Home
Classifieds
Coupons
Contests
Subscribe
Work with us
|
Pro and con on Nassau Coliseum redevelopment
(Page 2 of 4)
The county is expected to prepare a request for proposals for development around the Coliseum. Vision Long Island encourages this development to include an integrated mix of uses, various housing options, including a work force component, accessibility to public transportation, walkable streets and a strong, safe link to Hofstra University, Nassau Community College, Museum Row and offices in the area. Additionally, we hope to see ample state and federal dollars for infrastructure improvements around the new development, which was absent from previous proposals. Long Islanders need jobs. One of the region’s most pressing challenges is to keep workers, including young workers, from leaving the area. Revitalizing the Nassau Coliseum would not only create a regional high-quality entertainment hub that would cater to a wide demographic range, from the very young to seniors, it would also create expanded employment opportunities for residents of a densely populated area. According to Nassau County’s economic impact statement, the project would provide a positive cash flow of $2.2 million annually, in excess of the debt service of $26 million. The new Coliseum would attract about 1.37 million visitors each year, versus the no-build alternative of 100,500 visitors — or far fewer if the Islanders ultimately move. The $400 million bond proposition would provide key infrastructure and facility financing in and around the Hub area. This bond could spur critical economic growth for Nassau County. After careful analysis and discussion with business and government leaders, we believe this plan to be responsible and appropriate.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.