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.

Special Report: Questioning the Status of the Lighthouse Project

This is a collaboration with B.D. Gallof.  The same piece will also appear on Hockey Independent.  

(This is not an April Fools)

April 1st, 2010

What began with a song and greeting: "Meet Me at the Lighthouse!", which even blared from a holiday card they sent us at the end of 2008, has turned into a whimper. As the lights have gone dark from some shake-up, more is coming clear...

The Lighthouse Project’s status is in question.

Rumors are swirling over financials, an issue the Town of Hempstead has been pushing for the better part of a year, even though any developer in the same position would likely have the same issues they were trying to pin on Charles Wang.  Some sources have begun to whisper behind the scenes that, given the state of the economy and reportedly high vacancy rates in many properties, Scott Rechler may be having financial problems. Others have wondered aloud about Charles Wang's financial viability since back in November. Another rumor being bounced around is that Charles Wang will be indicted for something.

Lots of rumors, yet nothing of substance. The rumors are allowed and take shape simply due to the fact the Lighthouse Project have had their mouths clamped shut since mid-October.

Other sources are going even further, suggesting something far grimmer.  Per these sources, Charles Wang and Scott Rechler may be taking steps to dissolve their partnership in the Lighthouse Development Group. This is an especially interesting situation, because Messrs. Wang and Rechler pooled their assets in and around Nassau Coliseum to form collateral for the Lighthouse group, making Mr. Rechler the de facto co-owner of the New York Islanders. If they are disengaging themselves, and while we have not heard either confirmation or denial from the Islanders or the Lighthouse despite attempts to reach out, the rumored "divorce" would explain many of the strange behavior over the past nearly six months.

This new rumor sadly coincides with what we've heard but not been able to get anything further on...where the project might be dead. Or Charles Wang will stare in the mirror and finally blink.

To make a very long story short: If Charles Wang and Scott Rechler are ending their business partnership, there might not be a Lighthouse Project.  Losing Rechler's millions in collateral around the proposed Lighthouse site would cripple the ability to land financing.  Even the Designated Developer Agreement (DDA) signed with Nassau County  could be invalid, since it would be signed with a company that no longer existed. 

However, per a Town of Hempstead source that has also heard many of the rumors we cited: "If they divorce, it does not kill the deal unless they say the deal is dead." 

This might be due to the concept if Rechler steps out, the Lighthouse Project name and status could be saved or retained by one of them.

We agonized over whether to publish this report, given the lack of response from other sources to our inquiries. We’ve had this for days now. We've received not one denial. Instead...silence. We feel strongly that fans should have a right to know the true state of the Islanders ownership. Moreover, after being rallied about, asked to show up and more to validate Mr. Wang and Mr. Rechler's vision, shouldn't we fans been given more than just the silent treatment?

Has the Lighthouse going dark just been public relations tact to let things peter out quietly instead of facing some well-earned questions?

Now word is starting to reach some people of a separation between Charles Wang and Scott Rechler. If true, is it the end of the Lighthouse Project, which fades into the murk without serious questions and attentions?  While we have not heard an official response from the Islanders or the Lighthouse Project at this hour, we believe the following questions need to be immediately addressed:

Question #1: What exactly happened when the Lighthouse first went dark after denying meetings between the ToH and themselves in their press release (which was not true)?

Question #2: What was that train wreck of an interview between Howie Rose and Charles Wang where Rose was clearly looking for an announcement of some sort? Once again, denial became a bald-faced lie about meetings between them and the ToH.

Question #3: Coinciding with "going dark" seemed to also stop the Lighthouse Project's paying of FP Clark. What kind of group that has, by its own admission, spent tens of millions in studies and proposals, just stops paying the consultant needed to go forward unless it is truly over?

Question #4: The reassignment of almost all LHP staff, most of whom now have visible roles within the Islanders organization. I mean, has the LHP development group done much of anything since November except now do team duties and events?

Question #5: Brooklyn, Queens and ToH Plans. Since the car crash of a re-zoning hearing back in September, and especially since the October 3 deadline came and went, we have heard more and more Brooklyn and Queens supposition. Meanwhile, since the LHP stopped paying FP Clark, the Town of Hempstead has picked up on it to put forward their own plans that doesn't infringe on the donor and influence patrons in Garden City, the republican leadership and others, despite that they were the minority opinion.

This ToH effort to develop that land might be their attempt to save face since the ToH has been questioning Wang's intent, inability to adjust size and scope, and questioning his fianaces since summer.  It is an interesting change from the Town, which steadfastly refused to meet with Mr. Wang or former County Executive Tom Suozzi to share their vision for the site since 2003, citing phony "conflict of interest" concerns.  Kate Murray has made many missteps, but she appears to realize full well that she will be blamed if the Nassau Coliseum site is not developed in a way that benefits the community.

Meanwhile, the only words from Queens and Brooklyn are from inconsequential mouthpieces in each district, such as Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and the Queens Chamber of Commerce President. Not one word has come from the horse's mouths except when Bruce Ratner said that it was "unlikely" when citing the Isles to Brooklyn scenario. That could be a clear indication that Wang and company have no interest there and might have shutdown shop until Queens begins in earnest down the road.  However, even though Brooklyn has many natural disadvantages, it has one major advantage: the arena is financed and currently under construction.  After the painful Lighthouse process, with a better-funded opposition beginning to sharpen its knives in Queens, would Mr. Wang really want to go back to that well?

Question #6: Charles Wang citing he hasn't heard from anyone, when he never called back inquiries from Mangano's group. Sources with Mangano have cited that Wang "has really backed off this thing". Meanwhile, after the interview with Howie Rose with the fibbery, sources cited that Mangano people had tried to contact Wang twice...both leading to no response. 

Per a source, Charles Wang and Ed Mangano current status might be one of friction. Evidently things have soured more between the two sides, even alluding to that there has been a falling out.

Question #7: What happens to the land around the Coliseum, much of which is owned by Rechler?

Question #8: Some have cited over a month or two ago that there would be a sit down telling "their side" of the story by Wang and Rechler. Since then there has been nothing of the sort. When will we hear something of substance, which Howie Rose clearly expected to hear on the Islanders broadcast last month?


We are at a critical juncture in the Lighthouse Project, and those who have asked so much of us over the years now owe us that most basic courtesy: honesty.

We deserve to know the true state of this project as citizens who supported it in record numbers.

We deserve to know the true health of our team ownership group as Islanders fans.

We deserve to be spoken to.

The ball is now in your court, Messrs. Wang and Rechler.  Please return the shot.

Sincerely,

B.D. Gallof and Nick Giglia 

Please 

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

St. Vincent's - A Lesson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Does This Relate to the Lighthouse?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't we do something?

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

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

Please share 

your thoughts in 

comments. Petition. Email. Twitter. Facebook.

Related articles by Zemanta

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

The Dirty Little Secret

This Lighthouse process is turning into more of a theater of the absurd by the day.  You have the Town of Hempstead, who steadfastly refused to meet with Charles Wang for 7 years, suddenly congratulating itself for jump-starting the process.  At the same time, you have Charles Wang's tight-lipped Lighthouse Project, which begged for meetings for years and is now suddenly not making any of them.  There has been acrimony on both sides, and with the process having been dark for over 4 months people's imaginations are taking over to a greater degree.  

This came into perfect focus when, on Monday morning, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman was a guest on Boomer Esiason's WFAN radio show.  He criticized the Town of Hempstead for not being able to "get this together," and seemed to throw cold water on the idea of Brooklyn as a relocation point for the New York Islanders should the Lighthouse Project go awry.

This led to Newsday, our favorite local paper, doing a two-page spread saying that this "opened the door for Queens" and listed all potential relocation points, including, I can't believe it, Kansas City.  Naturally, this prompted more hysterical blog posts and emails from nervous fans who have been caught in the crossfire o this piss-for-distance contest.

Everyone, take a breath.

There was no news in anything Gary Bettman said.

You could wonder if Charles Wang is feeding the commissioner this information, but let's not forget that Bettman spent months bashing Nassau County for a process that is wholly controlled by the Town of Hempstead, so it's fair to ask whether the commissioner is actually helping or just thought he was.

Let's take a quick detour into the three main options, again, because to me this illustrates the dirty little secret of the Lighthouse saga:

Brooklyn

The Atlantic Yards Project cleared its last major hurdle, and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz (a figurehead in this whole process) has made no secret of his desire to lure the Islanders to the soon to be built Barclays Center in downtown Brooklyn.

Seems like smooth sailing, right?

Wrong.

There is heavy, organized, and well-funded community opposition, and they have spent years filing every lawsuit known to man in an attempt to stop Atlantic Yards based on an alleged illegal use of eminent domain.  This will not stand, as the key legal precedent, Kelo v. New London, is firmly in favor of the government's right to seize private property for private use.  Some want to challenge Atlantic Yards based on the recent decision against Columbia's attempts to have blocks of Morningside Heights condemned, but as my friend "Brooklyn Law Student" pointed out, it's not a solid legal argument.  The courts ruled that Columbia cannot profit off the blight in Morningside because they were found to have contributed to it.  You can say what you will about Bruce Ratner, but you cannot say he is the reason the area was in its condition at the time of the eminent domain.

This is another dirty little secret: the opposition knows they have no solid legal footing.  

They're not trying to win.

They're trying to run out the clock.

They are hoping that a continuous flood of lawsuits will deflate Ratner, cause him to refund the bonds he sold for arena construction, and move on from the project.  With the New Jersey Nets moving "temporarily" to the brand-new Prudential Center in Newark, one wonders if Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov would be tolerant of any delays.

Brooklyn may well happen, the courts and city are on Ratner's side, but it's not quite there yet.

Queens

Not surprisingly, the statement from Bettman touched off another round of Queens hysteria, but this too is a bit premature.  As I've said previously, Queens merely issued a Request for Qualifications, to which 29 developers responded, and we don't even know whether Charles Wang and Scott Rechler were included, because nobody is talking.

In addition, calls from the Queens Chamber of Commerce President (a man about as useful to that process as Marty Markowitz is to Atlantic Yard) have not been returned by Charles Wang or anyone in the Lighthouse offices.

First off, there is another organized opposition in Queens that will almost certainly fight the Willets Point development as rabidly as those in Brooklyn have stood against Atlantic Yards.

Further complicating things, Queens is only planning to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) later this year.  It's over 5 years since the Lighthouse Project was first unveiled, and 4 since it won the competitive bidding process that Nassau County set up after the fact.  Even if Charles Wang were to go all-in on Queens (something that would completely end the Lighthouse, because the Town of Hempstead would not accept it) and get the buy-in from Mike Bloomberg and the city, it would still take years to get off the ground, as this does.

I have yet to hear a cogent reason why starting from square 1 is inherently a better idea than continuing a process that is far along, despite obstacles.

Lighthouse

I've said repeatedly that political will was the one key ingredient missing from the Lighthouse Project, and despite the fabrications from its enablers, the Town of Hempstead has finally developed this through its decision to put forward a zoning plan.  It guarantees that something will eventually be done at the Lighthouse site.

We of course don't know what will come out of it, and I and others have repeatedly pushed the idea of the Town making a proposal bigger than it may be comfortable with in order to prove it is negotiating in good faith.  We do, however, know that Ed Mangano, the new Republican County Executive, is eager to present an image as a uniter, separate from the hyper-partisan Tom Suozzi, and he controls the keys to any future promotion Kate Murray may want in the future.

It will not be better immediately, but the seeds have been planted for an agreement if both sides want it badly enough.

Bottom Line

From a hockey perspective, there has never been a team in the modern NHL to leave a location where it won a championship, and given the recent fiasco with the Phoenix Coyotes I can't imagine the league wants to risk a nightmare with the Islanders.  

In the same vein, you have two main relocation offers full of issues that have never happened with the Lighthouse Project, and sudden political will at the Town and County level to get something done at the Coliseum site.

If Charles Wang were to walk, it would take years to choose another developer who would wind up producing...the exact same project as the Town of Hempstead chooses in its zoning plan.

When you look at all these issues, this becomes the Dirty Little Secret: The easiest thing for all parties to do is make a deal with each other.

Whether or not that happens is a story in and of itself.

Coming soon: What we and the Lighthouse opponents can learn from St. Vincent's Hospital in Manhattan.

Please share your thoughts in 

comments. Petition. Email. Twitter. Facebook.

The Suozzi Effect, Massachusetts, and the Lighthouse Project

The local and national media are racing to ascribe hidden meanings to and extract national trends from the just-concluded special election for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, a place which I inhabited for 4 years as a college student (and which, even though I maintained my legal residence in Nassau County, repeatedly attempted to call me for jury duty).

I don't buy that this was all about healthcare, or a referendum on the President, or anything else that the horse race-obsessed media is trying to spin it into becoming.  I believe the answer is much more simple; let's call it the Suozzi Effect.

Introducing the Suozzi Effect

We've heard about the Bradley Effect, a theory stemming from the 1982 California governor's race which states that some white voters are more willing to tell pollsters they support a non-white candidate than they are to actually vote for that candidate.  Many election results seem to have since disproven or minmized the Bradly Effect, and it's now time to enter a new term into the lexicon.

The Suozzi Effect stems from Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi's attempt to win a 3rd term in 2009.  Since being elected in 2001, Suozzi had turned around the finances of a County that had been $500 million in debt, he won re-election in 2005 with 69% of the vote, and he was being talked about around the state as a candidate for higher office; some had even mentioned him as a potential replacement for Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate.  Legis. Ed Mangano took the Republican nomination, which many felt would go to Hempstead Supervisor Kate Murray, and, as I reported before, few gave Mangano a chance.  One reporter friend of mine said Mangano should be glad if he only loses by 10 percentage points.  A friend of mine who is a registered Republican found out who Ed Mangano was when I told him about my upcoming interview...not really a ringing endorsement.

Then, right before our eyes, something started to happen.  Mangano ran a focused campaign that tapped into voter anger about some real problems we face in Nassau County, including the high tax burden.  Suozzi, who seemed to be sleepwalking through the campaign, brushed these complaints off because the County Executive doesn't set the vast majority of these tax rates.  Only after the election was over did Suozzi take the appropriate counter-step of proposing all school districts (and school taxes) come under control of the County Executive, because, after all, if voters wanted to hold him accountable, he should actually BE accountable.

Suozzi continued to sleepwalk - he didn't even spend all his campaign money because he was saving it for re-election or higher office - and Mangano continued to gain steam.  Democrats were arrogant about their chances, and Republicans were energized to "Dump Suozzi," as bumper-stickers with that phrase started to sprout up everywhere.  When the dust had settled, Suozzi lost by a few hundred votes, but even that is misleading.  Ultra-conservative candidate Steven Hansen received roughly 10,000 votes, proving that the vast majority of motivated voters wanted a new direction.

We saw the same thing yesterday, as Republican Scott Brown was able to tap into populist anger and engage in the necessary grind of retail politics over Martha Coakley, who often appeared aloof and actually sneered at the thought of shaking hands outside Fenway Park in the snow when asked in an interview.  Brown showed off his truck and railed against Wall Street in campaign commercials, while Coakley seemed unmoved to help a man who had been knocked over by her campaign staff, and who downplayed her numerous successes against Wall Street firms as the Massachusetts Attorney General.  When the dust had settled, Coakley, too, had lost, sending Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat to the Republicans.

In each instance, a heavily-favored candidate lost to a relative unknown due to both a failure to excite the base and the opponent's success in galvanizing voters.  This is the central corollary of the Suozzi Effect: an aloof, entitled candidate does not win against a candidate who emotionally connects with voters on a central issue, regardless of rationality.

A Tom Suozzi who showed more sensitivity to the tax issue may still be in office, in the same way that a Martha Coakley (a fellow BU alum) could very well be in the Senate if she chose to treat the election like the street fight it was.  We saw it with Creigh Deeds in Virginia, who couldn't seem to explain why he wanted to be governor, and in New Jersey, where Jon Corzine had no answer for an opponent who effectively tied him to the company (Goldman Sachs) Corzine used to run.

I don't think this is an issue of repudiating any party's agenda as much as it is a problem of fielding aloof, entitled candidates. Suozzi ran with a slate of Democrats that were a mix of incumbent legislators and party neophytes, and they did not seem to have a coherent narrative or any selling point other than "don't give Nassau County back to the Republicans."  The lesson here, in my view, should be that voters want strong candidates who appear in touch with local issues, rather than relying on incumbency or blind promises to toe the party line.

Related to the Lighthouse

We have heard very little about the Lighthouse Project since Ed Mangano took office, save an interview with News 12 Interactive in which the new County Executive says he hopes the project moves forward.  We have not heard a peep from the Lighthouse, which seems to be laying low in light of more scrutiny from the mainstream media, and the Town of Hempstead has grown more brazen.  Kate Murray recently (falsely) stated the project has the same density as the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and others within Town government have intimated their stance will harden with a new sheriff in town.

Since the Lighthouse has become silent, the people, too, have fallen largely silent.  This has given the Town of Hempstead free reign to dictate debate, and this is just as much of a problem as last spring when the Town would not share any of its thinking on the Lighthouse.  The debate is better when we hear from both sides.

Since it does not appear that the Lighthouse will be ending its media blackout any time soon, the burden falls to us.  We must not be complacent, nor can we assume all is lost.  Our support and our passion brought the Lighthouse to the forefront once, and we can do it again.

If we cannot stand up for our beliefs, and if we cannot fight for the world as we believe it should be, then we too will fall victims to the Suozzi Effect and find ourselves relegated to the dustbin of history.  We must not allow this to happen.

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

Something Rotten in Mineola?

UPDATE 10:30 PM: We are now hearing from some close to Mangano that Eden Laikin is NOT communications director, but in fact director of inter-governmental affairs.  BD and I are working on a confirmation.  She is definitely working for the County Executive, but initial reports may be false.  

Ed Mangano and I had a very good interview in October, and I left it believing he could make a good County Executive should he, against all odds, win the election.  Ed has been in office 5 days, and there are a few developments that make me fundamentally question whether the governing will match the rhetoric.

Eden Laikin

We mentioned that Michael "Lights Out?" Martino has left the Long Island Press to become Ed Mangano's press secretary.  This is not a surprise, as Mr. Martino is a solid reporter, and some of his pieces seem to suggest Republican leanings.  The big surprise is that his new boss is communications director Eden Laikin.  If that name sounds familiar, it should - Ms. Laikin was, until yesterday, Newsday's Town of Hempstead beat writer, and the author of some of the more controversial mainstream pieces on the Lighthouse Project.

Judging from all accounts, Eden Laikin has excellent instincts as a reporter, and many people within the Town of Hempstead feel the same about her as many people on this web site and others.  However, over the past year or so, she has written many questionable pieces, most of which pertained to the Lighthouse Project.  This was the same reporter who chose to interview the only three people in Islanders gear at the February hearing, which had roughly 400 people attending.  This is the person who constantly left out seemingly major bits of information, like Joe Mondello's infamous "blow it out your dufflebag" outburst, and blamed it on her editors (Incidentally, this happened many other times, and it could have informed her decision to leave Newsday).  This is also a reporter who threatened legal action against a certain blogger with the audacity to disagree with her.

I hope this does not sound like a personal vendetta, because it is not.  I think my main issue with this concerns Newsday itself, because Ms. Laikin was writing articles for the paper about Ed Mangano as recently as last week, before it was public knowledge that she would be taking a job within his administration.  In addition, a source within the Nassau Democratic party told both me and B.D. that Ms. Laikin had told him, off the record, that she did not see any way the Lighthouse Project would get done.

This is where the situation ceases to be an oddity and becomes a Newsday problem.  Ms. Laikin was writing pieces about Ed Mangano, seemingly at the same time she was interviewing for a job with his administration.  At the same time, other sources have suggested a much deeper connection between the reporter and Mr. Mangano, which could suggest some extra symbolism.  The quote on the Lighthouse Project is the proverbial cherry on top, because now, as my friend B.D. also pointed out, you have a chicken-vs-egg situation.  Did the Newsday coverage of the Lighthouse - which has been sorely lacking compared to blogs like B.D. Gallof's, Chris Botta's, and, dare I say, this one - lead to Ms. Laikin developing this opinion, or did her opinion color the coverage and present a different face of the project, that, despite an almost complete abdication by the mainstream media, is still supported by a majority of Long Island residents?

As a Long Islander, I believe Newsday owes us a clear explanation from the very top.  I am not accusing anyone of wrongdoing, merely pointing out that a writer for a mainstream publication who suddenly goes to work for a politician she spent time covering sends the wrong message.  Newsday should stand up for its journalistic integrity and assure us that there was nothing within this relationship that suggested the paper's coverage was in any way compromised.

Machine Helping Machine?

The appointment of Eden Laikin is more than a potential slap in the face to the Long Island public that reads Newsday for information.  It could also be a great boost to the Republican Party, even though many in the party establishment did not seem to give Mangano much of a chance before Election Day.  Eden Laikin's departure means Newsday will have to place a new writer on the Town of Hempstead beat, someone who is not familiar with the inner workings of the Town and will likely not be willing to jump in and begin holding people's feet to the fire (just like I wasn't at the start of this blog).  This could provide more breathing room, but hopefully not for a return to "politics as usual" in Town Hall.

Equally interesting is a press release from the Town of Hempstead on Tuesday, which cited recent meetings between the Town and the Lighthouse over an "amended" development.  I haven't been able to confirm these meetings, and you have to wonder if that was partially designed to put outside pressure on the Lighthouse to negotiate.  In fact, could this simply be confirming the meetings that we all know happened in October, before the election?  One thing's for certain: the power in this debate has almost completely re-aligned.

A Uniter, Not a Divider

One of Ed Mangano's most salient criticisms of Tom Suozzi came from his leadership style, something a source once described to me as - sorry, 505 - "too Chaminade."  In other words, Suozzi valued dissent and debate to a fault, often pitting aides and other politicians against each other rather than bringing people together for a common goal.  Mangano is very correct that Suozzi has been hyper-partisan on the Lighthouse issue, and we know he was not happy that the outgoing County Executive stuck one last fork in Mangano's eye through the new lease agreement.  Mangano promised to be a person who could bring the disparate interests of Nassau County together for a common purpose.

However, given the very questionable appointment of Eden Laikin, and the reports that Mangano blindly purged all County offices of Democrats, including the highly-respected and seemingly independent head of Veterans' Affairs for the County, you have to wonder if, as astute reader Rob pointed out, Mangano is going down the same road.

Bottom Line

I am not like those hysterical people calling the President a failure seemingly hours after he took office.  I understand that Ed Mangano has been County Executive for 5 days, and until I have reason to abandon this belief I will give him the benefit of the doubt, based on our interview.  However, you have to wonder if the new County Executive is beginning to embrace too closely the spoils of victory.

We still have not heard the word "Lighthouse" from his office - the clock is ticking.

More Clarity on the Lease

More information came (from behind a paywall) about the new sub-lease for the Nassau Coliseum.  Hat tip to reader Scott for the links; I have been at family Christmas parties pretty much since the last post went live.

Quickly, here are some important points to remember, and then I will add a quick analysis of my own:

• SMG will continue to have day-to-day control of the Coliseum.
• The Islanders will gain operational control of the arena, handling all Coliseum bookings and receiving all the concessions, parking, and ticket revenue SMG used to receive.
• The agreement does not prevent the Islanders from leaving Nassau Coliseum, but they would be required to pay SMG the remainder of their rent, through 2015.
• The Islanders would still require County approval to leave Nassau Coliseum.

Implications

While removing a major hurdle to getting the Lighthouse Project done, the lease also, admittedly, removes a hurdle to the team leaving Nassau County as well (though there is a permanent injunction still in place forcing the Islanders to play home games at Nassau Coliseum through 2015 - there would likely be an issue with the County should that change).  As Deputy County Executive (for now) Marilyn Gottlieb pointed out, control over Coliseum bookings is an important issue, since it would allow Mr. Wang and Mr. Rechler to more easily set a construction timetable should the project receive approval by the summertime.

In addition, this does not in any way, as I said, signal that the team is willing to give it a go with "just an arena," and I don't know why some people are still clinging to that idea.  It will help stanch the financial bleeding, though it may not be enough to get the Islanders in the black.  Overall, as I have said before, there is a profound difference between making money and making enough money to justify a $320 million investment.

Bottom Line

This is positive news, and it should be treated as such, but it is also a reminder that the clock is ticking and that we need a positive resolution on this project before the main economic engine contained within it explores opportunities elsewhere.

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


I'd also like to wish a Merry Christmas to my friends and readers who celebrate it.  I hope the holiday season is treating you well, and I look forward to participating in this journey with you, in whatever way I can, in 2010.

A New (Sub) Lease on Life

Our traditional Festivus airing of grievances continues in the previous thread (please feel free to add your own), but we have more important things to deal with.  Late last night, news broke (from behind a paywall) about a new lease agreement that could give the Islanders control over parking, concession, and other revenues from Nassau Coliseum.

B.D. and I got wind of this earlier in the night, and he pinged me, cryptically saying "Source says Suozzi is working on a new lease with SMG."  We initially barked up the wrong tree, concerned the outgoing County Executive had gone insane and was attempting to extend the horrific lease agreement that has crippled the New York Islanders and the facility at which they play for decades.  The news has thrown many people off-guard, and Islanders Country is scrambling to figure out what this means for the Lighthouse Project in general, and the team specifically.

I have spoken to some people in the know, and this is what I have so far:

• This in no way shape or form means Charles Wang is abandoning the Lighthouse Project.  It is dangerously misguided to go down that road and assume "just an arena" is now suddenly acceptable.
  
• It shows, as I have said numerous times, that Mr. Wang is very serious about getting a deal done on Long Island.
• This is the big news: this is not a new lease agreement.  Tom Suozzi compelled a sub-lease between SMG and the New York Islanders/Lighthouse Development Group.

Last things first:

What Exactly Happened 

There are 3 main parties involved with Nassau Coliseum: Nassau County, which owns the building, Spectator Management Group (SMG), which manages the facility, and the New York Islanders, who play their home games at the facility.  The lease agreement was originally signed in 1979, and it only covers the County and SMG.  The Islanders play their home games at the facility, and they are entitled to what amounts to financial crumbs.  It is by far the worst lease deal in sports, and it has resulted time and again in the Islanders losing money as a franchise.  It was widely known that SMG would either be bought out or not invited back once the agreement expired, something the Lighthouse confirmed to me in February, given their abysmal handling of the arena.

This move is a bit of political genius because it addresses the money issue without touching the initial contract.  This is a good plan because contracts in the United States are largely considered sacrosanct, and it is very difficult to break them.  In this case, the Islanders/Lighthouse Development Group entered into an agreement with SMG that complements the original document signed with Nassau County.  This allows SMG to relinquish its right to some of the revenue streams, an action that benefits the Islanders financially.  At the same time, it does not subject the agreement to County approval, because the County is not a party to the agreement.  The only issue is for the County Executive to sign off on the deal, which Mr. Suozzi has now done (while he still holds the office).

To make matters even more interesting, this move almost certainly prevents Ed Mangano from canceling the agreement once he takes office.  He would have to compel the Islanders to relinquish their financial right, a move I simply do not see happening.

After reviewing all the information, I think I've figured out why SMG signed the agreement: they were likely forced.  Mr. Suozzi probably confronted them with 3 options: condemnation of the lease, a lawsuit for breach of contract, or signing this new sub-lease.  If that happened, it would make sense that SMG would sign the agreement.

Lighthouse Implications 

Some believe this bit of news means the Lighthouse Project is abandoned, and that is a misguided line of thinking.  This shows, as I have said all along, that Charles Wang's first choice - by far - is to get something done on Long Island at the site of the proposed Lighthouse Project.  This agreement frees up revenue streams the New York Islanders never enjoyed, and it will at worst stop the constant bleeding of money the franchise has experienced since Mr. Wang bought the team almost a decade ago.

At the same time, it will likely eliminate a major obstacle to the Lighthouse Project being completed.  SMG, according to the lease agreement, retains the right to manage any new/renovated arena built on the property, and, given the state of the relationship, they were likely to be excluded from the new arena (and the money to be made) once the deal either expired or was bought out.  That could have created a legal headache, but this seems like a win-win.  The Islanders get an expanded revenue stream, and SMG likely retains the ability to participate in a bidding process for the renovated building.

On the other hand, this may - MAY - be clearing the way for a renegotiated project.  I have shown through calculations why there is a Lighthouse Project, and anything built on the site would have to make more money than that which is spent on the arena renovation.  Opening up new revenue streams could be a potential way of accomplishing this.  Since the deadline passed on October 3, this is by far the most substantive action the Lighthouse Development Group has taken to show its commitment to the area, and, given the issues surrounding the project, it could not have come at a better time.

Political Fallout 

You can never accuse Tom Suozzi of being a passive politician.  In many instances - such as his election kick-off rally, which was held in front of Republican headquarters - the outgoing County Executive has enjoyed sticking it to his rivals, and this is no exception.  Much like Tom Gulotta rammed through an 11th-hour extension of the SMG lease through 2015 (aiding a company with close ties to Al D'Amato) before ceding his office to Suozzi, our outgoing County Executive had one last trick up his sleeve.  However, I do wonder if this could have been done earlier and was held back in the name of political expediency...

Naturally, Republicans in the Town of Hempstead and Mangano camps are livid, claiming this is an end-around by Suozzi and prevents the incoming administration from having a say in the issue.  While they may not like it, they do not seem to have any legal recourse.  This has occurred in American politics since John Adams' infamous appointment of the "Midnight Judges," an action which led to the landmark Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison and the establishment of Judicial Review.  Ed Mangano won the election, and he will take the oath of office January 1, but until that happens Tom Suozzi is the County Executive, and he is entitled to all the duties and benefits of that office.

That isn't to say that the issue could be completely out of the woods.  This move, and the Lighthouse Project's past close alignment with Democrats, could harden the incoming and entrenched Republican policy-makers against the proposal.  We've also established that other developers have been heavily donating money to Ed Mangano in an apparent attempt to curry favor in case the Lighthouse Project fails.  This move makes it more likely the project will happen, and some operatives may be disappointed.

At the same time, reader Jimmy makes an excellent point: these actions could be part of a campaign to make sure the Lighthouse Project is a top priority for Ed Mangano, who endorsed the project in his interview with me, once he takes office on January 1, 2010.

A Town of Hempstead source had immediate reaction last night, telling B.D. that the move needles Ed Mangano and could possibly signal the death knell for the Lighthouse Project.  If the Lighthouse resumes payments to F.P. Clark, fulfills its legal requirements, and properly finishes the environmental review, we could see a very good end to this process.  At the end of the day, it will require something that has been too often missing from the process: communication.

Bottom Line 

This is a bit of good news, but it remains to be seen how it will play out once the Mangano administration takes office.  We now see clearly that Charles Wang wants to make it work (despite those saying for certain that Brooklyn is all but done) right here, on Long Island.  The Lighthouse Project is now more likely to pass than it was as recently as last week.  If nothing else, from an Islanders perspective, this is a nice Christmas present.  Let's enjoy it for now.

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

Related articles by Zemanta

• Another "Potential" Lease on Life (islesofficialsoutlook.blogspot.com)
• SOURCE: BROOKLYN CALLING ON THE ISLANDERSNYI approached to join Nets in Barclays Centre (islanderspointblank.com)