There’s a section of Saskatoon that is low income duplexes across the street from a trailer park. The road turns and bam… it’s all relatively new bungalows and then McMansions. If the property is nice and the neighbourhood well serviced, the two can co-exist. Manhattan has a lot of poor people hanging around the uber-wealthy.

As far as the impact on the wetlands, that’s a legitimate concern. I knew there had to be legitimate concerns with the project and while I’m not surprised that costs are part of it, it’s actually good to see environmental impact as an issue. That being said, is that mall development nearby using the wetlands at all? If they aren’t, why would the Lighthouse Project? Safeguarding the area from traffic (and therefore pollution/erosion) shouldn’t be a major issue, should it?

Those are definitely the scattered concerns I’ve heard. (It’s odd, but there has been no galvanized central source of opposition to the project. I have the sense from supporters that they would welcome something like this so that they can debate/address them one by one — and there is still time for that. Without that, the blips of opposition feel, rightly or wrongly, like NIMBYism or plain fear of change.)

To the concerns raised:
1) The environmental ones are important and valid. But what can be said of them? They are “what if’s,” the answers to which are a mandated part of the exploratory process. If they are not adequately addressed in the thousand-page Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (which cost quite a bit of money to research and produce, and concerns for which are what Tuesday’s hearing was about) then they need to be. As long as they are, there is no deal-killer there.

2) Development. This is a matter of preference and gets to the heart of the issue. Nassau County has long sought to develop this area (for those who don’t know, it’s a decommissioned military base property, which is why the building was named in honor of veterans) as a “hub” of life for the area — more recently as a hub in the New Urbanism flavor. Traffic concerns of course come along with that, but what I hear from supporters is that traffic is a constant concern anyway (where isn’t it?). At least something like this — and the federal grants sought to help revise the infrastructure — would address already-existing traffic issues in a cohesive way.

The poverty bit is another evergreen issue as old as civilization itself. In my experience in life on this Earth, those who can afford to buy or develop nice housing either ignore poverty, accept its existence next door, or use their means to make it move elsewhere. Not saying any method is right, just saying it’s hardly a deal-breaker.

3) Cost/Who Pays? That’s one I’ve had myself, just based on the global economy alone, since it is to be privately funded. But it’s not Wang going solo here, his partner is successful real estate developer Scott Rechler. The fact this project requires so much research and so many procedural hurdles means you pretty much have to move forward regardless of short-term economic trends. By the time any or a lot of this happens, we are likely to be in completely different economic circumstances. (Remember, this thing is a long time in the works and has already been reduced in scope a few times; it wasn’t conceived yesterday and it won’t be built tomorrow.) If they suddenly can’t fund it, then the County is back to square one.

It’s true, Wang is the latest in a long line of Islanders owners who sought to capitalize on the development opportunity. The difference is that he’s a proud lifelong Long Islander who has put up with way, way more than any other owner did in cost and patience to try to save this team and make this development work. You could say he’s just another after a buck, but to hear him speak passionately about his home (not to mention to consider the money he’s lost) persuades me otherwise.

Apologies for the length to this. The above is not really my thesis (I don’t live there, I’m just an Islanders fan), but that is I think a faithful version of what supporters say about the issues raised. I think I mentioned this in the thread earlier this week, but another component among supporters is the need for a new forward-thinking vision for the area that enables young people to (afford to) stay rather than flee for jobs and housing off the Island.

These are certainly the issues that were brought up at the Public Hearing and are absolutely worth taking a look at. Short of quoting the DGEIS that was submitted to the Town of Hempstead (over 6,000 pages worth) I will do my best to give you the overall idea from a resident of Long Island.

1) Environmental Concerns
Here’s the issue. The State mandated process for Environmental Impact Survey is to DETERMINE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE THAT WILL EFFECT THE OVERALL FOOTPRINT OF THE PROJECT. The reason that this process is so drawn out is due to the fact that many agencies, most importantly the Town of Hempstead, must review each and every area of concern before moving into the Final Environmental Impact Study. Water, sewage and conservation of the Hempstead Plains area are all included in the DGEIS that was submitted in February. Remember, THINGS ARE NOT FINALIZED! Nor will they be until the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County and the State of NY have done their due dilligence as far as reviewing each and every inch of the proposed site.

Another thing to note is that the proposed construction site what amounts to an abandoned parking lot (at least during the summer). The surrounding buildings (RexCorp Plaza on the South side of Hempstead Tpke., the Omni Building to the North and the Marriott Hotel which sits on the extreme East of the site are ALL OWNED BY THE LIGHTHOUSE DEVELOPMENT GROUP! The only piece of land that is not owned by them is the 77 acres where the Coliseum sits.

2) Development in a County that doesn’t develop

No offense to anyone else who has commented so far in this thread, but you simply don’t have the same perspective that I do. I live here. I’m in the thick of it everyday. Nassau County has no available land to develop. It’s a simple fact that really hampers the status quo. Neighborhood after neighborhood of Suburbia has created more TRAFFIC, SEWAGE CONCERNS and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT than the Lighthouse will in 25 years. The idea is to build to conform to environmental GREEN standards. The Lighthouse is needed to create a new status quo, a “New Suburbia”.

I’m 25 years old. Don’t I deserve a place to live? Finding an apartment on Long Island below $1000 is a challenge at best. What’s wrong with placing a series of “below-market housing”, not “welfare-housing” as someone stated before, next to luxury condos? These units will be utilized by people my age, between 25-34, to stay in a County that is only comprised of 8% of people in that age group. There are no jobs, no place to live and no where to go but off Long Island.

3) Who pays?

This is an issue that can’t even be a concern at this point. For the Lighthouse Development Group, yes. But not for the general public. Funding isn’t even going to be discussed until the Re-Zoning Hearing which is far off in the distance as far as the process goes. Whether the money comes from China or bank loans as I’ve heard directly from some inside in the LDG, it doesn’t matter. This is the ultimate Republican wet dream: A developer (big business) who’s willing to pay for 99% of a development project. You tell me where else you’ve heard that one before? Please remember, this is not going to be built in a day. This is an 8-10 year buildout process. The money will not be needed all at once. From what I know the $400 million for the Coliseum is the only guaranteed number right now.

Many of you ask: “What’s is Charles Wang’s motive for building this development project?” Allow me to answer that for you.

Charles is has been losing $20 million+ a year on a team since 2000. The lease that Nassau County has for the site is overseen by a third party company that maintains the building called SMG (the same people who take care of Nationwide Arena in Columbus). The lease is so restraining, that the only pure profit the Islanders receive is from their merchandise and their TV deal. Major percentages (in some cases up to 90%) of tickets, parking and concessions all go to SMG. This lease extends until 2015. If the LDG builds the Project then the lease is re-negotiated to better favor keeping the team on Long Island.

Also, Nassau County which loses $1.5 million on the site a year, stands to gain $60-$70 million in fresh tax revenue annually. The Uniondale School District, which will end up having a significant amount of new students enroll just struck a deal with LDG that will pay them huge sums of money (somewhere in the range of $26 million) to fund revitalization of the District.

If you still think that Charles Wang is only the owner of the Islanders to build the Lighthouse then you are seriously mistaken. If you read any newspaper articles from when Wang bought the team, you’ll find that Nassau County was promising the new owner a new building in 5-7 years. Nassau Coliseum is in disrepair and is no longer viable to contain a major sports franchise.

Not only will this Project be a reason to keep the Islanders where they belong, but it will be a catalyst to the region for new capital and keeping the younger generation around long enough to utilize the tax dollars that are spent on them to educate them on Long Island. Then they will be able to re-insert into the work force and be a part of the “New Suburbia”.

Sorry for the long rant, but I felt I needed to elaborate and give you the best idea possible.

If I missed anything or if you have any questions, let me know.

Doug

Let’s get my bias out right away – I hate the Islanders, I want them to move and I think that not even a new building will help draw fans.

Going back to Mirtle’s own comments about the Coyotes, the team doesn’t win so attendance suffers. If they were any good, they would still be able to pack people in the Coliseum. Everyone talks about how antiquated and terrible it is but not once, while at the building, have I heard people complain about how antiquated and terrible it is. They talk about the team and how terrible it is. As evidenced by the Prudential Center and the Devils, a new building doesn’t draw fans on its own.

The environmental concerts are bullshit – that is always the excuse in development when some people want to make sure they get their cut. Traffic is bad and the area needs a rail extension, but that isn’t even part of the plans. Doug is right, it is damned expensive to live on Long Island, that is why so many homes are on sale or foreclosed. Building some massive hub to line a millionaire’s pockets isn’t going to change that. I don’t see where his big-picture new status quo thing comes from as the Lighthouse will create short term construction jobs and some long term service positions – it won’t bring major industry or major corporations to Long Island. Those are what the area needs, not some housing and entertainment center focused around a losing hockey team.

The environmental concerns have been addressed, re-addressed, and over-addressed. There is plenty of water, it is a stones throw from the Covanta recycling plant and as a new construction project, they will do everything they can to be environmentally sound.

The retail space, as Doug pointed out is complimentary to the rest of the development. No one stops Walgreens from building a 1/2 block away from a rite-aid and a Eckerts. Tough luck Roosevelt field. Competition is good.

The words on the housing portion is not just mixed use, it’s 20% BELOW MARKET. Okay, below market does not mean low-income. The “market” in nassau county is extremely high. This will not be a section 8 development.

All this notwithstanding, the important portion of the project is the economic stimulus provided by the convention center, five star hotel and sports technology complex. Oh yeah… and an arena that would not just be home to the Islanders but much more bringing more tax revenue into cash straped Nassau County.

The negative and more ignorant of us consistently seem to insist that allowing for investment in a community, providing said community with an expanding tax base, is that very community “taking it in the @ss”. But they never explain how they believe that is so- or how they even come to such conclusions. They just spew these same statements, over and over and OVER, and never bother to back any of it up with anything resembling reason or facts. I guess its because when you are enough of an irrational defeatist, you have no need for such things.