Discussion for ALL Things for Brooklyn Bound Islanders: Part V

[OlTimeHockey]

Nassau cops, when they got the highest salaries in the country way back, just signaled the demise. Taxes just went out of control. Suffolk cops got rich. Their taxes got worse. But the counties were solid....Suffolk started growing when Nassau residents started fleeing. The spending was ridiculous.

What I think you're getting at is the shrinking populations.....and so many I know left after the taxes started killing them/their families/their ability to raise their families.

And then taxes got worse.....


It's akin to going into debt and living off credit cards....now we're paying our bills on credit. The Isles, IMHO, got repossessed. The county's staving off foreclosure.

And we spend.....rather than invest. The HUB was too big. NOTHING is worse. If only the referendum was handled differently, BUT...... if someone SMART came along and took an "intervention" to the voters...

strike that. The average voter is a twit. We're doomed unless we hit rock bottom and wake up.

 

[The Underboss]

Reasonable restrictions went away with, "YES OR NO."

And then Ratner comes in and has carte blanche because his plans don't affect the schools or the water table or the local businesses in a negative way. I firmly believe Ratner can have more in time, as development is easily welcome in stages that allow homeostasis......the ability of all parties to adapt and adjust and succeed.

Some NIMBY is bad.....but some is necessary. Small business all across the nation has suffered and been allowed to suffer, so we/many see the consequences in our pay checks.

I still maintain growth is not the enemy, or lack thereof. TAXES are.

Even if taxes are the case, wouldn't people rather have something to show for the tax increase?

No team- tax increase
Team with new building- Tax increase

I think I would rather have option 2. At least their is something to show for it.

 

[MJF]

Even if taxes are the case, wouldn't people rather have something to show for the tax increase?

No team- tax increase
Team with new building- Tax increase

I think I would rather have option 2. At least their is something to show for it.

And that is now starting to resonate with the Nassau voters. Too little too late.

IMO, the average voter viewed the Coliseum referendum as "you want me to pay for an arena for Charles Wang's hockey team?" Dead at the starting gate.

I don't often agree with Mike Francessa but he viewed the referendum the same way I did; that having a first class entertainment venue is a public good, that it enhances the quality of life in Nassau, that it keeps the revenue at home and it keeps you from having to schlep your family of 4 on the LIRR to see events in the city that you used to be able to see a 20 minute car ride away.

I don't like to tell people how to spend their money but it was very short-sighted of the Nassau County voters not to see the big picture and vote the referendum down.

 

[ScaredStreit]

The Isles are moving to Brooklyn. It could be worse, just ask fans of the Whalers, Thrashers, Jets, Nordiques, etc.

Is it ideal for many? No. But sometimes perfect is the enemy of very good.

 

[MJF]

Taxes out here are so ludicrously high, but there's a chicken/egg discussion at the root of your post, I think: are taxes high because the population is shrinking, or is the population shrinking because taxes keep going up? I am personally happy to know that we support our cops, firefighters, and teachers with good salaries and good pensions; that's precisely where I want my tax money to go. As for where the rest goes...well, it sounds like politics out here are reminiscent of Boardwalk Empire. Ed Mangano is Schmucky Thompson, Kate Murray is Chunky White.

It seems like Wang's Lighthouse project was way too ambitious and way too grand in scope for most people to get behind, especially since I've not met a Long Islander yet who says, "We really need to turn Uniondale into a center of commerce." It's a really terrible area that I won't so much as drive past once the team leaves (or I need Chipotle and I'm in the area).

I don't want to turn this into a Wang thread, but owning a sports franchise is not a license to print money, and unfortunately for Chuckles, he's also dealing with decades of mismanagement and ineptitude that rival his own mismanagement and ineptitude. In my opinion, he's a sleazy guy who was hoping to turn owning the team into an enormous land grab, and he ultimately got one-upped by richer, potentially sleazier people.

By the way, I was bar hopping by the BC last night and we asked the bartender at The Montrose to turn on the Isles game. He did and someone in the bar said, "Yeah, Islanders!" I whipped my head around expecting to see Islanders cufflinks or a Joe Strummer lookalike. No such luck.

Politics have always been bad in Nassau. Look at the D'Amato's and Island Park.

High taxes have always been an issue in Nassau. 20 years ago when I got married I almost bought a house in Island Park but my wife got turned off by the commute to Whitestone where she was working at that time (good thing because the house would have gotten flooded by Sandy), and 5 years ago we were about to buy a house in Lynbrook but the taxes on that house were like carrying another mortgage and I changed my mind. Raising kids in an 1100 sq. ft. apartment is no big bargain but it can be done.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

Even if taxes are the case, wouldn't people rather have something to show for the tax increase?

No team- tax increase
Team with new building- Tax increase

I think I would rather have option 2. At least their is something to show for it.

Which is the crux of why the referendum was a GIGANTIC show of human stupidity. Replace a tax paying entity with more payments from said entity after funding expansion or replace it with a vacuum to be filled by the voter?

Well, they saved money! And businesses and residents flee, much like businesses are leaving TPRoCalifornia and NY State alike.

All they had to do was explain the benefit TO THE TAXPAYERS AND RESIDENTS, not just hockey fans and Chuckipoops.

{in hindsight, the pols probably were afraid citizens might as why they don't cut spending?}

 

[BroadwayJay*]

I whipped my head around expecting to see Islanders cufflinks or a Joe Strummer lookalike. No such luck.

Give us a little warning and that can be a reality.

 

[Strummergas]

Give us a little warning and that can be a reality.

You should've referred Abe to this thread:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1795621

 

[Abe Vukota]

You should've referred Abe to this thread:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1795621

I'm 50/50 for the February meetup, but it sounds like Bones and I amuse ourselves in very similar ways (no, not arguing with people on message boards, OTHER similar ways), so I'm making that extra effort.

 

[The Underboss]

And that is now starting to resonate with the Nassau voters. Too little too late.

IMO, the average voter viewed the Coliseum referendum as "you want me to pay for an arena for Charles Wang's hockey team?" Dead at the starting gate.

I don't often agree with Mike Francessa but he viewed the referendum the same way I did; that having a first class entertainment venue is a public good, that it enhances the quality of life in Nassau, that it keeps the revenue at home and it keeps you from having to schlep your family of 4 on the LIRR to see events in the city that you used to be able to see a 20 minute car ride away.

I don't like to tell people how to spend their money but it was very short-sighted of the Nassau County voters not to see the big picture and vote the referendum down.

Can't argue with anything said there.

Which is the crux of why the referendum was a GIGANTIC show of human stupidity. Replace a tax paying entity with more payments from said entity after funding expansion or replace it with a vacuum to be filled by the voter?

Well, they saved money! And businesses and residents flee, much like businesses are leaving TPRoCalifornia and NY State alike.

All they had to do was explain the benefit TO THE TAXPAYERS AND RESIDENTS, not just hockey fans and Chuckipoops.

{in hindsight, the pols probably were afraid citizens might as why they don't cut spending?}

Absolutely agree that was done beyond poorly.

 

[19 in a row]

Which is the crux of why the referendum was a GIGANTIC show of human stupidity. Replace a tax paying entity with more payments from said entity after funding expansion or replace it with a vacuum to be filled by the voter?

Well, they saved money! And businesses and residents flee, much like businesses are leaving TPRoCalifornia and NY State alike.

All they had to do was explain the benefit TO THE TAXPAYERS AND RESIDENTS, not just hockey fans and Chuckipoops.

{in hindsight, the pols probably were afraid citizens might as why they don't cut spending?}

Absolutely agree with this.. The whole thing appeared shady to most and there was a lot of distrust for Mangano and Wang trying to sneak it in when they did. After the initial announcement the only news the majority of people heard was the negative articles and news 12 reports pushed by the Dems(in this instance), the coalition of builders not involved with the referendum and that it may not be legal/NIFA would not approve. I remember reading NY Post articles saying what a bad deal it was for the voters. At the time, I spoke to many non hockey people that I consider highly intelligent, and none of them fully understood the ramifications, because it was not spelled out to people clearly. If it had been put down as it is either this or they move, it would have been a different story. At least I would have known where that tax increase (very small increase) was going. My taxes go up annually and no one tells me where these additional funds are earmarked.. This is why I have placed blame squarely on the ownership and the politicians.

 

[stranger34]

Absolutely agree with this.. The whole thing appeared shady to most and there was a lot of distrust for Mangano and Wang trying to sneak it in when they did. After the initial announcement the only news the majority of people heard was the negative articles and news 12 reports pushed by the Dems(in this instance), the coalition of builders not involved with the referendum and that it may not be legal/NIFA would not approve. I remember reading NY Post articles saying what a bad deal it was for the voters. At the time, I spoke to many non hockey people that I consider highly intelligent, and none of them fully understood the ramifications, because it was not spelled out to people clearly. If it had been put down as it is either this or they move, it would have been a different story. At least I would have known where that tax increase (very small increase) was going. My taxes go up annually and no one tells me where these additional funds are earmarked.. This is why I have placed blame squarely on the ownership and the politicians.

Agree!

To me it almost seemed like Mangano and Wang didn't care that it failed because at minimum it allowed them to publicly wash their hands of the Isles fate in Nassau... it wasn't a bad worst case scenario for those two...

 

[Steve55]

Someone provided me a link to various configurations of Barclays

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ys-center-an-arena-with-many-faces.html?_r=1&

According to the google map, there is a rail yard east of Barclays. If the Barclays want to expand in the future, it has to expand east.

However, from what I understand, the obstructed section is on the west side. It seems the Islanders are stuck with the current set up.

 

[Bones45]

I'm 50/50 for the February meetup, but it sounds like Bones and I amuse ourselves in very similar ways (no, not arguing with people on message boards, OTHER similar ways), so I'm making that extra effort.

Good man. Your extra effort is noted.

 

[2ndGenIslander]

we'll play in that cluster**** of a non-hockey building for 3 years before we head back home

 

[Bones45]

we'll play in that cluster**** of a non-hockey building for 3 years before we head back home

Stubhub already has tix for the Isles return back to Nassau.

Home opener back at the Nassau NewAreniseum, 10/12/19

 

[2ndGenIslander]

Stubhub already has tix for the Isles return back to Nassau.

Home opener back at the Nassau NewAreniseum, 10/12/19

(Edit) link me. that would be hilarious if someone did that

 

[Steve55]

http://nyislesblog.com/articles/islanders-can-opt-out-of-barclay-s-center-lease

Via a source familiar with the Barclay's Center lease, IslesBlog has learned that the New York Islanders may be able to opt of their lease at the Barclay's Center three years after the majority ownership of the team changes. They would then be free to renegotiate a new deal with Barclay's Center, or pursue other arena options...

Bruce Ratner and the Islanders have both stated that part of the relocation plan would include 6 games per season at a renovated Nassau Coliseum. Currently, it is unknown what the new ownership group of the Islanders would be interested in doing with the lease.

Editor's Note: Since publication, we have reason to believe the opt out clause would have to be a mutual agreement. As both the Barclay's Center and the Islanders would both have to agree on the opt out. This has yet to be confirmed, but if there are any developments to the story, IslesBlog will keep you updated.

If the Islanders opt out of the Barclays lease, chances are NYC will try to accommodate them (likely more effort than what Nassau put in). Since Barclays Center's obstructed section may be unfixable, perhaps NYC will try to move the Islanders near Citi Field within the next 25 years.

 

[Abe Vukota]

http://nyislesblog.com/articles/islanders-can-opt-out-of-barclay-s-center-lease

Via a source familiar with the Barclay's Center lease, IslesBlog has learned that the New York Islanders may be able to opt of their lease at the Barclay's Center three years after the majority ownership of the team changes. They would then be free to renegotiate a new deal with Barclay's Center, or pursue other arena options...

Bruce Ratner and the Islanders have both stated that part of the relocation plan would include 6 games per season at a renovated Nassau Coliseum. Currently, it is unknown what the new ownership group of the Islanders would be interested in doing with the lease.

Editor's Note: Since publication, we have reason to believe the opt out clause would have to be a mutual agreement. As both the Barclay's Center and the Islanders would both have to agree on the opt out. This has yet to be confirmed, but if there are any developments to the story, IslesBlog will keep you updated.

If the Islanders opt out of the Barclays lease, chances are NYC will try to accommodate them. Since Barclays Center's obstructed section may be unfixable, perhaps NYC will try to move the Islanders near Citi Field within the next 25 years.

A move to Citi Field would be awesome. Unlikely, but awesome. Maybe the best option of them all.

I don't know how comfortable I feel relying on Isles Blog though; weren't they the guys who got humiliated on Twitter for believing some Isles-related hoax recently? Or am I mixing them up with another handle?

 

[Space Herpe]

http://nyislesblog.com/articles/islanders-can-opt-out-of-barclay-s-center-lease

Via a source familiar with the Barclay's Center lease, IslesBlog has learned that the New York Islanders may be able to opt of their lease at the Barclay's Center three years after the majority ownership of the team changes. They would then be free to renegotiate a new deal with Barclay's Center, or pursue other arena options...

Bruce Ratner and the Islanders have both stated that part of the relocation plan would include 6 games per season at a renovated Nassau Coliseum. Currently, it is unknown what the new ownership group of the Islanders would be interested in doing with the lease.

Editor's Note: Since publication, we have reason to believe the opt out clause would have to be a mutual agreement. As both the Barclay's Center and the Islanders would both have to agree on the opt out. This has yet to be confirmed, but if there are any developments to the story, IslesBlog will keep you updated.

If the Islanders opt out of the Barclays lease, chances are NYC will try to accommodate them (likely more effort than what Nassau put in). Since Barclays Center's obstructed section may be unfixable, perhaps NYC will try to move the Islanders near Citi Field within the next 25 years.

Ugh.

Maybe Nassau would've learned their lesson by then.
BUT...will another arena in the NYC metro area - is it needed? Can it attract (whatever) to remain profitable?

I have a bad feeling that Quebec is going to be heavily discussed.

 

[blitzkriegs]

Ugh.

Maybe Nassau would've learned their lesson by then.
BUT...will another arena in the NYC metro area - is it needed? Can it attract (whatever) to remain profitable?

I have a bad feeling that Quebec is going to be heavily discussed.

Let's take Queens, beyond 41 dates of hockey, what else is going to support that arena? I get 'other' events, but MSG and BC already have a stranglehold on NYC-arena events. Is there THAT much use for another arena? [PS - don't think so]

 

[blitzkriegs]

http://nyislesblog.com/articles/islanders-can-opt-out-of-barclay-s-center-lease

Via a source familiar with the Barclay's Center lease, IslesBlog has learned that the New York Islanders may be able to opt of their lease at the Barclay's Center three years after the majority ownership of the team changes. They would then be free to renegotiate a new deal with Barclay's Center, or pursue other arena options...

Bruce Ratner and the Islanders have both stated that part of the relocation plan would include 6 games per season at a renovated Nassau Coliseum. Currently, it is unknown what the new ownership group of the Islanders would be interested in doing with the lease.

Editor's Note: Since publication, we have reason to believe the opt out clause would have to be a mutual agreement. As both the Barclay's Center and the Islanders would both have to agree on the opt out. This has yet to be confirmed, but if there are any developments to the story, IslesBlog will keep you updated.

If the Islanders opt out of the Barclays lease, chances are NYC will try to accommodate them (likely more effort than what Nassau put in). Since Barclays Center's obstructed section may be unfixable, perhaps NYC will try to move the Islanders near Citi Field within the next 25 years.

I'm not even going to bother to click the link bc its a much ado about nothing post. However, people need to realize the 6 games at the new NVMC in 2025 when it gets done is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

 

[gadiamon72]

Unfortunately, once they are out of Nassau County, I think they are out for good, whether they stay at the BC or go elsewhere. I'm willing to bet that the out clause exists in case it is proven that the Isles cannot draw a strong enough following. If that happens, I can see them moving to Quebec or Kansas City where they would be welcomed with open arms.

I'm not worried yet and I really do hope that a solid Brooklyn fan base is created to go along with the existing LI fan base. Then there would be no reason to exercise the out clause and maybe even spend the money to reconfigure the arena to make it more hockey friendly.

 

[MJF]

http://nyislesblog.com/articles/islanders-can-opt-out-of-barclay-s-center-lease

Via a source familiar with the Barclay's Center lease, IslesBlog has learned that the New York Islanders may be able to opt of their lease at the Barclay's Center three years after the majority ownership of the team changes. They would then be free to renegotiate a new deal with Barclay's Center, or pursue other arena options...

Bruce Ratner and the Islanders have both stated that part of the relocation plan would include 6 games per season at a renovated Nassau Coliseum. Currently, it is unknown what the new ownership group of the Islanders would be interested in doing with the lease.

Editor's Note: Since publication, we have reason to believe the opt out clause would have to be a mutual agreement. As both the Barclay's Center and the Islanders would both have to agree on the opt out. This has yet to be confirmed, but if there are any developments to the story, IslesBlog will keep you updated.

If the Islanders opt out of the Barclays lease, chances are NYC will try to accommodate them (likely more effort than what Nassau put in). Since Barclays Center's obstructed section may be unfixable, perhaps NYC will try to move the Islanders near Citi Field within the next 25 years.

This is an article from December 1st, 2014. There is nothing new being reported here.

And while it's your OPINION that NYC will try to accommodate another move within the five boroughs there is no evidence of any movement to get the junk yards by Willets Point closed, especially since Michael Bloomberg is no longer the mayor. The political climate has changed in NYC since then.

I think the team will remain at the Barc unless a miracle occurs in the Coliseum rebuild and the capacity is suddenly raised, instead of being lowered.

 

[MJF]

Today was the first day that current STH's could purchase general season tickets at Barclay. From what I've heard the opportunity will be available until this Thursday. Have any of the STHs who are regulars here looked into this yet?