of death.

This is why enough is enough.  Mr. Wang, you and your group must step out of the Cone of Silence and back into the work that got you to this place to begin with.  Yes, the Town of Hempstead has made many mistakes, showing its arrogant handling of large development projects, and some of their complaints have been petty.  However, you, a man who should know how to "play the game," have made your own share of mistakes; one source connected to the Republican Party told me you didn't even bother to call and congratulate Kate Murray on her electoral victory.  It may seem like a small gesture, but it would have taken 3 minutes, at most, and sent a major symbolic message.  Your behavior does not look judicious, it looks like a genuine slap in the face to the thousands who have fought with and supported you in any way they could – from the thousands who signed petitions to people like The Sign Man, who stayed up all night with his family before the October 3 deadline to make hundreds of pro-Lighthouse signs.

To make matters worse, your silence has led you to lose complete control over the public discourse.  The days of Katrina's official blog, which offered near daily updates on the goings-on in the Lighthouse world, seem to be at least on hiatus, as it has not been updated in 5 weeks.  Opponents who feel emboldened by election results that were predictable (I don't think anyone genuinely expected Kate Murray to lose this election based on a decision she hasn't even made and against an opponent who barely campaigned) and seem to have forgotten their minority status are suddenly turning loud, claiming that this was all a whim on your part, Mr. Wang, and done out of pure greed, not necessity mixed with business sense.

I say this with as much admiration and respect as I can muster, sir: I admire you for building a business from nothing into the Fortune 500.  As a person working on a business idea myself, I can currently only hope for that level of success.  That having been said, you do not come off looking very intelligent now.  I understand your reluctance to negotiate through the media, sir, and nobody is asking you to do that.  I am asking you to talk to us, to acknowledge our sacrifice in support of your dream that we have made our own. I am asking you to see this project through and force the Town of Hempstead to, if nothing more, actually vote on and own the outcome of this sorry state of affairs.  To get this far and not even progress to a vote, well, that would be a horrible shame.

More than anything else, Mr. Wang, we are asking you to be honest with us.  If the project is dead, tell us – I'll shut this site down tomorrow and continue working on the cause of my life.  If there is a deal in another location, at least begin to tamper expectations.

Mr. Wang, after all we've done for you, communication is not much to ask.  End this media blackout, give the Lighthouse side of the story, and restore the other side to a debate that has become little more than vultures picking at an imaginary corpse.

Speak up, and tell us: Are you committed?

Yes, or No?

Good night and good luck.

(Special thanks to B.D. Gallof for letting me use his "Cone of Silence" Photoshop)

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

Related articles by Zemanta

• APOCALYPSE TOH: A Timely Satire The Battle Over The Lighthouse Project (islandersindependent.com)
• A NON-LABOR DAY SPECIAL REPORT: FP Clark Fiasco and Town of Hempstead's Intentions with the Lighthouse Project (islandersindependent.com)
• Isles to explore all options, including moving (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Darkness on the Edge of Town?

Image via Wikipedia

While I was out during the day, my friend BD Gallof broke an additional bit of news on Hockey Independent that could signal something very bad for the Lighthouse Project: according to a source, the Lighthouse has once again stopped payments to F.P. Clark, the Town of Hempstead's environmental consultants.

This comes at an interesting time in the process, as BD pointed out:

1. There seem to be massive disagreements over the size and scope of the Lighthouse Project, with many close to Charles Wang whispering about a 10% reduction to placate the Town of Hempstead's objections.  Some close to the Town are floating numbers more like 30-35% - that's a major difference.
2. The sides have not met since Election Day.
3. As I reported yesterday (in a world exclusive), many powerful interests connected to large real estate developers have been moving money to incoming County Executive Ed Mangano since Election Day.
4. As a certain commenter on this blog illustrates, stories about Brooklyn are everywhere.

This is the first time I have genuinely allowed myself to consider a bit of news disturbing.  If it is true, then the Lighthouse Project may be facing a major risk.   The dithering and excuse-making from the Town and County have finally created a situation where the project appears to hang in the balance.

I'm not talking about hockey when I say this - if this project does not succeed, it will be a truly sad day for Long Island, and we, the taxpayers, will be left with nothing more than a rotting pit.

I for one hope it does not come to that, and I will report anything new that I hear.

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

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

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

Follow the Money

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

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

The Players

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer and Background

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

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

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

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

Moving Forward

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

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

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

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

Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

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

Ed Mangano's Lighthouse Priority

UPDATE: Tom Suozzi officially conceded the election this afternoon at 12:30 PM.  The race is officially over, and Ed Mangano is County Executive-elect.

We have entered the month of December, and the race for Nassau County Executive is nearly over.

According to the latest reports, Legis. Ed Mangano has opened up a 377-vote lead over incumbent Tom Suozzi.  Paper ballots are now fully counted, but the results will not be official until a judge in State Supreme Court in Mineola rules on roughly 600 challenged ballots.  Unless something changes, Ed Mangano is likely to become the next County Executive.

Mangano displayed a firm commitment to the Lighthouse Project during our interview, which ran in October.  I believe Mangano's commitment to doing something is sincere, especially since he already has success pursuing a re-development of the old Grumman property in Bethpage.  Mangano realizes the status quo on the Coliseum site is unsustainable, and I share his hope that we will reach a positive resolution.  In the same vein, the optimist can look at the political climate and see that, with Republicans controlling both layers of government involved in the Lighthouse process, neither the Town nor the County will be able to lay all the blame on the opposite political party anymore.

Some have looked at our interview and seen reason to be concerned.  Mangano stressed (as I have) that SEQR is a state-mandated process with which the County Executive should not interfere.  This raised concerns from some quarters that he will not encourage Kate Murray and the Town of Hempstead to move the review process along in the quickest way.  This is a delicate balancing act, since Tom Suozzi's constant excoriations went nowhere, but a real concern.

I've talked to a few people connected to the situation, and I understand what we need to look for in Mangano's behavior.  The key for the Lighthouse process is how quickly Mangano tackles the issue after taking office.

Bottom Line

If the Lighthouse Project is a priority for the possibly-incoming Mangano administration, we will hear about it within two weeks of his taking office in January.  If this time passes, and we have not yet heard, we need to step up as citizens and intervene.  In the meantime, we need to continue to make our presence known and make it clear that this project is important to us as citizens and voters.

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

Related articles by Zemanta

• Young and Suburban, and Falling for Heroin (nytimes.com)
• Islanders Foe or Prudent Politician? Hempstead's Murray Stands Her Ground (nytimes.com)
• Arrested Development (archidose.blogspot.com)
• NEWSDAY: Wang Source - Project Not AbandonedMy take: the LDC could not have played this worse (islanderspointblank.com)

Happy Thanksgiving - and Thank You

On this Thanksgiving Day, we all have so much to be thankful for.  I want to take a second to thank a group of people I may never be able to adequately thank - all of you.

This blog is now 10 months old, and it has succeeded beyond my wildest expectations.  You have opened your minds to me and the message of this site, and I am eternally grateful that I've had the pleasure to meet so many of you.  Regardless of what happens with this project, I know that our home will be fine because people like you live here.

That's not to say that our work is over....far from it.  We will need to be just as vigilant in the future as we have been for the last 10 months of this blog.  Therefore, I hope you can comment with just 2 things:

1. For what are you thankful today?

2. This site is for you, so how can I make it better? I've thought about things, including adding authors and trying to post more regular but shorter pieces.  Please let me know what you think.

Happy Thanksgiivng, all.  Enjoy your families, enjoy the day, and let's get right back to it tomorrow.

Discussion of other developers wanting the Coliseum site continues in yesterday's post.

For Some, it IS Just Real Estate

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

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

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

The Coliseum Property is Valuable

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

Other Developers Want the Rights

Image via Wikipedia

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

What Would Change?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proving My Point

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

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

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

Symbolism is Strong

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

Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

 

Related articles by Zemanta

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