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.

Something Rotten in Mineola?

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

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

Eden Laikin

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

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

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

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

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

Machine Helping Machine?

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

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

A Uniter, Not a Divider

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

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

Bottom Line

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

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

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)

More From Friday's Event

(I think a dufflebag should become our symbol from now on)

Movement Week will officially start tomorrow - Memorial Day. In the meantime, I want to discuss a few odds-and-ends, as well as some more detailed analysis from the Kate Murray rally this past Friday.

Kate Murray's Father Retires

Well, that didn't take long. On Friday, less than two weeks after his strange employment situation came to light, the Town of Hempstead announced that Kate Murray's father, Norman Murray, is retiring from his $40-an-hour clerical job to "spend more time with his family."

Seemingly all Mr. Murray's children work for either the Town of Hempstead or a firm doing business with the Town of Hempstead. What a sadly ironic reason to give; if he wants to spend more time with his family he should keep working.

Media Coverage of Rally Misses the Point...Again

The phenomenon of "rote reporting" was yet again on display in the pages of Newsday. Newsday's piece from the Kate Murray rally this past Friday conveniently left out Joe Mondello's verbal altercation with voter Joe Conte of Franklin Square. As you remember, Mondello told Mr. Conte to "blow it out his dufflebag" when he loudly advocated for the Lighthouse, and he then accused Mr. Conte of being a paid plant for Charles Wang.

(Blogger's Note: Joe Mondello's partisan screed on Friday partially accused the press of giving Tom Suozzi and the Democrats a free ride. Funny that the press responds to this by ignoring what should be an important story)

Loyal reader Section 320 Rocks sent an email to the Newsday reporter questioning the decision to omit this altercation. The reporter blamed editors for the removal of "blow it out your dufflebag," and she then said one of the most stunning things I've heard in a very long time. The reporter apparently did not feel comfortable mentioning Mondello's accusation because she had not asked the Lighthouse supporters at the meeting if they actually were paid plants.

By the way - this is another picture I snapped at the rally. Note the Newsday photographer on the left who is taking a picture of Joe - even though it didn't make the paper.

(Blogger's Note: This was right after the near-physical confrontation...Sorry, it happened spur of the moment and I had to both grab my camera and run about 50 feet to get a shot)


Also, kudos to the Long Island Business News for reporting the incident. I'm glad to see the phony ideal of balance hasn't completely infected all media outlets.

By The Way, Mr. Mondello...

Speaking of which - it's now 2 days since we demanded an apology from Joe Mondello for his disgusting statements to a voter exercising his right to free speech. I have been reviewing news from the last week, and I just have one question:

Isn't this the same Joe Mondello who, at a Democratic rally held on Tuesday, sent his paid staffers outside to throw teabags at Tom Suozzi? And who then asserted his constitutional right to do so?

Also - astute reader BR noticed that Joe Mondello told the crowd in attendance that "[The Democrats] want your jobs," and other voters at the event report hearing people saying they "clocked out [from work]" to attend the Kate Murray rally.

Also - and expect more on this issue - this is part of a disturbing trend lately. The Town of Hempstead has previously accused voters in favor of the Lighthouse of being bought off by Charles Wang - and a certain member of the media who shall remain nameless also insinuated that bribery is involved.

Why are they pushing this grand illusion? And. Mr. Mondello, who's paying whom?

Mondello's Involvement

The Newsday piece also highlights something very interesting - Joe Mondello, who runs the New York State Republican Party, in addition to the Hempstead and Nassau County GOP, is planning to directly involve himself in Kate Murray's re-election campaign.

It's funny - many people have long suspected that Kate Murray was a made politician who needed Joe Mondello. At this point, given the recent blue tint on Long Island, Mondello may be the needy one. Republicans are losing at every level in New York, and prominent Republicans are both breaking ranks on key issues and openly questioning Joe Mondello's stewardship of their party. Therefore, Mr. Mondello needs a victory - and he needs it in the Town of Hempstead. It doesn't matter if he forces himself into a corner backing a failed ideology, because in many ways the Town of Hempstead might be his Alamo. They would accept decades of a failed ideology that is driving people off Long Island if it stems the recent tide of republican losses.

In other words - Mr. Mondello wants to sell our future for a political victory in 2009.

Think about it for one second. When you take out the veterans (who were sadly used as props), the elected officials, the bloggers/reporters, and the $450 an hour banjo band, there might have been 40 Kate Murray "supporters" at Friday's rally - a very small number for a supposedly popular incumbent. The State Republican chairman is directly involving himself in a Town election. Joe Conte - who is skinny as a rail, maybe 5'8, and carrying an oak tag sign - made Mondello lose his temper. The Republican Party is scared, and they may actually believe Kate Murray is vulnerable due to this issue.

One other thing - Joe Mondello has a long history of mentoring politicians off a cliff (see Gulotta, Tom). I could almost hear champagne corks popping at Democratic Party headquarters when he promised to get directly involved in this race.

Town of Hempstead's New Tune

I briefly, again, want to thank both Joe Ra and Don Clavin from the Town of Hempstead for being so accessible and offering the most honest answers we have received from the Town in months. Mr. Ra apologized for the Islanders Fans First fiasco and went as far as calling it a "mistake." Mr. Clavin also expressed remorse, and he also expressed confidence that there would be a deal made for the Lighthouse site. In his words, the issue now is where the middle will lie.

I am glad the Town of Hempstead is starting to say the right things. However, until their actions match the rhetoric, forgive me for being skeptical.

Bottom Line - And a Message From Joe Conte

If nothing else, the events on Friday prove exactly how powerful our movement can become. If Lighthouse supporters continue to pound their message home at every Kate Murray event, and the other party fields a viable candidate, it is very likely that we will get our point across. We must continue to organize, and we must continue to educate others, because our future is far too important to leave to chance, and it is lunacy to leave it in the hands of people like Joe Mondello.

Joe Conte - the "rabble-rouser" from Friday's rally - posted this amazing comment on Chris Botta's Islanders Point Blank yesterday. With his permission, here it is, and I can't think of a better way to close this post:

This is an extremely serious issue to myself as a Long Islander. The fact that I am an Islander fan just have made me (and all of us) privy to the day to day workings of the plight of the Lighthouse. It is about the future-of the Islanders and more importantly Long Island. The two go hand in hand-a vibrant economically diverse region will have a professional sports team b/c the economy of the area can support it. If the Islanders leave due do a lack of development-there will be no team coming back.

As a recent college grad, I will be leaving the Island soon as Long Island does not offer the 21st Century lifestyle the Lighthouse would eventually provide(and in turn keep our Islanders here for decades). As soon as the plan was unveiled, a buddy (who moved to Hoboken) and myself said “We’d live here.”

Now on to my actions yesterday- though our turnout was small it was a great start for a Friday afternoon, spur of the moment, call to assemble. All movements have to start somewhere and I believe yesterday was the start.

I honestly do believe if we channel the passion of Islander fans seen here and other places on the internet we can defeat Kate Murray. It is totally doable- from a political standpoint. She is vulnerable provided we take the necessary political actions to make her so.(which i hope to lay out at a later date)

Islander fans-the fate of our beloved team has literally fallen on OUR shoulders. The only question is now-will we accept that responsibility. As all of you have seen-I’m willing to play my part-and I hope to have all of you by my side in the coming months.

Do not hesitate to contact me at jc77318@yahoo.com

The time to act is now.

- Joe Conte

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

Also, don't forget to thank a veteran tomorrow.

Environmental Tales and Money Trails

Now that the environmental review is progressing at a deeper level, some very important issues have been raised, and some startling revelations have come to the fore. Let's go right into it:

Holes in the Document?

According to a piece run in Newsday two days ago, there are significant holes in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) as it currently stands. Frederick P. Clark, the consultants hired by the Town of Hempstead to conduct their review, state that the Lighthouse has failed to account for major areas, including traffic, water supply, garbage collection, and the true economic impact of the project. The consultants believed that significant parts of the proposal needed work and were not anywhere near ready to sign off on it.

This caused some hysteria among Islanders fans and other Lighthouse supporters, especially after Chris Botta picked up the story. While I am disheartened by the news, I am not ready to go out onto the ledge. I said previously that the Town of Hempstead would lock the DGEIS in an infinite loop (to borrow a term from programming) of revisions and re-writes if it was not serious about moving the process forward. If they are in communication now, I believe this still fits in with the Town of Hempstead's legal duty.

Remember, they are responsible under the law for determining whether the Environmental Impact Statement is complete and correct. If the document is not complete and correct, it must be sent back to the Lighthouse for more revisions. I will follow up with people close to the situaiton, but on the surface it would appear that concerns about traffic, garbage collection, et al are more serious than nitpicking spelling mistakes.

Some Questions

I am not ready to declare this project dead in the water because of a snafu with a single document. However, I do believe these developments have raised some important questions:

First of all, Where is some of the so-called "missing" information? I have had high-level discussions with the Lighthouse and its consultants detailing the steps they will take to mitigate certain issues like water usage, garbage collection, and traffic. I have also received hard numbers about economic benefits and the number of children that would go into the Uniondale School District....and the Town's consultants allege these two issues were not even included in the EIS that they received for review. Something has clearly gone wrong somewhere, because that does not add up for me.

Second of all, Where were these consultants in February? The initial Draft Generic EIS was submitted after the scope was adopted on February 24. Since then, the Town of Hempstead, through Frederick P. Clark, made almost 200 requests for change to the document. Lighthouse consultants deemed only 19 of them valid, and according to sources most of the issues were spelling mistakes. If there were such significant holes in the document, why did it take 2 months to hear about it? Why weren't these issues discussed in February? And, if they were discussed, Why isn't it resolved?

This leads to two bigger questions...What is the level of collaboration between the Lighthouse and the Town of Hempstead's environmental consultants? These two entities are supposed to work together and shepherd the process forward in good faith. If they are not in regular communication, or if the Town's consultants are not sending over thorough requests for change, we could have an issue that bogs down the process needlessly for months on end.

Finally, Frederick P. Clark is a Westchester-based consultancy that, as we will discuss below, has conflicts of interest in this scenario. Is the Town of Hempstead involved, or are they delegating the entire issue to consultants? If they have allowed the consultants full authority to judge the EIS, What motivation do these consultants have to move the process forward?

Hoppin Down the Money Trail...

Hippity Hoppity, conflicts of interest are on their way!

I have often been critical of the media's conduct in regard to the Lighthouse Project. I believe the mainstream media, and especially newspapers, have lost their voice in the name of some sort of phony ideal of "balance." I've dubbed this phenomenon "rote reporting," in which the media covers an issue on its surface without a critical eye. We've seen it in the past; Tom Suozzi was quoted in response to Kate Murray's phony petition drive, calling it "silly and amateurish," but there was no mention in the report that Kate Murray has no authority to make the offer and could have in fact applied for stimulus money herself. I could write a whole treatise on this, but for me it comes down to this: if you say the sky is blue, and I say the sky is not blue, the media should be able to adhere to its dictum of balance and still say that I said something incorrect.

Anyway, the media has started some investigative reporting, and it took an astute commenter on Chris Botta's blog called "HyeDray" to do it. HyeDray discovered that Frederick P. Clark, the Town of Hempstead's envrionmental consultants, have contributed thousands of dollars to Kate Murray's re-election campaign and have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in Town business. Thanks to HyeDray's detective work (even though neither he nor Chris Botta were credited), Newsday did follow the money and publish a follow-up.

I am thrilled to see an investigative component to this project, and I believe all of us who are active in this process should take a bow. However, I also think it didn't have to come to this. The media should be fulfilling its end of the bargain instead of riding in on a white horse after a commenter on a blog did the legwork.

In fact, the piece didn't go far enough. Our friend BD Gallof at Islanders Independent (link below) did some digging of his own, and he found out that Frederick P. Clark has been riding the Nassau Republican gravy train for years. Some highlights (taken from his piece):

Frederick P. Clark Contributions to Gulotta and Nassau County Republicans 1997-1999: $3,610*

Gulotta Contracts & Nassau County Republican Party Contracts Given to Frederick P. Clark Associates 1997-1999: $647,063*

In addition, Town of Oyster Bay Supervisor John Venditto is quoted in the article giving lip service to the need for campaign finance reform, even though his overall tone suggests that he would not work so urgently to achieve it. The same PPFENY.org report identifies Frederick P. Clark as a main recipient of Town of Oyster Bay business, and John Venditto is a fellow Republican.

Please read BD Gallof's full piece about this singular issue, if you already have not. Without going into too much detail, let's just say all the allegations he makes about the media's conduct are true.

Our friend the 7th Woman also has a brief piece examining Frederick P. Clark's conflicts of interest.

Bottom Line

We have clearly entered the silly season in the Lighthouse process, and we will all be responsible for sifting through the hysteria and innuendo to find the full story.

I am not ready to set off alarm bells over the Environmental Impact Statement, and you should not be, either. As anybody who has written a research paper knows, submissions are rarely 100% right in the first place. Hopefully we will see a quick resolution to some of these issues and public comments either this month or next.

However, the Town of Hempstead's conflicts of interest with its environmental consultants cannot be overlooked. The Lighthouse is not clean in this area, either, as it has come out that Vision Long Island, which publicly endorsed the project, has members that have received consulting fees from the project. It is also known that a recent full-page Newsday ad supporting the project was run as part of a barter agreement with the New York Islanders franchise.

This is bad form, especially because it gives the Town of Hempstead and its enablers in the media an opening to suggest that nobody who has not been bought off supports the project (Blogger's Note: I'll end the suspense; nobody is bribing me). However, that is different from the Town of Hempstead's case. The Lighthouse is in many ways paying for celebrity endorsements, in the same way we see Derek Jeter doing Ford commercials. Frederick P. Clark is leading the Town of Hempstead's response to the Environmental Impact Statement, and its motives have to come into question as long as there is a chance horse-trading (political donations in exchange for business - how fitting on Kentucky Derby Day...) has gone on.

Kate Murray claims in the Newsday article that she has returned $1,000 in campaign contributions from the firm because she may (read: will) hire it for the re-zoning portion of the review. This is not far enough...Let There Be Light(house) officially calls on Kate Murray to return all political donations from Frederick P. Clark Associates and release a statement signaling her commitment to conducting this process above the board.

As I have said many times, do not doubt your power. An astute commenter on Chris Botta's blog followed the money and came up with a big story. We must all be vigilant, for the future of our Island hangs in the balance.

Stay tuned in the coming days. I am investigating Tom Suozzi's comments about the Town's responsibility at this point of SEQR, and I am also finally looking into transportation options. Also expect an opinion piece about recent calls to scale back the Lighthouse.

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

Now Entering The Dip

We have a lot to talk about today, so let's get right to it...

That Stupefying Press Release

I wished Kate Murray's press release was just an early April Fool's joke, but sadly there is nothing funny about this. Newsday discusses the fallout from what others have dubbed Petition-Gate, and Chris Botta has the full text of the press release on his site.

As mentioned before, Hempstead Supervisor Kate Murray has sent a mailer to all 240,000 households in the Town of Hempstead asking them to sign on to a petition sponsored by her and Councilwoman Dorothy Goosby (D - Hempstead) calling on Tom Suozzi to seek federal stimulus funds for the new Coliseum.

The press release is shockingly insular and riddled with factual inaccuracies. Couldn't they have at least proofread it and remembered the Islanders didn't win the Stanley Cup in 1984? It smacks of political posturing and as far as I'm concerned is an egregious breach of Kate Murray's public responsibility. It's almost like she is trying to kill the Lighthouse while making it look like she is still in favor of putting people to work.

Stimulus Spending

As I have discussed before in many, different, pieces, arenas do not stimulate the economy, they are recipients of taxpayer welfare. The Obama administration is taking smart spending of stimulus funds very seriously, and a feature in the Washington Post discusses the President's desire to carefully monitor stimulus spending. If Mr. Obama is serious about only spending stimulus funds on investments that stimulate the economy, and he will be keeping a close eye on expenditures, there is no way stimulus funds for the Coliseum would be approved. The Supervisor is making an offer that she does not have the authority to make and she cannot back up with results.

(Blogger's Note: There is a piece in the New York Times specifically saying that New York is on the watch list for President Obama and his budget director, Peter Orszag. I can't find it right now, and if anybody has the link - lettherebelighthouse@gmail.com).

Approvals

I don't know why it is so difficult for the Town of Hempstead to understand this, so let's talk about it again. Nassau County voted 16-2 to name the Lighthouse the developer of the Coliseum site in 2006. They are now attempting to finish the last leg of the process by approving the re-zoning application sent to the Town of Hempstead. This has nothing to do with Charles Wang holding our Island hostage.

In addition, any change to the Lighthouse such as a de-coupling of the Coliseum from the overall development would acquire the approval of the County Executive and the County Legislature, so this is not Kate Murray's offer to make. I can talk until I'm blue in the face about what a generous offer I made, but I still can't sign a deal with a contractor to renovate my neighbor's house.

And sadly, yet again, the media does not ask these follow-up questions or point out the severe holes in the Supervisor's logic. We only see a quote from Tom Suozzi calling this whole thing "silly and amateurish."

Environmental Review

It is simply not true that the Lighthouse is seeking an end-around on the Environmental Review process. We discussed very clearly in our series on SEQR (Part I and Part II, as well as the state handbook) that there is no set time to complete an environmental review, only a requirement that everything that could be done must be done. This statement is incredibly disingenuous and seems to be an attempt to sow fear and distrust among low-information voters.

I have heard from readers who contacted the Town of Hempstead over this petition. They were told things like "You are asking Kate Murray to break the law by expediting the process" (FALSE - it just has to be done right) (Blogger's Note: and by the way, how is it breaking the law to attend a public meeting on the Lighthouse when the Supervisor will have to vote on it, but it's not breaking the law to suggest a unilateral overhaul of the same project?) and "Wang is holding Long Island hostage because he wants to make more money" (FALSE - making money to begin with might be nice, and if this was Nassau County's idea how is WANG the one holding people hostage?). The Town of Hempstead should be ashamed of itself. This is no way to treat honest citizens who are concerned about the future of Long Island; it's more fitting inside some sort of junta.

Scale it Back?

Some Lighthouse opponents are once again saying the project is too ambitious and must be scaled back. I believe the time is now for bold action and not watered-down compromise, but I am also not naive enough to believe that the Lighthouse will look exactly like the renderings. The whole point of a negotiation is to ask for the most you possibly can, and the elimination of the 60-story building already shows the Lighthouse group's willingness to scale back the project when necessary.

This is why the Lead Agency (TOH) and the Lighthouse are supposed to work through final scoping. If there are issues, or something needs to be changed, the Town needs to communicate these to the Lighthouse rather than sending grandstanding and empty statements to the media.

Partisan Politicking

More troubling to me is the Supervisor's decision to send 240,000 pieces of what amounts to campaign literature using the Town of Hempstead's (read: our) money. This is a serious breach of her public responsibility, and if Ms. Murray declares to run for County Executive this issue should be re-visited (Blogger's Note: The County political parties should hold their conventions in May - will relay more info when I have it in a full post).

More confusing to me is the political calculus here. Other Republicans at different levels of government have been very supportive of the Lighthouse Project, so this is not a simple Democrats vs. Republicans issue. In addition, it's looking less likely that Kate Murray will run for County Executive, although she still might. If this is not a partisan issue, from where is the Supervisor receiving her marching orders? Is she holding out for 2 more goats so they'll have the full cadre of 7 dwarves instead of 5?

Bottom Line

If you follow the writings of Seth Godin, you would know that we have now entered The Dip. The Dip is a period of time where, after the excitement of starting things anew, commitment starts to waver and results are not commensurate with the level of effort. This is clearly a Dip for Lighthouse supporters - we have done our best to educate the public and open up a positive dialogue with a Town government that seems to be, in its best toddler impression, putting its hands over its ears and chanting "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala."

From my perspective, the gloves are off. I have gone out of my way to be fair toward Kate Murray, practically begging her to give me a reason to call off the wild dogs all around us, but no more. I will not be insulted or dismissed by a leader who serves at the whim of the people, and we should not stand for this kind of treatment. We need to be more forceful in our message while still keeping this on the benefits rather than blind demonization or unhelpful comments wishing for unfortunate things to happen to the Supervisor. We need to band together and rally around this, for ourselves and for our Island.

Seth Godin makes another point, however, and it underscores what Kate Murray owes us as voters. We need to know if this is a Dip (a brief down period that continued effort will erase - look at the curve above) or a Cul-de-sac (a dead-end not worth more effort -how fitting that it comes up in the context of suburbia).

The New York Islanders need to become serious about pursuing other options, for no other reason than to make it clear that Kate Murray does not hold all the cards. This is clearly a politician who does not fear retribution, and we must make it clear that it will come if she does not work the will of the people. Also, as silly as this may seem, we can't forget that the proposed West Side Stadium died at the hands of one politician (Sheldon Silver) when all other politicians from Albany to Congress all the way to President Bush wanted to see it get done. We cannot dismiss the potential impact.

It is right that Long Islanders and hockey fans should not be held hostage, but we should not be held hostage by a grandstanding politician who seems to be more interested in scoring political points than working to address the problems we face. It is unprecedented that a politician would thumb her nose at billions of dollars in private investment and instead push for the federal government to come in and hold the reins. This looks like a ploy in which the Supervisor can deny she is against jobs and attempt to blame the subsequent failure of the Lighthouse on anyone but herself.

Supervisor, is this a Dip, or a Cul-de-sac? Are we wasting our time while you play politics with our future? We, as voters, deserve an answer.

Please share your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email Me.

Wednesday Wackiness - Phony Outrage, An Absent Media, And Grass-Mowing Goats

UPDATE (10:18 PM) - Kate Murray has made this Wednesday even more wacky. According to Newsday, she has sent a mailer to 240,000 Town of Hempstead households urging them to push Tom Suozzi to seek federal stimulus money for the new Coliseum. Mr. Suozzi called the move "silly and amateurish." Expect a full post on this tomorrow - Gentlemen (and ladies), welcome to flavor country. (I hope you got that reference)

I apologize for being MIA the last few days. I was celebrating my beloved BU Terriers making the Frozen Four, and I've spent the last 2 days making arrangements to guarantee I can be down there to watch the games.

Due to recent developments, I have once again delayed Part III of our SEQR series. We will have something discussing the "So What?" of the environmental review process tomorrow. Without further ado, let's go right to our recent news:

Veterans Problem?

After the feel-good testimony of many veterans this past Thursday, the truth became a bit more clear. Newsday has run an article in which some veterans criticize the agreement that will, apparently, remove the "Veterans Memorial" part of the name.

The comments section predictably filled up with phony outrage and half-baked logic. Seriously, everyone, spare me. The veterans group was offered a deal in which, in exchange for relinquishing the "Veterans Memorial" part of the Nassau Coliseum name, they received:

• $1 million over 20 years for upkeep of the Eisenhower Park Veterans Memorial
• Re-naming the street leading to the new Coliseum Veterans Memorial Way
• Free office and conference space in the Lighthouse for veterans groups
  

The veterans groups were offered a deal, and in a vote, they accepted it. End of story. Veterans in this country face severe problems like sub-par healthcare and homelessness, and needed money and office space could do much more in helping these people than a simple name on a building. In addition, what if the worst happens and the Lighthouse fails? Would an abandoned arena in a sea of asphalt be a fitting tribute to those who so bravely fought and died for this country?

This is yet another example of a media that seems more concerned with stirring the pot than reporting the facts. I wish we would see more pieces goinng over project specifics, discussing the planned benefits, or hearing from supporters in the community that are not "just" Islanders fans. This is yet another attempt to throw up a smokescreen and distract from the real issues that we face and the Lighthouse seeks to address.

Also, we cannot forget the Lighthouse's role in this. I may think this is a non-issue, but many people who have spoken at the public meetings have made a very big deal about keeping the "Veterans Memorial" in the arena name. Did the Lighthouse need to pick this fight? Should they have given their opponents ammunition to demagogue this issue? There are many creative ways this could be solved, such as keeping the arena name as Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and having a sponsor pay for naming rights to the rink, therefore it could be "Company X Rink at Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum." Just a thought.

(Blogger's Note: This name change would require a vote from the Nassau County Legislature)

The Media Criticizes Itself

As if that wasn't crazy enough - a post on Newsday's Final Score blog really takes the cake.

First of all, I think it is very important to understand the true financial health of the New York Islanders as a hockey team. Jim Baumbach is 100% correct to point out that if the team is truly in such dire straits they should open the books and let everybody see. Forbes reported that the Islanders lost about $9 million last year, and if Mr. Wang's statements are so radically different we should know the full story.

However, Mr. Baumbach then made a serious statement:

The new arena is a mere fraction of the project. Seriously, if you reach your opinion of whether this project is good for Long Island based solely on saving the Islanders, you're doing yourself, your neighbor and your home community a disservice. - Jim Baumbach

This is incredibly insulting to anybody who has taken the time to learn about this project. Once again, Lighthouse supporters are stereotyped as merely "Islanders fans" when it is simply not true. Those Islanders fans I speak with were attracted to the Lighthouse because it keeps our team here, but when you talk to them they discuss issues such as jobs, tax revenue, children leaving, and creating a destination for our Island. As I say all the time, I myself was attracted to the Lighthouse because it kept my beloved Islanders where they belong, but I became an advocate because of the non-hockey benefits this project brings.

I think using a platform in a major newspaper to unfairly generalize people is doing the public a major disservice. If Mr. Baumbach truly believes people need to be educated, he should be using his platform as a writer for a major newspaper to push the kind of coverage he deems necessary. As a member of the media, he cannot ignore the media's role in pushing some of the innuendo and misinformation surrounding the Lighthouse, even if he did not do it himself.

The Lonely Goatherd


Meanwhile, Kate Murray was in the news today discussing the important issue of...goats. She is discussing the five dwarf goats the Norman J. Ley Nature Preserve in Merrick has recruited to "mow" the grass.

I wish the Supervisor was as willing to discuss the Lighthouse as she is matters like these and those tourism advertisements for the Town of Hempstead. As I posited in Occam's Lighthouse, this could simply be the most public and high-profile issue the Supervisor has discussed in her political career, and she would rather stick to safe subjects like, well...lawn-mowing goats.

I hope we, as voters, can open up a dialogue with the Town of Hempstead and make them understand that this is the biggest issue we have faced in a generation, and it deserves their honest attention and genuine statements. A government cannot avoid discussing any issue more controversial than cute animals.

Bottom Line

On some level, it seems like all groups involved in the Lighthouse process have abdicated some form of their responsibility. At this point, it seems that we have two layers of government politicizing the Lighthouse in the hope of electoral wins in November, media coverage that seems far more concerned with stirring the pot than reporting the facts, and a development group that needs to do a better job of both informing the public and motivating the public to get more informed on the Lighthouse.

Also, I have to ask again about Lighthouse opponents. I have not heard any cogent arguments, only demagoguery and smokescreens about Charles Wang supposedly not caring about hockey or the capital offense of taking "Veterans Memorial" off the arena name. It is now clear that opponents of the Lighthouse do not have a solid intellectual footing, and they will attempt to throw up smokescreens like phony outrage on behalf of our brave veterans or the ridiculous assertion that a renovated arena is not as good rather than making cogent, reasoned arguments. We must be prepared for this.

I have said this many times, and I will say it again. This underscores the urgent need for all citizens to get informed on this project. Do independent research (or suggest independent research I can do if you don't have time), don't put blind faith in your elected leaders to know what they're doing, and don't get all your news or information from just one source. This is far too important a project to let it be decided by misinformation and innuendo.

Please share your thoughts in comments. Petition. Email Me.