Home
Classifieds
Coupons
Contests
Subscribe
Work with us
Editorial
Pro and con on Nassau Coliseum redevelopment
Vote ‘yes’ A responsibly financed Coliseum redevelopment would enhance the quality of life in Nassau County by providing the state-of-the-art sports and entertainment complex the county deserves. It would be a strong first step toward a new town center at the Hub, one that would expand the tax base, provide jobs and create tangible economic development benefits well into the future. For the many residents, civic associations, small businesses, chambers of commerce and other local organizations that supported the Lighthouse project and other past proposals for redevelopment, supporting the bond is a logical choice. There are many reasons why the Lighthouse project did not move forward, despite wide and deep public support. Chief among them was the Town of Hempstead’s fear of the project’s impact, as well as the failure to secure necessary state and federal infrastructure funding by former county officials. The kind of “smart growth” proposal offered by the Lighthouse project is critical to Long Island’s future. The current redevelopment proposal offers similar promise while using different methods. Redevelopment of the Coliseum would serve as a companion to the town’s recently approved mixed-use code in the area around the arena, which includes housing, office and retail with new development guidelines.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Jacobs is pursuing a political agenda against the Republican leadership in Nassau County. The proof of this is the fact that his letter ignores facts that prove a YES vote is the only sane vote for the betterment of Nassau County.
1) he neglects to report that a bipartisan financial revise board of Nassau County has reported that under the WORST CASE SCENARIO, the cost to the taxpayer is $13.80 per household per year (26 cents per week). Moreover, some studies have predicted a profit to the taxpayer based on the 11.5 % revenue sharing plan.
2) Today's Newsday reported that if the Islanders leave and the Coliseum closes (highly likely without a tenant to anchor it) the cost to the taxpayer would be $16 per household per year (MORE than worst case scenario above).
3) mr. Jacobs ignores the fact that this project will create jobs.
4) Loss of the Islanders causes a loss of revenue to the County, estimated at $234 million per year, as reported by Newsday last week.
5) Mr. Jacobs argument that Mr. Wang should pay 100 percent for a new arena ignores 2 facts: a) he may actually do so. He will at minimum be paying for more than half of it and if the revenue sharing comes in as projected by Camion, he will have paid for the entire cost and then some; b) this is despite the fact that Mr. Wang will not own the new arena but will be a tenant.
6) Mr. Jacobs letter leaves out the fact that in addition to the minimum $14M per year Mr. Wang will pay, there will be additional tax revenue to the county of $4.9 M.
In my experience when facts are omitted or massaged it is because if ALL the relevant facts are known, there is only one logical conclusion. That is the case here. Unless you have a political agenda or vendetta, or are a member of a special interest group, the only sane vote for the betterment of Nassau County is a YES vote.
Jacobs-
Let the people decide. Thats who you serve...not your own self-interest.
These days politicans are whats wrong with this country.