Post by NHLWinnipeg on Jul 31, 2011 19:57:20 GMT -6
$400 Million Plan on Nassau Coliseum Goes to Vote
By KEN BELSON and ANGELA MACROPOULOS
Published: July 31, 2011
For decades, planners, politicians and businessmen have debated the future of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and the land around it. On Monday, residents will have the chance to vote on the latest proposal.
The Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, in Uniondale, N.Y., is home to the Islanders hockey team.
The plan before the voters would overhaul the coliseum and the surrounding 77 acres. It includes spending $400 million to build a new arena for the New York Islanders hockey team, a minor league baseball park and new convention space.
But like so many other land use issues on Long Island, this plan, unveiled in May, has proved to be contentious, setting off finger-pointing, backbiting and political posturing.
It has also been expensive: holding the vote in August, instead of on Election Day, will cost more than $2 million, and the Islanders and their supporters have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars more on billboards, radio and newspaper advertisements and robocalls.
It has also created some unlikely allies. The backers of the deal include County Executive Edward P. Mangano and many other Republicans, construction unions, some land use groups, the Islanders and their fans, and even rival teams in the N.H.L., the Rangers and the Devils.
The proposal is opposed by Democratic leaders, fiscal conservatives and some developers, who say that the financially beleaguered county should not be going further into debt to help Charles Wang, who owns the Islanders, and that the property could generate far more in taxes if it were privately developed.
The vote comes at a pivotal time. The finances of Nassau County, one of the most affluent counties in the United States, are such a mess that they are monitored by the Nassau County Interim Finance Authority, a fiscal control board authorized by the state. The county could run a deficit of up to $140 million this year, the authority said, adding that if the arena deal is approved, voters could pay 4 percent more in property taxes.
Like others who view sports venues as economic stimuli, Mr. Mangano and his backers say that the property tax increases will be more than offset by the creation of new jobs and $400 million in profits that they expect to be produced during the 30-year life of the bonds issued to pay for the project.
They also say that if a new arena is not built, the Islanders will move and Nassau will lose thousands of jobs and a cultural hub.
As cities like Cincinnati, Houston and Seattle have learned, the construction of stadiums and arenas almost always costs more than expected, rarely produces the economic benefits initially promised and can saddle local governments with tens of millions of dollars in debts, driving holes through budgets.
So while many Nassau residents prefer to replace an arena they consider an outdated eyesore (it was built in 1972) because they still want a place to see concerts and sporting events, they are mindful that it will quite likely come at a heavy cost.
“I’m on the border on this,” said Bob Orosz, 64, a retired radiological technician who lives in Garden City and recently attended a presentation on the plan by county officials.
“It’s a Catch-22,” he said. “If it’s passed, our taxes are going to go up. If it fails, our taxes are going to go up.”
If the referendum passes on Monday, the plan will go to the Nassau County Legislature and to the finance authority; either one could revise or kill the deal.
The contention around the subject is matched by contention about the vote itself.
Critics say that by holding the referendum on a Monday in August, when many voters are on vacation or disinterested, Mr. Mangano is trying to ensure that only residents with a strong interest, like construction workers and hockey fans, will head to the polls. They say it would have been fairer as well as cheaper to hold the vote on Election Day.
William T. Biamonte, the Democratic commissioner on the Nassau County Board of Elections, said, “The sad thing is if we did this in November, it wouldn’t cost us 10 cents and there would be more public input.”
The county executive has said a vote during the summer ensures that the measure is not buried on the ballot and turned into a political sticking point.
And Mr. Wang, who has been uncharacteristically visible during the campaign, has promised to cover the costs of the special election, if the ballot measure passes.
But as in so many campaigns to persuade voters to pay for big projects, the sharpest barbs have been traded over the economics of the plan.
The county executive and the Islanders point to several studies that say a new arena will produce the equivalent of 1,515 construction jobs, 3,040 permanent jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of profit after the construction bonds are paid off.
“We believe that the rewards here significantly outweigh the risks associated with creating a sports entertainment destination,” Mr. Mangano said.
Although the finance authority said it expected property taxes to rise 3.5 percent to 4 percent if the county issues $400 million in bonds, Michael Picker, senior vice president of the Islanders, said it would be a reasonable price to pay to keep the team; its lease expires in 2015.
If the team were to leave, he said, the Coliseum would be unable to compete with arenas in Manhattan, Brooklyn and elsewhere.
Mr. Mangano said that there was no Plan B, and that the Coliseum would have trouble surviving without the Islanders. Still, critics of the plan say the county executive and the team are not telling voters that there are other options.
They include refurbishment of the arena, new owners for the team, and other types of development, including elements of a mixed-use Lighthouse Project that Mr. Wang once championed.
Opponents also say the forecasts for the arena are unreasonable. The construction jobs, while potentially lucrative, will be temporary, and 2,000 people already work at the arena, so the number of new jobs would be smaller than advertised, they say.
The team and outside experts project attendance at the coliseum to rise by about a third even as tickets prices increase. The Islanders make the assumption that they will host six playoff games a year, though the team has made the playoffs just four times since 1994.
Mark Hamer, a board member at the Association for a Better Long Island, which represents real estate developers, said that if the referendum passed, the lease would give Mr. Wang an inside track to develop the property, though the county executive insists that the county retains the rights. Mr. Hamer said the land could generate about $1 million in taxes per acre if it were privately developed, far more than the $14 million in minimum lease payments that Mr. Wang would pay under the proposal.
“Wang wants to make money and Mangano wants to save the Islanders,” said Clifford B. Sondock, the president of the Land Use Institute, which opposes the project. “Ed and Charles have made this an issue of the Islanders when it is really a real estate deal.”
The polls will be open for the referendum from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m.
www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/nyregion/nassau-to-vote-on-coliseum-plans.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
By KEN BELSON and ANGELA MACROPOULOS
Published: July 31, 2011
For decades, planners, politicians and businessmen have debated the future of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and the land around it. On Monday, residents will have the chance to vote on the latest proposal.
The Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, in Uniondale, N.Y., is home to the Islanders hockey team.
The plan before the voters would overhaul the coliseum and the surrounding 77 acres. It includes spending $400 million to build a new arena for the New York Islanders hockey team, a minor league baseball park and new convention space.
But like so many other land use issues on Long Island, this plan, unveiled in May, has proved to be contentious, setting off finger-pointing, backbiting and political posturing.
It has also been expensive: holding the vote in August, instead of on Election Day, will cost more than $2 million, and the Islanders and their supporters have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars more on billboards, radio and newspaper advertisements and robocalls.
It has also created some unlikely allies. The backers of the deal include County Executive Edward P. Mangano and many other Republicans, construction unions, some land use groups, the Islanders and their fans, and even rival teams in the N.H.L., the Rangers and the Devils.
The proposal is opposed by Democratic leaders, fiscal conservatives and some developers, who say that the financially beleaguered county should not be going further into debt to help Charles Wang, who owns the Islanders, and that the property could generate far more in taxes if it were privately developed.
The vote comes at a pivotal time. The finances of Nassau County, one of the most affluent counties in the United States, are such a mess that they are monitored by the Nassau County Interim Finance Authority, a fiscal control board authorized by the state. The county could run a deficit of up to $140 million this year, the authority said, adding that if the arena deal is approved, voters could pay 4 percent more in property taxes.
Like others who view sports venues as economic stimuli, Mr. Mangano and his backers say that the property tax increases will be more than offset by the creation of new jobs and $400 million in profits that they expect to be produced during the 30-year life of the bonds issued to pay for the project.
They also say that if a new arena is not built, the Islanders will move and Nassau will lose thousands of jobs and a cultural hub.
As cities like Cincinnati, Houston and Seattle have learned, the construction of stadiums and arenas almost always costs more than expected, rarely produces the economic benefits initially promised and can saddle local governments with tens of millions of dollars in debts, driving holes through budgets.
So while many Nassau residents prefer to replace an arena they consider an outdated eyesore (it was built in 1972) because they still want a place to see concerts and sporting events, they are mindful that it will quite likely come at a heavy cost.
“I’m on the border on this,” said Bob Orosz, 64, a retired radiological technician who lives in Garden City and recently attended a presentation on the plan by county officials.
“It’s a Catch-22,” he said. “If it’s passed, our taxes are going to go up. If it fails, our taxes are going to go up.”
If the referendum passes on Monday, the plan will go to the Nassau County Legislature and to the finance authority; either one could revise or kill the deal.
The contention around the subject is matched by contention about the vote itself.
Critics say that by holding the referendum on a Monday in August, when many voters are on vacation or disinterested, Mr. Mangano is trying to ensure that only residents with a strong interest, like construction workers and hockey fans, will head to the polls. They say it would have been fairer as well as cheaper to hold the vote on Election Day.
William T. Biamonte, the Democratic commissioner on the Nassau County Board of Elections, said, “The sad thing is if we did this in November, it wouldn’t cost us 10 cents and there would be more public input.”
The county executive has said a vote during the summer ensures that the measure is not buried on the ballot and turned into a political sticking point.
And Mr. Wang, who has been uncharacteristically visible during the campaign, has promised to cover the costs of the special election, if the ballot measure passes.
But as in so many campaigns to persuade voters to pay for big projects, the sharpest barbs have been traded over the economics of the plan.
The county executive and the Islanders point to several studies that say a new arena will produce the equivalent of 1,515 construction jobs, 3,040 permanent jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of profit after the construction bonds are paid off.
“We believe that the rewards here significantly outweigh the risks associated with creating a sports entertainment destination,” Mr. Mangano said.
Although the finance authority said it expected property taxes to rise 3.5 percent to 4 percent if the county issues $400 million in bonds, Michael Picker, senior vice president of the Islanders, said it would be a reasonable price to pay to keep the team; its lease expires in 2015.
If the team were to leave, he said, the Coliseum would be unable to compete with arenas in Manhattan, Brooklyn and elsewhere.
Mr. Mangano said that there was no Plan B, and that the Coliseum would have trouble surviving without the Islanders. Still, critics of the plan say the county executive and the team are not telling voters that there are other options.
They include refurbishment of the arena, new owners for the team, and other types of development, including elements of a mixed-use Lighthouse Project that Mr. Wang once championed.
Opponents also say the forecasts for the arena are unreasonable. The construction jobs, while potentially lucrative, will be temporary, and 2,000 people already work at the arena, so the number of new jobs would be smaller than advertised, they say.
The team and outside experts project attendance at the coliseum to rise by about a third even as tickets prices increase. The Islanders make the assumption that they will host six playoff games a year, though the team has made the playoffs just four times since 1994.
Mark Hamer, a board member at the Association for a Better Long Island, which represents real estate developers, said that if the referendum passed, the lease would give Mr. Wang an inside track to develop the property, though the county executive insists that the county retains the rights. Mr. Hamer said the land could generate about $1 million in taxes per acre if it were privately developed, far more than the $14 million in minimum lease payments that Mr. Wang would pay under the proposal.
“Wang wants to make money and Mangano wants to save the Islanders,” said Clifford B. Sondock, the president of the Land Use Institute, which opposes the project. “Ed and Charles have made this an issue of the Islanders when it is really a real estate deal.”
The polls will be open for the referendum from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m.
www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/nyregion/nassau-to-vote-on-coliseum-plans.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
