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.

Guest Blog: Charles Wang's Responsibility

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

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

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

With that, here's Joe:

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

by Joe Conte

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we nearing the end?

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

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

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

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


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

Please share your 

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

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)

A Dose of Reality

I know I have been falling down on the job lately with posting, but with the project in the doldrums and other projects of mine requiring a lot of my attention, it's been difficult to find the time to write.  As I've said before, I've never been someone to write when I have nothing to say.  However, I want to talk briefly about a short piece that appeared in the business section of today's Newsday (I'd link to it, but their site is being moody, and most of you wouldn't be able to see it behind the ridiculous paywall).  Dee Karl from Hockeybuzz had a blistering take on the piece this morning, and while I do not like the piece, I want to take a different tactic.

The article, entitled "Slippery Surface for Islanders," paints a dire picture of a franchise that is losing value and about which nobody seems to care.  I will say first off that the writer did not present a full picture of the Islanders' financial situation.  The writer cites a 3%, or $5.6 million, drop in the team's value in 2009 as compared to 2008.  The team is now valued at $149 million, $46 million less than Charles Wang paid for the franchise in 2000 (in absolute numbers, not counting for inflation), and, as the paper made sure to mention, "third from the bottom" in the league.

The picture is not pretty, but there are pieces left out.  The author does not mention that 14 of the 30 National Hockey League franchises lost value in the past year, largely as a result of the bad economy.  In addition, the author also forgets to mention that, percentage-wise, 7 teams lost more value than the Islanders (including the Colorado Avalanche, whose value plummeted 11% after a disappointing season).

The author then hits all the tired buzzwords that fans of the Islanders are so used to hearing, including the attendance that's been as low as 6,000 on weekday games.  He also falsely accuses Mr. Wang of threatening to move the Islanders to Kansas City if the Lighthouse Project is not approved.  It's true that the owner has promised to "explore other options," but there is not an active threat to move the team to any specific location.

There is also a quote from John Meindl, president of Sportsbrandedmedia, a sports marketing company in Rockville Centre, that hits at the crux of the issue.  Mr. Meindl claimed Long Island lost its love affair with the Islanders shortly after the dynasty in the early 1980's, saying that, if the Islanders left, "there wouldn't be a lot of sleepless nights."

I had a visceral reaction to this at first, but, in all honesty, you can't blame Mr. Meindl for drawing such a conclusion.  Let's take a look at a few specific issues:

• 2 weeks ago, an election that will largely determine the fate of the Lighthouse Project was held.  Turnout was pathetically low, the Lighthouse was not a galvanizing issue, and project supporters did not play a key role in any races.
• The New York Islanders are showing signs of life, yet fans still do not go to games.
• Time and again, including the example of the Hartford Whalers, teams have moved, and high-level politicians have not paid for it with their jobs.
• Now that the project has hit a rough patch, people are rightly clamoring for another event, such as a rally.  To be honest, I don't want to schedule any kind of a rally unless there's an assurance people will come.
  

This is the key question: How can we expect to be given respect if we don't act in a way that demands it?

Bottom Line

If we want to be taken seriously, and if we want the Lighthouse Project to happen, we can't sit back and wait for people to take us seriously.  We got this process moving along, and we made the Town of Hempstead take notice, because we organized and positively advocated for the project.  We can't sit back now when there is still so much left to do.

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

Related articles by Zemanta

• TWELVE REASONS FOR THE RISINGThe Islanders didn't get to 8-6-7 by accident (islanderspointblank.com)
• Rookie sensation Tavares changing Isles fortunes (cbssports.com)

Nassau County, Increase Your Role

Image via Wikipedia

If the Lighthouse Project is to progress to ultimate approval, Nassau County must begin to increase its role. This post was previously planned and by complete coincidence comes on the same day that Chris Botta reports rumors that the long-awaited lease between the Lighthouse Development Group and Nassau County will be announced some time this week.

Out Clause

Reader BR remembered whispers about 7 months ago of an out clause in the Islanders' lease agreement, and he is correct. According to Charles Wang, the Lighthouse and the County reached an agreement in 2007 that provides the New York Islanders with an out clause in their lease with Nassau County, currently scheduled to expire in 2015. However, the out clause puts the onus solely on Nassau County and has nothing to do with the ongoing re-zoning negotiations with the Town of Hempstead. According to the out clause, as is my understanding, the Nassau County Legislature has 120 days to approve the new lease agreement after Tom Suozzi submits the agreement. If approval does not occur by then, the Islanders' lease is considered null and void.

Most of this lease is not news to people, and it has in fact been largely complete for months. This is largely a timing play given that Mr. Wang's October 3 deadline is now a week away, and it puts full pressure on the Town of Hempstead to see the process to completion.

What I'm saying is just speculation right now. As readers have pointed out, re-zoning approval has to happen before any use of the land (and the lease) can commence. However, there are ways to get around this: there could be an agreement with certain conditionals in it, such as becoming void without re-zoning, or terms that are invoked based on what the Town of Hempstead approves. I am working on getting some information, and I will report whatever I find.

Nassau County Then

Our friend NYI Fan Central has asked many times why Tom Suozzi seemed to get a free pass when discussing the happenings around the Lighthouse. I did not want to go too deeply into those issues at the time, because I didn't think it would be valuable to look backward when so much had to be done going forward. However, as I learned more about the process, I realized Fan Central had a very good point, and let's have this discussion now. As we recall, the Lighthouse Project was originally unveiled in September 2004 (about 5 years ago right now - I remember because I did a research paper on it for a class that semester - wow, was still in school back then...), and the Town of Hempstead only got the re-zoning application in late 2007 (even though they keep saying early 2008). Let's take a look at the long and winding road that got us to this point - I've put together a rough sequence of events to help out:

• Project is Proposed - Suozzi signs Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Charles Wang for the newly-christened Lighthouse Project, the proposed "downtown of Long Island"
• The project is shockingly free of politics at first, though many in the usual crowd fixate on the proposed 60-story tower
• 2005 campaign season starts off with a bang, as former Sen. Al D'Amato (also a former Computer Associates board member and the man who talked Charles Wang into purchasing the Islanders) fires a broadside and characterizes the Lighthouse as turning Nassau County into the "6th Borough." Gregory Peterson, running for Nassau County Executive, makes opposition to the Lighthouse a centerpiece of his campaign (Source - by the way, this investigative piece was very good, and you should all take a look)
• The race guarantees nothing will be done until after Election Day (even though Tom Suozzi ended up winning in a blowout)
  
• After Tom Suozzi wins, he soon decides he wants to run for governor
• Lighthouse MOU is scrapped and thrown into a competitive bidding process
• Lighthouse Project, with new partner Scott Rechler, wins the right to develop the land (though any Islanders-centric development would need to go to the team's owner...)
• Project's size and scope increased to reflect new scale of development
• Re-zoning application submitted to the Town of Hempstead

It suddenly becomes pretty clear how it took so long to get from where we were to where we are now. Hopefully, this will include lessons for both current and future developers.

Image via Wikipedia

Nassau County Now

The Town of Hempstead has a much more prominent role in the recent life of the Lighthouse because they are serving as Lead Agency for the environmental review and because they control zoning for the Lighthouse site. The County has, since June, largely stayed out of the process in public except to speak in favor at a meeting or to mention the impending deadline in the media. The County, when asked, deferred to the Town because they did not want to interfere with the Town's power throughout this process. That is a good and noble ideal, but there is still more the County could be doing to help the Lighthouse cause right now.

For example, Nassau County could be out there promoting the economic need for the Lighthouse. We saw so many residents on Tuesday try to have it both ways, saying they were in favor of a new Coliseum but against the development around the site. As we know, the whole concept of the Lighthouse came about because the County was unable to provide any public money for the construction of a new Coliseum (and I'm OK with that - I don't believe taxpayers should be shouldering the full burden of stadium/arena costs). I've proven conclusively that a privately-financed Coliseum does not work unless there is development around the area and the arena is used as, for lack of a better term, a loss leader. So many people still do not understand this, and the County should make very clear that this is both a) necessary, and b) the County's desired use for land it owns.

The County could also be taking a more active role in addressing opponents' concerns and allaying the fears of citizens who believe one of the many lies about the project. For example, there are still many residents who fear the impact of traffic (and it should be studied), and the use of natural resources such as water. The Nassau County Department of Public Works has endorsed the project and its proposed mitigation efforts, and many people did not know this until the Tuesday hearing. This could help residents who are worried about negative impact to the environment. In the same vein, Nassau County does not talk that much about specifics even though the Lighthouse is the centerpiece of Tom Suozzi's vision for a new suburbia. Our own loyal reader TheMetalChick shared her encounter with Uniondale residents who were concerned the Lighthouse would take their homes through eminent domain, when no such plans exist. The County should be doing more to get the basic facts about the project, in order to supplement the fantastic community outreach that the Lighthouse has done, almost from the beginning.

I have never doubted Nassau County's commitment to this process, but they should be more vocal as both the originating agency and the landowner. It is irresponsible to leave the Town and the Lighthouse to hash out the details, and I hope Tom Suozzi and the Legislature do not believe their work is over as soon as a lease is approved. Nobody's work is over until there are shovels in the ground.

Bottom Line

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The Lighthouse Project is one that has implications across Long Island, from Manhasset to Montauk, and its ultimate fate will shape our destiny for generations to come. We all know there are certain powers reserved for the Town with which the County cannot interfere, but that does not mean the County should not be involved when it makes sense to be involved. There are many opportunities for the County to be out there educating residents on why this both a good idea and a necessary piece of Long Island's future (if, that is, we'd like to have a future). Nassau County owns the land and originally planted the seeds for the Lighthouse, and they must fulfill their role so the seed can soon sprout into a bright new day for our home.

Thankfully, the real crunch time is coming now. Nassau County must step up and include itself in the process to make sure that its vision for a new suburbia does not turn into a twisted nightmare. We cannot undo the countless mistakes that have been made in the past, but we can surely stop making mistakes going forward. Past failure is not an excuse to fail now, and the Lighthouse must be seen through to completion by all relevant agencies.

Please share your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email Me. Follow me on Twitter.

Related articles by Zemanta

• LIGHTHOUSE LEASE TO BE ANNOUNCED NEXT WEEKCounty deal done, Lighthouse fate is up to ToH (islanderspointblank.com)

The Lie Du Jour

Old habits and old attitudes die hard. The NIMBY mentality has run Long Island for decades, and you would not expect those people to give up their perch without a fight just because the Lighthouse Project is on the agenda.

The opposition to the Lighthouse Project has not, so far, been organized, but their tactics have been insidious. People with an agenda and their enablers in the media have pushed these lies as if they are fact every chance they get.

First, Lighthouse supporters were dismissed as "just" Islanders fans, as if a group of Long Islanders could not stand for progress unless they are guided by blind loyalty to a hockey team.

When it became clear that people realized this was for Long Islanders, not just the Islanders, the talking points shifted. How, people claimed Lighthouse supporters were blindly in favor and did not know any specifics, another insulting position that falsely assumes that only a certain side of a debate is using its head.

As Lighthouse supporters made clear, at public meetings and on blogs like this one, that they knew exactly what was going on, opponents shifted tactics once again. Now, they claimed Charles Wang was paying us, as if some unseen cosmic force ordained all Lighthouse opponents as principled citizens and relegated all supporters to little more than paid dupes. We most famously saw this in May, when state GOP Chairman Joseph Mondello told Lighthouse Supporter Joe Conte to "blow it out [his] dufflebag" and suggested Mr. Conte was being paid by Charles Wang because he had the nerve to show up to a public event and let his voice be heard.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

As hearing after hearing came and went with overwhelming support for the Lighthouse - at least 90% present were in favor at each event - skeptics began to sing a new refrain: wait until the public hearing.



Now that we know how that turned out, the lie du jour has been revealed: Lighthouse supporters don't live in the Town of Hempstead; most TOH residents oppose it.

The Public Comments

Astute reader mrlbem asked the right question in yesterday's piece, when I reported that, according to Town of Hempstead figures, 503 comments favored the Lighthouse, 322 opposed it, and 4 were unclear (no, I don't know what the "Unclear" comments looked like either). mrlbem is absolutely correct that this is a much lower percentage of support than we have seen at any of the public hearings, and we should wonder if there is some kind of silent opposition that is afraid to show itself in public.

In my honest opinion, I don't see it at this point. We know the NIMBY history of Long Island in the last few decades, and we realize that the Lighthouse Project is on a scale that has been, to this point, unheard of on Long Island. Given that history, and my knowledge of the SEQR process, I feel pretty confident in saying that these sort of public comments periods attract only the most ardent supporters and the most ardent opponents. In addition - I can't imagine this sort of project attracts lukewarm opposition; in my view, most people either support it, conditionally support it, or are dead-set against it (this is not a catch-all - our friend NYI Fan has admitted the Lighthouse could be a catalyst for the area if the traffic situation is solved - I agree).

Despite all this, 60% of comments were still in favor, and this doesn't account for the overwhelming support seen in person at the public hearing, which is also part of the public record. This looks pretty good for us.

The Article

Despite this, yet another article appeared in Newsday that appeared to go out of its way to play a different angle. It was written by the same reporter who passed along the news of Kate Murray's stimulus "offer" with a non-critical eye and who sought out the only 3 people wearing Islanders gear at the February hearing to interview, on-camera.

The article pushes the meme that Lighthouse supporters mostly live outside the Town of Hempstead, while a small majority within the Town oppose it. The piece relies on two samples: a look through the first 200 comments, in which opponents outnumbered supporters, 59-57, within the Town of Hempstead, and another random sample of 65 letters from supporters, in which 38 came from "out-of-towners."

The article also discusses letters from opponents, highlighting one opponent from Garden City who used words like "tremendous," "gargantuan," and "impossible" to discuss issues like the size of the project and traffic - without mentioning any of the arguments from supporters.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The premise of this argument is flawed from the beginning. First of all, it is crazy to assume that people from all over Long Island and, indeed, the world would not be interested in the first true suburban "game-changer" since Levittown. James Castellane, who leads the Nassau-Suffolk Building Trades commission, says that the construction trade unions on Long Island have 35% unemployment; those workers, no matter where they live, are interested in a project that will bring jobs and investment. Businesses who may want to locate offices or retail stores at the Lighthouse - thus creating jobs - have every right to care about what is going on. People who do not currently live in the Town of Hempstead but who would want to live or work at the future site also have a right to make their voices heard.

Long Island has for too long been limited by parochial thinking, in which villages act independently of each other without an eye toward doing something as a whole. That same thinking must not be allowed to poison the current debate surrounding the Lighthouse Project.

Second - the "sample." A random sample of what amounts to less than 300 comments does not and cannot tell the full story. The author did not share her methodology for picking these letters; it could have been just as easy to pick 65 support letters that were overwhelmingly from Town of Hempstead residents. In addition, there are important pieces to this discussion the author left out:

• Every comment made at the public hearing is added to the public record. At the hearing, most speakers were Town of Hempstead residents, and the turnout was overwhelmingly positive.
• Charles Wang, during his opening address, unveiled 15,000 letters - all from supporters - that were added to the public record. Many of these letters came from Town of Hempstead residents, and counting this figure would undoubtedly tip the scales in our favor.
• The public comment period is supposed to have the most bearing on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), but it is not the only measure of support. Don't for one second think the Town of Hempstead is now ignoring the huge favorable turnout at all the Lighthouse hearings because of a random sampling of letters as part of one step in the process.
• The issue of ardent supporters from earlier is very telling. In my immediate family, there are 6 voters, all of whom support the Lighthouse and live within the Town of Hempstead. Only 2 - including me - sent in comments. This likely played out in many other families as well, though I imagine opponents took every opportunity.
  

Next, I need to address the framing of this debate. The author goes out of her way to discuss issues like traffic and water quality, and she mentions a letter from an opponent that used words like "impossible" to describe the issues surrounding the Lighthouse. There is no mention of the comments from agencies like the New York State Department of Transportation, which, as part of the public comments period, was required to give its opinion on traffic, or the Nassau County Department of Public Works, which can do the same. According to the official Lighthouse Project blog, these agencies support the Lighthouse Project's methodology and findings, and I have not found any information that would contradict this. Given the importance of these issues, the reporter should have taken steps to include comments from those relevant agencies in the article.

The most troubling sign? This has previously been a Town of Hempstead talking point, as a TOH insider told my friend BD Gallof months ago that the Town noticed many of the check-in cards at Lighthouse meetings came from Suffolk County residents. To have this point mentioned now, using a clearly flawed methodology, must raise serious questions.

Bottom Line

Image via Wikipedia

The Lighthouse Project is a pivotal point in the history of Long Island, and it will shape our destiny for generations to come, whether or not it is approved. It is therefore insane to let the debate fall into innuendo, half-truths, and questionable methodologies. It is just as misguided to see this as a "Town of Hempstead issue" rather than what it is, a Long Island issue, and, in some instances, a national issue. Therefore, I am very sad to see that too many people reporting on this issue are treating it as if it is the Bellmore Army Base.

In the same vein, I am disturbed that certain people with an agenda seem to be going out of their way to give the opposition equal air time when it has been proven time and again that those citizens are a minority.

To me, it begs the question: At what point do you stop trying to appease opponents that have yet to show up in an organized way? When do you concentrate on the citizens who have overwhelmingly supported the Lighthouse and who are determined to not repeat the mistakes of the past?

If you are in the media, and you have an agenda, please say so in an open, honest way. Your responsibility comes from reporting the full story, and that does not mean reaching for negative stories about a widely-supported project in pursuit of some dictum of balance. The media's responsibility is to report the facts, not to play referee between two points of view, regardless of how divorced from reality one or both of those points of view may be.

Over 60% of the public comments submitted supported the Lighthouse, and that does not count the 15,000 letters and thousands of citizens who have shown up to the public hearings and rallies to make their voices heard. To write a piece like this, which again seeks to de-legitimize us, is an insulting reach.

What can we do? We can continue to stand up and combat the Lie du Jour, like all the previous false memes. Those with an agenda and their enablers in the media have been pushing lines about us since the Lighthouse was first conceived, and nothing has been able to stick. We must continue to positively advocate for what we know is right for our home, and we must not be afraid to stand up as one to defend these positions.

Please share your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email Me. Follow me on Twitter.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Live Blog: August 4th, 2009 Lighthouse Public Hearing (islesofficialsoutlook.blogspot.com)
• "THE NYI CAN GROW AND BE CHAMPIONS AGAIN"The Point Blank address before the ToH Board (islanderspointblank.com)
• AUGUST 4th: Where Will You Be On The Most Important Day in NY Islanders History? (islandersindependent.com)
• The Commish comes to Uniondale (7thwoman.blogspot.com)