Why I Believe the Referendum Could Fail, by Joe Conte

Blogger's Note, by Nick: When Joe approached me with this post, I was skeptical, but on the whole I think we all need to hear what he is saying.  This is not a slam dunk on Monday, and these are the most likely reasons if it were to fail.  


This post is not meant to be an abandon ship, but an exhortation to not take anything for granted and spend these last 2 days motivating anyone we can find to come out and vote.  We can stop this, but it's a much taller order than some people may realize.


Also, the standard disclaimer: The views expressed in this post are Joe's, and do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of myself or Dave (for example, I have a friend in the Nassau DA's office, who is a member of the CSEA and says the vast majority of his office plans to vote yes).  However, Joe's perspective and realism are important so we don't get complacent and understand the true nature of what we've involved ourselves with.


Without further ado, here's Joe:

I wish it didn't come to this, and I hope I'm proven spectacularly wrong on Monday, but if I read my tea leaves right, I feel obligated to write this post.  The reasons I lay out below are varied and complex, as any political issue often is.  If this does go down, you can't point the finger at just one person.  Mistakes have been made across the board by everyone with a vested interest in seeing this referendum passed.  Now onto those reasons why.

1.  Mangano is not an effective leader.

His defense of this bond has been mediocre at best.  He's not articulate (I know we joke about the areener thing, but his inability to even pronounce the word is symbolic of his handling of the whole situation).  His decision to alienate NIFA by not going to them first created another veto point and more elite level opposition (and I prescribe to theory of elite level of policy making). His resistance to creating a lockbox for the bond revenue is a huge liability with the Democrats.  It further stoked their level of skepticism and allowed them to question his true motivation behind issuing the bond.  They see it as an attempt to hold the line on property taxes for the 2013 election.  And really, who's to say they are wrong?  Lumping the bond revenue into the general fund does a tremendous disservice to our cause.

2.  The Islanders do not know how to run a political campaign.

And really, who's expecting them to; they are a hockey organization not a political outfit. But if they were smart, they would have hired outside counsel that they unfortunately did not do.  This left the campaign in the hands of the ignorant or even worse, the incompetent.  Case in point: I'm in their database, so every year I am called to see if I want season tickets, yet I have not received one phone call encouraging me to vote on Monday.  The key to winning elections is indentifying your base and getting them out to the polls.  The Islanders have failed in both regards. Their advertisements are also boring and I believe, ineffective.  They are handing literature out a train stations, which is not an effective strategy.  When you can't identify your opposition, you don't run a blanket campaign because that could lead to No voters remembering to vote Monday.  Precision is key in an election like this.  They also have no "get out the vote" campaign or if they do it's obviously poor because I haven't heard about it.

3.  The fiscal conservatives/tea parties/Republican base have abandoned Mangano.

Or more accurately, they feel he betrayed them after they got him elected to office.  Mangano rode the populist conservative wave to the executive office two years ago, and; by proposing this bond he has forsaken their fiscally conservative principals.  That is why Jay Jacobs is running around as if this was the worst deal since we signed DP for 15 years, he's playing to this base for votes come November.  Plain and simple Jacobs is making a political play.  He's not ideologically opposed to this bond, he's a self interested political leader who sees his time as chairman slipping away if he does not win back the legislature this November.  The conservatives will be out to vote No on Monday.

4.  The August 1st election date/referendum rush job.

These two issues created a cloud of doubt in people's minds.  At town hall meetings citizens wanted details, which of course were not available.  This led them to question why we were moving forward with this so fast.  And this is not an unreasonable reaction from an overtaxed, underemployed electorate.  Not to mention the political calculation of the August 1st date was so overtly obvious.  People tend to expect politicians will act in their own best interests, but they don't want their noses rubbed in it.  They could have easily mitigated this by holding the election on primary day when turnout is extremely low to begin with.  The plan then would not have looked so devious and they still could have controlled turnout.

5.  The union movement is not that strong.

The times of the powerful private sector union movement are over.  Counting on the trade unions to deliver the votes is a risky strategy.  If, and only if, every union member their immediately family vote will they have enough of an impact to swing this vote to the yes.

6.  The town of Hempstead Republican machine is not fully behind this.

I had assumed this for a while now as these are the same people who make up the fiscal conservative movement in the county.  Not to mention, Mangano is not their guy.  It was supposed to be Kate's turn to run but she did not want to lose to Suozzi so Mangano became the placeholder.  But Suozzi took re-election for granted and we all know what happened next.  The TOH machine has no allegiance to Mangano.  And this weekend I heard the proof I needed to confirm my suspicions. First, TOH workers are only half-heartedly being told to vote yes.  Then, I heard that a die-hard TOH Republican employee I know is against the bond.  Once again, not a good sign, as success is contingent on Kate getting behind this and putting the machine to work.  Now neither is happening.  And remember, if the workers are forced to vote but they are not supportive, that's more detrimental then them not voting at all.

7.  The public sector employee unions will vote against the referendum.


With CSEA facing massive layoffs this year, the last thing they want to see is government borrowing and spending for something other then jobs for their union members.  It is in their self-interest to see this go down, elect the Democrats to head the legislature this fall and then lobby them to restore their job cuts.  This is probably the most rational reason people will vote against the project, and I can't say I blame them.

After saying all that, I am not without hope.  There is still an election to be had, votes to be counted and time for Islander fans to come through.  That's the biggest wild card in all of this.  Will the "greatest fans in the world" show they are and turn up when it matters most?  I hope I didn't ruin anyone's weekend with this post, but only if we are honest with ourselves can we know the enormity of the task at hand at Monday.  So make sure you tell everyone friend, relative, acquaintance, random person you run into on the street and think would vote Yes to vote on Monday.  As long as the polls are still open, we have a chance.

And finally, what to watch for Monday night: the returns in Hempstead.  If the yes vote gets over 40% in Hempstead I think the bond will pass.  If not, let's start praying there actually is a plan B.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS IN COMMENTS. EMAIL. TWITTER. FACEBOOK.

Jacobs to Nassau: Drop Dead

Hi everyone, let's leave the robots aside and move on to more important things.

Contest is Off

Our Rock the Referendum contest needs to be cancelled because of some persistent complaints that it violates New York State election law.  I maintain it doesn't, but rather than risk very serious repercussions (or a BS lawsuit, perhaps), we've decided to shut it down.  I am at least as upset, if not more, than anyone else, but this should not distract from our very real need to get people out there to the polls.

We're in the home stretch, and the persistent smear-mongering and misinformation campaign led by the 2 Stooges, Jay Jacobs and Desmond Ryan, has helped put us in a precarious spot.  Please remember, every vote counts.

Radio Appearance

I was a guest with Chris Muldoon on 90.3 FM Thursday evening, and you can listen here if you didn't have a chance to that night.  We talk for almost an hour about many issues related to the referendum.  Really enjoyed it and Chris, and I hope you enjoy our chat.

Fun With Facebook

Today's episode of Fun With Facebook: "Shockingly Out Of Touch," with 2 very special guest stars....

I RSVP'ed to Ed Mangano's Facebook invitation to Vote Yes on Monday, and I saw something that legitimately shocked me....a message to "VOTE NO1" - from none other than Town of Hempstead Councilwoman Dorothy Goosby.

That's right, the woman who stood idly by while Kate Murray hemmed, hawed, and stalled for 6 years before murdering the Lighthouse, who is as responsible as anyone that we're now in the position of this referendum, now wants you to vote no.  How about we tell her how we feel?

Then, just when I thought it couldn't get any more shocking, it did.  The Association for a Better Long Island, better described as the Association for a Better Association for a Better Long Island, truly shocked me.  This organization has been the biggest source of vitriol and misinformation not named Jay Jacobs in this campaign, and their comment is truly a sight to behold.

That's right, the group already whining to NIFA and anyone else who will listen now accuses the Yes side of planning to intimidate voters on Monday.  It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and shocking.

I'd say hold these people accountable, and we should, but the best way to do that is at the ballot box.

Jay Jacobs Continues to Dig the Hole

Jay Jacobs, he of the embarrassing performance on Mike Francesa, sent out another letter on Thursday night to registered Democrats in Nassau County.  Here is a link to the unedited letter that B.D. Gallof was helpful enough to post on TweetDeck, and I've decided to perform a line by line rebuttal.

We now join the Nassau County and New York State Democratic Party chairman, already in progress....

LET’S VOTE NO AND GET A COLISEUM BUILT!
By Jay JacobsNassau County Democratic Chairman

Wow, are we living in Backwards Land?  Vote No and the thing we want to happen happens?

We all want a new Coliseum. We all want to keep the Islanders. We all want to see more jobs and ensure that Nassau County grows and prospers. Charles Wang’s latest Coliseum plan – shifting the cost, debt and guarantees to Nassau taxpayers is just, in simple terms, a bad deal. 

There have been a host of studies, statistics and numbers thrown about, revised and then re-revised. The bottom line is simple: If the deal is as good as Charles Wang and County Executive Ed Mangano are telling us in their sales pitch, then why isn’t Charles Wang borrowing the money himself?

I see what Mr. Jacobs did here - he's deliberately trying to perform some misdirection because the "host of studies, statistics, and numbers," including Martin Cantor's report, which analyzed 3 scenarios and claimed the County would make money even under the most conservative scenario, don't say what Mr. Jacobs wants to hear.  In fact, Mr. Cantor's report says that every dollar spent on the areener project will generate $1.46 in economic activity for Nassau County!  

Which one, then?  Is it the Camoin Associates report?  The Comptroller's Report? The non-partisan OLBR? Oh wait, they all say it's a good deal (albeit with some suggested changes that I support)

Therefore, Mr. Jacobs has now decided to turn this around on former ally Charles Wang (only when the Democrats were in power) and ask why he doesn't build a building he doesn't own with no collateral by himself.  Nice sleight of hand...Nassau County owns this building, and he is now asking for the tenant to bail out the landlord's decades of mismanagement and political gridlock that have led us to this place.  

But oh wait, Jacobs doubles down.....

And that’s the simple answer to the whole problem. Nassau County should sell the Coliseum property to Charles Wang. The County should retain the remainder of the 77-acre site for future development. Until the development is finalized and approved, the Coliseum would have use of the land for parking. A part of any development deal would require the expenditure of $135 million to build the 6800 space multi-story parking lot, freeing up the remaining land. 

With Wang as the owner of the site, he is then free to build the Coliseum he wants. He would own the asset and could sell it if he chooses – with or without the team. So, how would he pay for it? The way everyone else who buys a home or a business does. He would put down 25% of the total price and go to a bank for the rest – preferably Long Island-based banks.

Wow, what a sweetheart deal for Nassau County, especially the person who will get over $100 million to build a parking garage.  The arena that has been neglected for 40 years will be sold.  Therefore, Charles Wang has to pay for the cost of purchasing the building, the cost of demolishing the building, and the cost of a new building, all while Nassau County gets to keep the surrounding land to do whatever it sees fit.

This might actually sound reasonable on the surface, but again, Mr. Wang is a TENANT.  His solution to Nassau County abdicating its responsibilities as a landlord is a further abdication that puts the man who might benefit least from it in the position of paying for all of it.

(Remember, the revenue sharing deal says the County gets 11.5%, but, for all you New York Post and Daily News editorial writers, that's 11.5% of total revenue, regardless of the profit Wang does or does not make).

Assuming the construction costs of $350 million, the costs of borrowing and some payment to the County for the value of the land (as a requirement of the purchase the existing building would be demolished so it should have no value in the transaction), the total package would be $400 million. Wang would have to come up with $100 million in cash.

Mr. Jacobs can do math.  Bravo.

Without a billionaire’s money, Wang could fund it himself, put together an investment group or combine those ideas with the use of PSLs for ticket-holders similar to what the Jets and the Giants did to help construct their stadium. Now, PSLs are unpopular because no ticket holder wants to pay them. I’m a Giants season ticket holder and I didn’t like it either. I also recognize that the NHL is not the NFL. That doesn’t mean that you can’t have a PSL program. It means you can’t charge anywhere near what the Jets or the Giants charged for their season ticket holder seats.
As an example: where the low-end PSL for Giants seats was $5000, if the Islanders charged $5000 a seat for their BEST seats and just $1500 for their least desirable seats, they could bring in between $25 and $50 million for the 17,500 seats and 51 luxury boxes. The PSLs could be paid in installments over 3 years and PSL holders could be offered discounts on non-Islander events held at the new Coliseum. Paid over 3 years, with 41 games, an Islander ticket-holder would pay about $12 more per seat per game for just 3 years – and they would have the PSL asset to sell once they give up their seats – hopefully at a profit depending upon the team’s performance.

I can't believe I'm reading this.  I'm not even going to go into his factual inaccuracies about the pricing structure of these PSLs; I'll instead go right into how nonsensical these numbers are:

First, Mr. Jacobs is failing basic economics here.  He proposes something that will cost $12 more per game to pay part of construction as a viable alternative to $13.80 a year per household (at worst) to pay for the whole thing!  

PSLs are, as Mike Francesa put it, the biggest scourge on the landscape of 21st Century Sports.  Not only that, they only work in situations like football teams or the Toronto Maple Leafs, where there are waiting lists years-long to get season tickets.  In other words, this scam only works when demand exceeds supply.  Mr. Jacobs now assumes that the Islanders' current season ticket base of between 8-10,000 will magically rise up and purchase PSLs for all 17,500 planned seats in the new arena?

If you actually believe that, just remember this:  The Jets had trouble selling all their PSLs during the end-stages of construction at the New Meadowlands Stadium.....And those PSLs did NOT pay for construction, no matter how desperately Mr. Jacobs wants you to believe they did.

While Islander ticket-holders will howl about paying anything, my question to them is: if you won’t chip in to help pay for your seat at a new Coliseum, why should Nassau taxpayers who don’t even sit in the seat do so?

I'm a taxpayer in Nassau County who lives in a home that was taxed over $15,000 last season.  I buy tickets to Islanders games and would gladly pay what I needed for this arena if the $13.80 number (or even $58) comes true.  That isn't enough, Mr. Jacobs?  I'm "howling" that you want me to pay a disproportionate share for something all the people of Nassau County will own and all the people of Nassau County are free to enjoy equally?

I'm sure the governor's office would love to know that his state party chairman is accusing us of not wanting to do our part.

And my question to Charles Wang is: If your projections are on target and you are so confident of the revenue, why don’t you back the investment with your money and get private banks to lend you the rest?

Mr. Wang will not and does not own the building, yet Mr. Jacobs believes it's reasonable to ask him to pay the freight.  Under the revenue-sharing and lease deal, Mr. Wang is responsible for every dime of cost overrun over $350 million and will pay 61.5% of total costs as a worst-case scenario, and he's still the bad guy?

It's funny, as a quick aside....the Newsday endorsement from yesterday made a fascinating point.  Critics have called this a boondoggle that will soak Nassau taxpayers and at the same time called it a bonanza that will make Charles Wang hundreds of millions of dollars.  Since the deal is based on revenue sharing, it can't possibly be both.  But hey, why let facts get in the way of partisanship, ideology, and a good story?

Under this plan, the Nassau taxpayer is off the hook, we don’t get encumbered by another $400 million in debt AND we keep the remainder of the 77-acre site open and available for future development around a brand new Coliseum. There are “many ways to skin a cat.” Let’s find the right one and VOTE NO on this Referendum

Mr. Jacobs and his cronies in the Democratic Party ran and hid once Tom Suozzi lost the election to Ed Mangano.  They stood idly by while Kate Murray was allowed to murder the vision of the Lighthouse Project, they have offered NO alternative, but they now believe they have the moral high ground by screaming NO and proposing these ridiculous "solutions" that won't benefit anyone.

Mr. Jacobs, you and your party have had 2 years to propose something for the Coliseum.  You have not.

You had a viable private proposal that you allowed to die, and you are now claiming it was "too big."

You have no ideas, no vision, and nothing except partisanship.  Until you have something to add to the conversation, you deserve to be ignored.

Bottom Line

I'll be honest, I'm getting very nervous about the outcome on Monday, but all we can control is the turnout.  Let's get out there and vote, and spend the weekend educating our friends, neighbors, strangers, and enemies on why this is the right way forward for Nassau County.

This is our time.

2 days out.

Leave it on the ice and bring back a win!

PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS IN COMMENTS. EMAIL. TWITTER. FACEBOOK.

Goldilocks and the Three Fallacies

Please tune in tomorrow morning around 10 AM for a BIG announcement.  Until then, we have a lot to cover.

Charles Wang Media Blitz

Charles Wang has been out and about making his case for the new areener.

Last night, he was on FIOS 1.

This morning, PIX 11.

This afternoon, WFAN with Mike Francesa (though, as one person on Twitter pointed out, he should have ceded his time to let Jay Jacobs keep digging that hole). That audio link is not available yet; please check newyorkislanders.com for it.

Also, please stay tuned Friday as Mr. Wang is scheduled to be on Boomer & Carton in the morning, also on WFAN.

Jay Jacobs Embarrasses Himself Multiple Times

You probably already know that Jay Jacobs, head of the Democratic Party for both Nassau County and New York State, appeared on Mike Francesa this afternoon to voice his opposition to the new arena.  In a 12-minute long interview, Jacobs lied, obstructed, and stumbled his way to something I didn't think was possible.

He managed to take a perfectly reasonable position that people can support (no taxpayer money for a sports arena), in front of a host who has in the past come out dead-set against taxpayer money for sports facilities, and proceed to make a fool of himself.  I won't say anything more because his own words are far more damning.

In addition, Jacobs sent an email to all registered Democrats called "What do you buy for a billionaire?" that was obtained by Let There Be Light(house).  Jacobs continued to bash the plan in this mailer and included a Daily News editorial which bashed the project but said more than it intended to.

From the Daily News (and let's ignore the blatant factual mistakes for now):

The bottom line is that, while on the hook to repay the bonds even if Wang goes bankrupt, and being obligated to pay for heavy upkeep of the building, every taxpayer would have the privilege of spending $20 or so a year in order to enable Wang to enjoy gross annual revenues, by his own calculation, of $229 million. Absurd.

Here's the catch: Under these calculations, 11.5% on $229 million gross revenue would result in revenue-sharing of $26.34 million.....enough to cover the debt service.  Seriously, the Daily News cited numbers that would result in zero net cost to taxpayers to bash this as a bad deal for taxpayers....can't make this up.

The Three Fallacies

The main argument against the economic impact of losing Nassau Coliseum and the New York Islanders is that the numbers are not absolute.  In other words, money not spent on the Coliseum will enter the Nassau economy through other conduits.  It sounds reasonable, right?

Not so fast...

This is an argument based on three key assumptions:

Assumption 1: All attendees at Nassau Coliseum events are from Nassau County.

FALSE.  Even anecdotal evidence suggests that in many cases the majority of attendees to Nassau Coliseum events are from outside Nassau County.  Charles Wang said on Mike Francesa earlier today that only 30-40% of Islanders season ticket holders are residents of Nassau County, and I can't imagine the split is radically different for other events that are held in that arena.  It is simply wrong to assume that everyone who attends a game in Nassau Coliseum is from Nassau County, so it should not be considered sole property of the Nassau County economy.

Assumption 2: Entertainment Budgets Are Fixed.

FALSE. It is wrong to believe that people who hold season tickets for the Islanders or attend concerts at Nassau Coliseum are guaranteed to pay the same amount of money somewhere else in Nassau County if that arena was not there.  This leads me into the next assumption......

Assumption 3: Money not spent at Nassau Coliseum will be spent somewhere else in Nassau County.

FALSE.  This goes back to Assumption 1.  If all attendees at Nassau Coliseum are not from Nassau County, then the money those attendees would have spent in Nassau Coliseum is not guaranteed to be spent in Nassau County. There are 2 perfect quotes to illustrate this:

First, the caller to Mike Francesa who told Charles Wang he was an Islanders season ticket-holder from New Jersey who would have no reason to go to Nassau County if the team was not there.

Second, a brilliant quote Brian Compton from NHL.com said to sum this up: "It's not like 3,000 Canadiens fans will take buses down from Montreal to see a movie in Westbury."

People who attend Nassau Coliseum events are not guaranteed to follow the same spending habits.  I work and spend a lot of time in Manhattan, and if there are no Islanders games to attend I might go to a Broadway show (Book of Mormon was fantastic - I'd see it again) or a nice dinner during Restaurant Week.  I'm not guaranteed to spend money at Nassau Coliseum, and to assume the money spent there is simply "moving money around" from other streams in Nassau County is ludicrous and wrong.

Bottom Line


The intellectual dishonesty and faulty numbers exhibited by referendum opponents has really been something to behold.  Jay Jacobs making a fool of himself on WFAN earlier today did not help their cause, and we now have the ammo to counter these arguments should an opponent try to use them.

Stay tuned tomorrow for that BIG announcement, and look for Dave's "Arguing With An Arena Skeptic" series around Thursday.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS IN COMMENTS. EMAIL. TWITTER. FACEBOOK.

The Annual Airing of Grievances

Today is Festivus, the annual celebration in which you gather your loved ones around an aluminum pole, and tell them all the ways they have disappointed you in the past year.  I have decided to do my part, in the spirit of the season.  I have gotten the pole out of the crawl space, and I am ready to begin the Airing of Grievances, where I mention all the ways people connected to the Lighthouse Project have disappointed me in the past year.

I've got a lot of problems with you people, and now you're gonna hear about it!

Let's begin...

KRUGER! My son tells me your company STINKS....oh, right, wrong occasion...

Tom "The Broker" Suozzi deserves top billing for the needless destruction of his own political career.  Suozzi chose to ignore the storm around him and seemed to forget that running for a new term actually involved running.  Suozzi lost a very winnable election to upstart Ed Mangano* and his hopes for higher office are at least temporarily dashed. (* it's worth mentioning this space is a fan of Mangano's after my interview with him, and I am cautiously optimistic he will do a good job).

Kate Murray and the Town of Hempstead are a close second.  Whether fair or not, the Town has a reputation as a place that makes it difficult to conduct large developments and which seeks to defend a long-dead idea of suburbia.  The Town has moved the Lighthouse process along at record time (for it), but there are many opportunities for improvement.  The phony stimulus drive, the fake petition, and the constant game-playing that characterized most of the early spring and summer likely cost valuable months in the process, and it has helped to engender unnecessary ill will.

Joe Mondello may have gotten the last laugh during the elections, but his ridiculous and childish insults hurled at citizen Joe Conte during Kate Murray's kickoff rally showed how out of touch and seemingly surprised the entrenched machine was at being questioned.  It was one in a series of events that led Mr. Mondello to be stripped of his chairmanship of the New York Republican Party, and with a victory under his belt he is almost certain to retire in 2010.  And now, I can never look at Joe Conte again without thinking "Blow it out your dufflebag!"

Speaking of the election, the "voters" who barely bothered to turn out deserve mention here.  Here's a little hint: if you want things to get better, you can participate in the process rather than sit on the sidelines hurling stones.

Jay Jacobs, whose hold on power in the Nassau County and New York Democratic Party is now on shaky ground, should be called out as well.  He ceded what could have been a very winnable Town of Hempstead election by nominating a candidate who, through health issues and personal decision, only campaigned for the last month of the election.  Old friend Joe Conte did an admirable job here, but there was no way he could have saved this situation.

The Lighthouse Project, which made so many intelligent moves throughout this process, has been playing a weird kind of defense the past 2 months.  I've already shared my belief on why the media blackout needs to end, so I will not repeat myself here.  I will say that the Lighthouse's refusal to engage the public after the Long Island Press report that the project was dead has given supporters a case of nerves and ceded the debate to people who believe the project is dead or wish to kill it.  To make matters worse, the project has now once again ceased payments to environmental consultants F.P. Clark, halting the review they themselves claimed needed to be done with all haste.

Frederick P. Clark Associates should not be off the hook either - they are known to be very close to the Town of Hempstead, and their work has at times been questioned.  Given their actions, such as stopping work without notification during the first billing dispute, and the fact that there are few developers lining up with such lucrative work, you still have to ask if they have any motivation to speed the process along.

Al D'Amato, probably the biggest reason Charles Wang purchased the New York Islanders to begin with, was known to be pulling the strings in the past, and he and other high-profile Republicans have been noticeably silent.  With other developers such as David Mack moving money to Ed Mangano, I think it's worth asking why.

There is a special horror reserved for the mainstream media, whose coverage of this event (save for a few quality writers and investigative reporters) has been nothing short of embarrassing.  The latest example came today, when a certain newspaper cited "sources" discussing the issue of the Lighthouse Project stopping payments to F.P. Clark, the Town's environmental consultancy.  If that sounds familiar, it's because B.D. Gallof broke the story 12 days ago on Hockey Independent, and I have written two pieces about it since.  Given the resources, and the known talent of certain people who work at these papers, there is no reason bloggers who do this in their spare time should be consistently winning the coverage battle against such mainstream outlets.  This is only the most important Island-wide issue since Levittown; there is no reason to actually cover it as such...(sorry for the sarcasm)

I also have to call out short-sighted citizens, on either side.  This has been a drawn-out issue, and in many instances things have changed seemingly on a dime (or an opinion poll...).  It is both incorrect and irresponsible to base your entire opinion on this process based on the last thing any blogger writes, especially since this is an issue that will require solidarity if we truly wish to see it happen.  Please trust your ability to think and understand that the current status is something beyond the last article you read.

Now, as Festivus Rolls On...

We come to the Feats of Strength.  Maybe we should cede this one to the principals who will be in charge of this as the new year dawns: Charles Wang and Kate Murray.  It might be an interesting method: until Mr. Wang pins the Supervisor, the Lighthouse is not approved! I'd pay to watch that....but I think the real solution is simpler.  When both sides eschew the game-playing and once again work in good faith toward a resolution (look for that to happen roughly .24 seconds after Ed Mangano takes office as County Executive), then we will hopefully see closure.

Let's hope the actual approval of this project would require a little less than a Festivus Miracle.

Feel free to add your own grievances.

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

Related articles by Zemanta

• When Party Lines Divide Newcomer and Native (nytimes.com)
• THE SUMMER OF LIGHTHOUSE LOVE IS OVERNow let's see how the developers react on Oct. 3 (islanderspointblank.com)