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.

Rock The Referendum: A Special Get Out The Vote Contest

Attention all people who care about the referendum, regardless of whether you live in Nassau County: You've been asking how we can help, and here it is!  Let's tip the scales!

In association with Joe Conte, an associate at Gotham Government Relations & Communications, four Islanders bloggers have come together to present a contest to Rock the Referendum.

Whether or not you live in New York, we hope that all of our readers participate.

The goal: to entice Islanders fans to enlist as many Nassau resident non-Islanders fans to vote on Aug. 1st.

The prize: 5 winners will each receive personalized Islanders jerseys, plus all five winners and a guest will enjoy a pre-game dinner with the writers and seats in a luxury suite at an Islanders game during the upcoming season. (The suite has been donated by blog sponsors and the jerseys by Gotham).

In addition, every reader who enlists at least 20 voters will be personally acknowledged on all four Islanders blogs.

Here’s how the contest works:

All fans interested in participating in the contest must send an email HERE by 6 PM on Friday (but the sooner the better!)  The email must include name, address, phone number, and preferred contact email.

Once received, you will be invited to join a folder shared by only you and the administrators of the contest.  In that folder will be an excel spreadsheet.  On that sheet, you are to enter in the name and city and state of everyone person you personally contact to vote.  If that person votes, you get credit.  We will check everyone's database with the voting record from August 1st.  While this is tedious and time consuming, as far as we are concerned the more work we have to do the better.  The contest ends when the polls close Monday at 9 PM. In other words, you have the next six days to line up as many Nassau voters as you can.

Our solemn vow: Your information will only be utilized for this effort for the purpose of monitoring the contest. It will not be shared with anyone else.

Remember, once again: the one way this initiative truly moves the needle is if readers make the effort to sign up non-Islanders fans. We sincerely hope all of our readers take part and together we can make a significant impact.

If you have any questions, email Joe Conte at help.islesfanvotecontest@gmail.com

Also follow @GothamGR on Twitter where Joe will be updating everyone as to the progress we are making, such as how many people signed up, number of names in the leading vote-getters, etc.

We can tip the scales.  Let's do this!

Your Participating bloggers:
B. D. Gallof, Hockey Independent
Nick Giglia, Let There Be Light(house)
Dominik Jansky, Lighthouse Hockey
Chris Botta, Islanders Point Blank

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.

There is Only One Answer: A Formal Endorsement on the Arena Referendum

(Warning: This is a long one, and not my usual tone.  No jokes, no "areener," nothing but an impassioned plea to Nassau County's electorate.  I've sent this to every newspaper on Long Island as well)

I want to share a story with you that frames my thoughts about this referendum and where my endorsement will fall.

I was in the middle of a business trip to San Francisco in February of this year, waiting to meet a dear friend for dinner outside an Indian restaurant in Lower Pacific Heights. Multiple groups of people - maybe about 10 - passed by me as I leaned against the brick wall of the restaurant.  I couldn't hear their whole conversation, but what I picked up was unmistakable.  Every group was talking about doing a startup in San Francisco with that almost naive optimism that comes from someone convinced their idea will change the world (I'm infected with it myself; I'd know it anywhere).

I was struck by this experience all throughout a lovely dinner, and in the post-dinner conversation my friend startled me.  Out of nowhere, she asked me what ever came of "that arena thing I blogged about a couple of years ago" - did we win, or lose?

Stopping and casting my gaze downward, I mumbled "We lost."

She surprised me further by looking at me and saying, in a tone that suggested both shock and exasperation, "Why?! It seemed like a perfect deal!"

That's a question, isn't it?  I had never dwelt on the dead Lighthouse Project for long enough to come up with a pithy synthesis of what had happened.  Suddenly, out of nowhere, I had a moment of perfect clarity, and blurted this out:

"Because there are people who would let Long Island sink into the ocean, while they sat on their decks and preened to nobody in particular about what a great place Long Island is."

I think my friend was as startled to hear this line as I was to have said it, and it prompted a deeper conversation on the mindset and belief system that was the Lighthouse Project's undoing.  I was almost exasperated that I wasn't getting through to her, until I had another moment of perfect clarity.

She doesn't understand.


She can't understand.


That world, and that mindset, are foreign to someone born and raised, as she was, in the go-go, can-do world of the Bay Area, a world where dreams come true for young entrepreneurs practically every day.

But that world, and that mindset, have given rise to a hideous disease that has taken control of Long Island's very soul.  The region that gave birth to the entire concept of a suburban life and symbolized the can-do optimism of post-World War II America has become a time capsule, frozen in time by its own self-defeatist ethos.  Grand visions are not welcome here anymore, and any attempt to re-set this once-runaway train that now has its emergency brake permanently on  are crushed and broken under a misguided ideology that wafts to the heavens like a terrible prayer: "This is Suburbia."

Long Island has been in a crisis for many years.  The region Charles Lindbergh carried with him across the Atlantic, that came to epitomize the ideal in American life of a suburban house with a white-picket fence, that left a piece of itself on the moon with the Grumman-designed Lunar Module, lost its identity somewhere along the way and now defines itself by what it isn't.

"We are not the city."

"We are not for young people or renters."

"We do not want to be a 6th borough."

"We do not welcome big ideas."

Residents constantly complain about issues such as choking property tax rates, yet they continue to elect and re-elect the same venal politicians who provide lip service to these issues while continuing to support and expand the very system that perpetuates them.  Partisan hackery has taken the place of true statesmanship and a willingness to band together for the common good.

Even the area's only remaining professional sports team, the New York Islanders, are an accidental team playing in an accidental arena.  The Islanders exist wholly because Nassau County wanted to keep the upstart WHA out of the soon-to-be-built Nassau Coliseum, and the NHL was all too willing to oblige.  Therefore, after a territorial invasion fee of $4 million to the New York Rangers, the Islanders opened play in 1972 in the brand-new Nassau Coliseum.

The Coliseum itself is a compromise and an accident that became obsolete minutes after the ribbon was cut.  County Executive Nickerson, who envisioned a county-wide destination on that land ever since it was ceded to the county by the Kennedy Administration in 1962, was rebuffed in his efforts to build a 20,000 seat arena with an underground station for the Long Island Rail Road.  Some undoubtedly assumed the Islanders were a placeholder and would leave the area as a distant memory once the WHA folded and a major metropolitan area came calling.

Then, on May 24, 1980, a funny thing happened on the way to obscurity.

Tonelli.

To Nystrom.

Score!

Stanley Cup Champions!

Three additional championships later, the Islanders were here to stay, and discussions about replacing Nassau Coliseum began shortly after the 4th banner was raised to its already-aging rafters.  In fact, to illustrate how truly absurd this situation has become, just imagine a new arena had been built in the mid-1980s after the Dynasty.  The time to replace THAT building would be drawing near.

The team has not had similar success in recent years, but it is still a part of all of us, possibly even moreso for me.  You see, I began following hockey in 1992 as a young boy, and I was so excited when David Volek scored his overtime winner to eliminate the two-time defending champion Penguins that I ran upstairs to tell my parents, tripped on our living room carpet, and tore a gash above my left knee by hitting the corner of our coffee table.  That scar, and the Islanders, are a part of me forever, and this team has for too long been used by both sides of the aisle as a political football instead of a symbol for Long Island and a $250 million per year economic engine for Nassau County.  For too long, fans have been talking about NIFA, supermajorities, and Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statements instead of Tavares, Streit, Strome, and Niederreiter.

I can't deny my passion, but this issue is bigger than merely a hockey team.  It goes beyond politics.  It is about a grander vision for what Long Island will be in the future, and that is why I urge you to vote YES on the new arena Monday, August 1.

I and many others wished the Lighthouse Project could become our shining utopia, but as we know, "utopia" has 2 roots in classical Greek, one meaning "the good place," and the other meaning "the place that cannot be."  The Lighthouse Project was our "good place," but political jockeying and the feelings I outlined in the beginning turned it into the "place that cannot be."

This referendum must not be considered against a now-dead development proposal; it must be weighed against the cost of doing nothing.

Independent reviews have cut through the scare tactics and presented us with a stark choice.  For example, the Office of Legislative and Budget Review pegs the cost of a new arena at a maximum of $13.80 per household per year.

The cost of doing nothing and losing the Islanders and Nassau Coliseum?  $16 per household per year, with $243 million and 2,660 jobs projected to disappear from the Nassau County economy should the team move and the arena be shuttered.  When presented with that choice, how can you choose nothing over something?

I do not believe this arena will be a cure-all for Long Island's problems, but it can serve as the first step in an admittedly long journey.  This decision can lead to other good decisions and smart ideas that will define how Nassau County chooses to be suburbia in the 21st Century.  That is the world I choose to believe in.

Voters will be faced with a stark choice when they go to the polls on Monday, August 1.  They can continue the defeatist woe-is-me that has infected this island, all under that poisonous rallying cry of "This is Suburbia," or they can stand up and say enough is enough.

I say enough is enough.

I choose to stand for building something instead of tearing it down.

I choose to stand for optimism instead of pessimism.

I choose to believe Long Island can be better than it is now.

I choose to believe one good decision can lead to others.

The choice is clear: Please vote August 1, and I urge you to vote yes.  For Long Islanders, not the New York Islanders.  For citizens, not for Democrats or Republicans.  For what Long Island can be, not for what it was.  For the belief that our best days can still be ahead and we can choose to stand for something, rather than falling for everything.

We, at this time, at this moment, can stand up and break the cycle that has gripped Long Island for generations, and help set us on a path that will hopefully result in our children being as mystified by the self-defeatist ideology as my friend in San Francisco.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your time.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS IN 

COMMENTS. EMAIL. TWITTER. FACEBOOK.

A Tale of 2 Headlines (Plus, More Reports and What We Can Do)

Dave knocked it out of the park with a fantastic review of the lease between Nassau County and Charles Wang's Arenaco LLC, but right now we have a few other things to get to.

First - What We Can Do

The areener referendum is vastly different from the Lighthouse process because the special election affords us knowledge of exactly what we can do and how to do it.

Letters to the Editor are a great way to get our opinions out into a more general audience (everyone remembers my very famous letter to the editor from 2 years ago....), and the Islanders have taken the liberty of putting together an easy primer to help you get your letter to the right person.  As always, feel free to shoot an email if you'd like a proofread of your letter.

In addition, I've talked to a few people, and I want to get your opinion on this.  Would you be willing to phone bank and make calls to people in Nassau who've purchased tickets at Nassau Coliseum to drive up yes votes?  I mentioned it to some people but want to gauge interest.

Don't Fear the Areener

This coming Wednesday, July 27, at 4 PM, there is a big outdoor rally at Nassau Coliseum to support the areener.  Blue Oyster Cult will be playing a free concert, though it's unclear who will be playing cowbell (I'd like to volunteer).

In fact, I had a Twitter discussion on Friday...we should bring a sea of cowbells to support the referendum.  Cowbell up!

A Tale of Two Headlines


On Thursday, County Comptroller George Maragos released his report (separate from the OLBR report, which had another interesting tidbit in there that I'll get to later) on the areener situation.

Maragos' report is overall positive, and he makes common-sense requests that, if done, would make it "a good deal" in his estimation.

First, Maragos wants Charles Wang to be responsible for any cost overruns, as he fears the areener will cost more than the allotted $350 million (as Dave pointed out, this is already written into the lease, and people I've spoken to who are close to Charles Wang see no issue with doing this).

Second, George Maragos expressed concerns that "Arenaco LLC," which Charles Wang recently incorporated to manage the new areener, is a shell corporation with no assets of its own.  Maragos believes it is important for Wang and the Islanders to guarantee the payments for which Arenaco is responsible, in order to provide the highest level of protection for taxpayers.

Third, Maragos noted that the current lease deal gives Charles Wang development rights on the property and suggests an RFP (again).

In addition, Maragos mentioned the Camoin report and the OLBR report, both of which were highly positive on the areener, saying the numbers were optimistic but not unrealistic at all.  That's an important step as it once again validates the studies we've seen.  In fact, the OLBR report, which suggested that the areener could cost taxpayers $13.80 a year, also suggested the maximum exposure (if there is no lockbox and revenues are not used to offset new taxes) is $51.50, not the originally-calculated $58.

It's important to realize 2 major things about the Maragos report: He is not asking for anything unreasonable, and many of the changes he suggests are actively being negotiated.  For the first time since the Democrats launched their anti-areener campaign (and don't kid yourselves - Jay Jacobs penned the "Vote No" op-ed in the Herald this week), I see a path to this being built (assuming passage).

Quick Aside


2 more very fascinating numbers came out of the Camoin Associates report that was prepared for Nassau County.  The report was more optimistic than the OLBR report, stating that if the revenue projections, which Maragos has called "optimistic but not unreasonable," pan out, residents could see a tax SAVINGS of $26.81 per household per year.

In addition, we finally have a quantification on the cost of doing nothing: $16 per household per year.

It's important to note that this report only looks at tax revenue, and not the overall impact on jobs and the economy (which was already pegged at 2,660 jobs lost and $243 million lost from the economy every year).  Residents are faced with a truly stark decision:

$13.80 (assuming a lockbox), or tax savings....for something.

or

$16 for nothing.

Let's get the word out and make sure Long Island makes the right choice.

Fun With Headlines

Now, here's where the fun starts.  Newsday originally posted an article about the Maragos report with this headline:

Both Dave and I had been ratcheting up criticism on Twitter, and we were heartened to see the $13.80 was finally covered.  This seemed like an even better step forward in terms of framing of the issue.

Then, later in the night, the headline was changed:

And to make matters more interesting, the article itself was re-written to sound more negative, including quotes from Desmond Ryan (who finally exposed himself as wanting the development rights for his cronies, which I've been saying all along was the source of his vicious opposition to this project that he didn't have the guts to declare to Chris Botta back in May).

I and many others were naturally outraged, and we started hammering with more criticism of the framing of this issue.  That's where this gets interesting...

They changed it back.

Either way, we have had a good few days for the areener, including major endorsements from unions.  I don't blame the County workers' union for endorsing but not explicitly instructing members to vote yes because the County recently cut jobs and he's in a tough position between management and the rank and file workers.  I'm fine to give that a pass.

Let this be a lesson: pressure does work if it's coordinated and based on fact.

Moving Forward


Expect a formal endorsement of a voting position on Sunday morning, and an announcement of my plans for Election Day on Monday.  I'm also planning a look at 3 huge logical fallacies underpinning reports that the Islanders leaving and Nassau Coliseum shutting its doors will not have that bad an effect on the economy.  Dave will continue his amazing series of deep dives into the documents and reports, and we hope to have some great information for you.

Bottom Line


The vote is 9 days away.

Last stand at the OK Corral.

As Chris Botta reported, the "concerned citizens" of the Association for a Better Long Island are sharpening their knives, ready to release a media barrage blasting this plan to high heaven (Ironically - go look at their web site....there's still a Lighthouse Project rendering in the flash montage at the beginning of the site).  Polls are due to come out over the next several days (also according to Botta), and despite my previous insistence that polls are untrustworthy, they will show the vote to be close.  I wouldn't at all be surprised if one poll said the No votes were in the lead.  We've seen vandalism of Vote Yes signs (reader Scott says signs he put up in Levittown were vandalized, and I had a Vote Yes sign stolen off my lawn), so please do not kid yourselves.  The opposition exists.

However, there's a bigger truth, like my friends at The Community Alliance love to say: The only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.

As I've said before, let's leave it all on the ice and let everyone know that we will fight to the end.  We can't take this or anything for granted in terms of the vote.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS IN 

COMMENTS. EMAIL. TWITTER. FACEBOOK.

Updated Numbers, Criticisms, and a Big Retraction (Al Gore Weeps)

Hey everyone, a few things to go over, and the post frequency is going way up through the referendum date (as you'll see).

EDIT 7/20/11 1:30 PM: Apparently we misunderstood yesterday.  The Office of Legislative and Budget Review released its report, but it's different from the Maragos report, which will supposedly come out tomorrow.  Correction made.

Retraction and Sincere Apology

After re-reading the referendum language, I need to retract the part about the lockbox, because it is apparently not created under the referendum.  I apologize deeply for this misunderstanding, and in the meantime I want to re-iterate my call that there should be a lockbox.  Assuming the referendum passes, there will probably need to be some changes in the agreement to get it through, and I hope this is one of those changes.

Somewhere, Al Gore is crying..and continuing his fruitless quest for Manbearpig.  I'm super, duper serial.

(Blogger's Note: If you didn't get that, I promise I'm just referencing something.  I haven't gone insane....at least not in that way)

Introducing Dave

Dave, known as DP'sknee(andhipandflubugandotherknee) on Lighthouse Hockey, is joining as another writer.  He has a ton of great insight and viscerally gets all the factors going into this.  He'll probably post something tomorrow, but until then you should follow him on Twitter for his fantastic tweets.

2 Anti-Areener Reports

Recently, 2 different groups have publicly released their reports questioning the areener plan, making Wet Hot Areener Summer a little wetter and hotter in the process.  

First, NIFA, which is ratcheting up its criticism of the referendum (despite not reviewing all details so far), released a report available online detailing its concerns with the process.  They will continue to be a tough nut to crack moving forward.

Second, the Association for a Better Long Island continues to embarrass itself and prove what a misnomer its name is.  An independent consultant released a barely-intelligible report criticizing the referendum, but that didn't stop News 12 from breathlessly reporting it as proof that the areener deal is a bad one for taxpayers.  Seriously, stop reading this post and go read that report....It would be funny if someone wasn't paid hundreds of dollars an hour to write it.

Met a No Voter Yesterday

Yesterday, at the post office, I encountered my first No voter.  He was one of the postal workers, and I happened to walk in there to mail a package while they were arguing.  The one postal worker couldn't believe it, and kept saying there was nothing not to like about the project.  The other one parroted the same lines we've heard for decades, so much that we could practically record them in advance.

"Let Wang pay for it!" (Yea, he wanted to....Kate Murray murdered that plan.  It's either that or this; can't have it both ways)

"There will be cost overruns!" (Wang is contractually obligated to pay those)

"TRAFFIC!" (Can someone please explain to me how replacing an arena with another arena creates gobs of new traffic?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?)

I had an interesting back and forth with the guy, and I hope he didn't send my package to Timbuktu as punishment, but this is what we're up against.  No voters are out there, and they refuse to let logic or facts interfere with things they know to be true, dammit!  As I've said from day 1, it's dangerous to take this for granted.

What's Truly At Stake

While NIFER was registering its objections to the areener (stick tap to Dave on that one - BRILLIANT), and Desmond Ryan was making himself look like a fool (though the medier is trying desperately to make him sound like a dispassionate and concerned citizen - don't fall for it), 2 other reports have come out showing what's truly at stake here.

First, Camoin Associates completed its assessment of the Coliseum referendum for the county (not Charles Wang, or some guy named Wong that the ABLI report cites) on the economic impact of the Islanders potentially leaving Nassau County.  According to this report, $243.4 MILLION A YEAR and 2,660 JOBS would disappear from the local economy.  

Second, Nassau County's Office of Legislative and Budget Review completed its report (which News 12 immediately distorted and Newsday has so far ignored).  This report claims that 74% of borrowing costs will be covered by projected revenues, leading to a maximum tax exposure (if nothing else is done) of $13.80 per household per year.

These numbers illustrate the danger in not truly understanding what's at stake and not having goals aligned.  For instance, ABLI, NIFER, and the media have breathlessly claimed the borrowing is $800 million, not $400 million, but this isn't true.  As I've pointed out in previous posts, there is a concept in finance called Time Value of Money, because money does not intrinsically hold the same value in perpetuity.  If I offered you $100 now or $100 in a year, you'd take it now, because $100 in a year has a present value of less than $100.

In the same vein, yes, the debt service is scheduled at $26 million a year, for 30 years, which in pure numbers totals $780 million.  However, due to interest rates and the time period, that cost in current dollars is lower....actually, around $400 million, the initial cost of the borrowing.  Let's not allow voters to be scared about this.

In addition, the recent saber-rattling from NIFER makes me concerned that their interests are not necessarily in line with the county as a whole.  As we know, NIFER is meant to guard the county's finances, so it must take those into consideration rather than pure economics.  It's possible that NIFER could be doing its job too narrowly and simply considering the costs of borrowing without considering the cost of losing the arena and the team to the economy at large.  This tension might become a flash point if the referendum passes, and I genuinely hope we can do something to stop it.

We have to fight the misinformation, including NIFER's scare-tactics over "Arenaco LLC" (a company set up by Charles Wang to manage the areener).  We can't get caught in nonsense like the fact that Charles Wang would be free to sell the Islanders after 2 years in the new building - the man is pushing 70, and as the owner he has the right to sell his asset when he decides he wants to sell!

At the end of the day, people are faced with a choice:

Do I want to provide a catalyst for restoring the can-do mentality to Long Island and hopefully leading to more good decisions?

OR

Would I rather have that 26 cents a week?

Honestly, abuse of the take-a-penny/leave-a-penny tray could cover that!  Our future is worth an investment.

Bottom Line

The areener process had its worst week since the roll-out back in May, and I wouldn't blame you for wondering if the media was suddenly out to kill the referendum.  However, as I've said from day 1, we have the power to fix this.

We can educate our neighbors (those willing to hear it, of course).

We can get out and vote.

We can get all our neighbors and friends who are yes votes to join us.

That's all we can do - we have to keep pushing back.

We're 13 days out now, let's leave it all on the ice.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS IN 

COMMENTS. EMAIL. TWITTER. FACEBOOK.

Referendum Language is Set - Including A Good Step

EDITED because I did a stupid thing and didn't notice that the original number I used was a Net Present Value calculator.

EDIT AGAIN: There is no lockbox.....so the whole crux of this is that there should be a lockbox.  I am very sorry for mis-reading the language of the referendum and am incredibly embarrassed.

Some interesting news came out yesterday, as the clerk of the legislature has received the full text of the areener referendum.

On the whole, the referendum, is fairly standard stuff, but it does include something that I'd been hoping for: it creates a dedicated fund that will be used to collect revenue-sharing payments and pay the debt service, estimated at around $26 million a year for both the areener and the minor league baseball stadium (we also had news on that, as Long Island Ducks owner Frank Boulton was selected to bring an Atlantic League franchise to the new complex - quick, someone copyright "Expressway Series!").  

This was the amendment suggested by Legis. Dave Denenberg (D-Merrick) at the May 31 legislature hearing that approved the election date, but it was tabled for being out of order (not submitted before the deadline for that session).  It's the only thing that makes sense for the referendum, and it provides maximum protection for taxpayers.

I don't want to get too wound up here, but moving the revenues from the areener into the Nassau County general fund would have been nothing short of disastrous.  Had the money been available, it would have suffered the same fate as Social Security: the money would have been spent 10 different times every year for different programs, leaving the debt service unpaid and increasing tax burdens on citizens.  It would have created far more problems than it solved.  Actually creating a separate fund would serve as, if I may, a lockbox, to protect the money from being raided and make 2000 Al Gore very happy:

While this is a good move, I still have one big question about its application.  As of right now, it's unclear if tax revenues from the areener and any future development on the Coliseum site would also be included in this "lockbox," and that could end up being a huge issue.

As you may or may not know, the Town of Hempstead, which has not suffered for murdering the Lighthouse Project in any way shape or form, recently approved The Shire (the gutted zone) for development, all the while still pushing the ridiculous lie that the actual reduction was not that great (if you include parking structures in the "new construction" total, which the Lighthouse did not).  Let's ignore the fact that it took them a year to approve their own idea and concentrate on the fact that this opens the door for additional development on the Coliseum site, and this could end up being huge for the referendum through additional tax revenue.

EDIT:

I've been reading the 2006 report commissioned by the Nassau Legislature for the Lighthouse Project.  Before anything else, I highly recommend you don't read the report, because it will make you very angry with Kate Murray for doing what she did.  The Lighthouse Project at its peak was projected to bring in north of $62 million in direct tax revenues for Nassau County EVERY YEAR.  That's a long way toward closing the deficit, eh?

Let's leave that bit of misery for a minute and concentrate on the numbers.  We know the Town's zone is nowhere near the size and scale of the Lighthouse, but it will still generate tax revenue.  In fact, let's slash those projections by 80% (the rumored reduction is 61%, but it's unclear what effect this has on the tax base of the area, so I've chosen to be more conservative).  The remaining number is still $12.5 million, which, if added to the minimum payment from Charles Wang, produces....

$26.5 Million


Enough to pay the debt service, run a surplus on the property, and not have to pass any additional tax burden onto Nassau County homeowners.  For this reason, I hope future development is included in the "lockbox," because it will be the best chance Nassau residents have to not pay for it.

Blogger's Note: I got a mailer from Legis. Denenberg yesterday, and it included the claim that the new tax line would be a guaranteed $58 per year expense to all taxpayers.  We've disproved this over and over again, and I hope the legislator misspoke and intends to correct this.  $58 is the expense incurred per household per year if Charles Wang never makes any payments and the arena never makes any money, so to suggest it's a guaranteed tax is disingenuous at best.


Second Blogger's Note: Stay tuned the next few days for more news and analysis, in addition to an endorsement on the areener vote, a guide to get involved, and my plan for election day.  As always, thanks for reading.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS IN 

COMMENTS. EMAIL. TWITTER. FACEBOOK.