HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Support for the Islanders!? Vote Yes!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-13-2011, 11:09 PM
  #26
John Torturella
Registered User
 
John Torturella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,832
vCash: 500
Not sure how residents of one the highest taxed counties in the US could vote yes to this. It sounds like a good idea, but will the taxpayers will likely flip the bill on this one. Enough is enough already. Wang has bazillions of dollars. If he doesn't feel that it would be wise to invest the money, why on earth should the taxpayers. If he thought it was guaranteed success, he wouldn't ask for a handout. He would take the profit to himself and run.

John Torturella is offline  
Old
07-13-2011, 11:16 PM
  #27
Noreaster96
Registered User
 
Noreaster96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korpicowski View Post
Not sure how residents of one the highest taxed counties in the US could vote yes to this. It sounds like a good idea, but will the taxpayers will likely flip the bill on this one. Enough is enough already. Wang has bazillions of dollars. If he doesn't feel that it would be wise to invest the money, why on earth should the taxpayers. If he thought it was guaranteed success, he wouldn't ask for a handout. He would take the profit to himself and run.
Unfortunately it isnt quite this simple... With the Lighthouse Project it was all going to be privately funded...however that was shot down by politics as usual. The thing is that there is risk involved, which noone can deny. There is, indeed, a greater risk to simply build only a colisseum. The thing was, when the lighthouse plan was in play, the risk was less for Wang because, even though he was paying, the additional revenue from other sources on the project would make the risk worthwhile. Without this extra development comes extra risk, which is why Wang probaly sees this deal as more of a wash (in terms of pure risk) with the lighthouse project since his initial investment is lower

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
The annual debt service will be $26 million. The county's 11.5% of the arena's revenue will not cover that (with the possible exception of the first year, if you want to assume a "honeymoon period").

The tax increase to cover the debt is starting at $58. I've yet to find any guarantee that that $58 will be reduced when the arena revenues start coming in in year 3. It will be difficult to significantly reduce that because it is difficult to predict exactly how much revenue will be coming in (above the minimum $14 million that the Islanders have to pay).
If you havent yet had a chance to read this, take a quick glance at it (specifically page 4 where it lays out the numbers, maybe if it shows something it might change your mind. If you have seen this then I apologize in advance)

http://islanders.nhl.com/v2/ext/HUB%...PROJEC_001.pdf

Noreaster96 is offline  
Old
07-13-2011, 11:42 PM
  #28
Krampus
Call me Nils
 
Krampus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NYC
Country: Austria
Posts: 17,832
vCash: 500
I really wish i could vote! I live in Rosdale (next to Valley Stream) and can see Nassau from my house. Good luck to you Islanders!

Krampus is offline  
Old
07-13-2011, 11:44 PM
  #29
Kind of Blue
Registered User
 
Kind of Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noreaster96 View Post
Unfortunately it isnt quite this simple... With the Lighthouse Project it was all going to be privately funded...however that was shot down by politics as usual. The thing is that there is risk involved, which noone can deny. There is, indeed, a greater risk to simply build only a colisseum. The thing was, when the lighthouse plan was in play, the risk was less for Wang because, even though he was paying, the additional revenue from other sources on the project would make the risk worthwhile. Without this extra development comes extra risk, which is why Wang probaly sees this deal as more of a wash (in terms of pure risk) with the lighthouse project since his initial investment is lower
More specifically, Wang's initial investment here is zero. That is one of the most disappointing aspects of the deal. He should be making at least some contribution upfront.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Noreaster96 View Post
If you havent yet had a chance to read this, take a quick glance at it (specifically page 4 where it lays out the numbers, maybe if it shows something it might change your mind. If you have seen this then I apologize in advance)

http://islanders.nhl.com/v2/ext/HUB%...PROJEC_001.pdf
I hadn't seen the EIA, thanks for that. Unfortunately, I don't see anything that changes my opinion. It is also important to note that EIAs involved a host of assumptions, rely heavily on information provided by the developer, are generally understood to be biased in favor of the developer.

Having said that, I have to give some credit to Camoin for at least adjusting down some of the initial projections the Islanders provided them. The funniest one was the Islanders projected six home playoffs games per season! (Page 10)

Also, are the Islanders really planning an average ticket price around $60 to $64? What are they charging now?


Last edited by Kind of Blue: 07-14-2011 at 12:06 AM.
Kind of Blue is offline  
Old
07-13-2011, 11:45 PM
  #30
Darrelle Lundqvist
Swagelin
 
Darrelle Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,781
vCash: 500
It be sad to see you guys go because of the rivalries that were in the past. But I never witnessed the great Islanders-Rangers battles in the 1970's and 80's so I can't appreciate it as much.

Darrelle Lundqvist is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 12:00 AM
  #31
bettercallstaal
Custom User Title
 
bettercallstaal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wingdale
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
If true, I guess this means this one will be closed any second . Don't understand why, I'm not flaming or anything just trying to round up some support. Plus it directly affects the Rangers and many Ranger fans living out in Nassau.
I wasn't trying to flame and I understand where you are coming from. No one wants to see their team leave. It would be devastating.

bettercallstaal is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 12:02 AM
  #32
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,205
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Tax payers should not be footing the bill for any stadium. I'm sorry, but there is no way that anyone should vote yes at all. Should all be private.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
EvilCorporateLawyer is online now  
Old
07-14-2011, 12:19 AM
  #33
Isles Junkie
Registered User
 
Isles Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,132
vCash: 500
http://www.islanderspointblank.com/2...e-nyi-to-stay/

Classy comments by some Rangers past & present

Isles Junkie is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 12:24 AM
  #34
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Not voting for this since it will raise my taxes. I don't even care if it was just a dime, it's a matter of principal.

Just so you know, if this was the Rangers, I'd vote know as well. More so a matter of ethics than sports fandom.

Wang is rich enough to pay for this out of his pocket and not charge nassau residents.

I'm sick of these sports owners getting breaks.

Puckface NYR* is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 12:29 AM
  #35
NYRSchrute217
Registered User
 
NYRSchrute217's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankthefrowner View Post
Holy crap i am disgusted by some of my fellow ranger fans. This rivalry while not currently at its peak is one of the best in hockey. Hell even when 1 of the two teams arent all that good the games are always fun to watch.

If i lived in Nassau county i would vote yes in 10 seconds without hesitation. The islanders are storied franchise who have been saddled with piss poor ownership for far too long. They are also a loyal fanbase and i dont want to hear any crap about them not selling out the past couple years. Just look at the early 2000 teams they were good teams and the building rocked hard. But its hard as a fan to spend alot of money on tickets and concessions and parking when the team frankly has no hope of competing.

I would also hate not being able to just goto a random game on the island because im a god damn hockey fan. One of my favorite experiences was actually at a Hawks Isles game from like 5-6 years ago during a big snow storm. They played the game presumably because the Hawks werent going to be back and there were like 2000 people there. They let us move down to the lower bowl and we were sitting right behind craig anderson when he first came up. We kept yelling Mr Anderson at him like a bunch of jackasses(its when the matrix trilogy was out) and he even shot us a smile and a wave.

Losing the Isles to Kansas city would be a huge blow to me those 6 games we play against them good or bad are fun and would water down the games for me..

Vote Yes.. luckily those of you who say you are voting no probablyt cant vote yet anyway.
This. Any Rangers fan who wants the Islanders off the Island is insane.

NYRSchrute217 is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 12:32 AM
  #36
Isles Junkie
Registered User
 
Isles Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
The fact that a minor league ballpark was tied into this project is ridiculous. It's one thing to keep the Islanders on Long Island, but Nassau residents really don't need to be paying for a ballpark.

If this is passed, Nassau homeowners will pay an additional $58 in taxes each year for the next 30 years.

The county will receive 11.5% of revenue generated by the arena.

It's not a terrible deal, but the cost could have been lower (specifically by excluding the ballpark) and the return probably could have been greater.
This is a MAJOR problem. People simply do not know the facts.

That $58 is only if not a single person ever shows up to a game or a concert or Disney on Ice EVER. The second they sell their 1st ticket, they'll be paying off the loan. The second they sell their first hot dog they'll be paying off the loan. The deal is either 14 Million Wangbucks OR 11.5% of all total revenue per year, whichever is higher.

Secondly, the point to the minor league ball park is to generate more summer time revenue for the project.

Thirdly, and most importantly, even if they build the thing & no one ever shows up, that $58 a year is going to still be a hell of a lot less expensive than the tax increase Nassau county homeowners will be forced to endure when there is a dark empty arena. Where do people think that revenue is going to come from if the Islanders move out? Do you really think without a tenant that building will stay in use?

I don't live in Nassau, so I really only care about how this effects the Islanders. But looking at it logically, it makes more sense to spend the $ now, then it does to spend a lot more $ later in increased property taxes & lose a team and arena.

Isles Junkie is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 12:36 AM
  #37
Machinehead
Moderator
ActingLikeAStempniak
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 35,786
vCash: 500
C'mon guys, if we lose the Islanders, who's gonna make us feel better about ourselves when we fall on our faces? Misery loves company you know. Here in New York, we suck together

Machinehead is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 12:45 AM
  #38
Isles Junkie
Registered User
 
Isles Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckface NYR View Post
Not voting for this since it will raise my taxes. I don't even care if it was just a dime, it's a matter of principal.

Just so you know, if this was the Rangers, I'd vote know as well. More so a matter of ethics than sports fandom.

Wang is rich enough to pay for this out of his pocket and not charge nassau residents.

I'm sick of these sports owners getting breaks.
What do you think is going to happen to your taxes in a few years when that building is vacant? Where is the county going to find all of that lost tax revenue from? It's going to come from you in the form of higher property taxes. How is it that people can not see this fundamental truth?

Isles Junkie is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 12:47 AM
  #39
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,205
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isle Junkie View Post
What do you think is going to happen to your taxes in a few years when that building is vacant? Where is that lost tax revenue going to come from? It's going to come from you in the form of higher property taxes. How is it that people can not see this fundamental truth?
It will be replaced with something else that will make money. Tax money should never be used to fund stadiums. Ever. Your owner is filthy rich. Let him fund it.

EvilCorporateLawyer is online now  
Old
07-14-2011, 12:51 AM
  #40
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,205
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isle Junkie View Post
This is a MAJOR problem. People simply do not know the facts.

That $58 is only if not a single person ever shows up to a game or a concert or Disney on Ice EVER. The second they sell their 1st ticket, they'll be paying off the loan. The second they sell their first hot dog they'll be paying off the loan. The deal is either 14 Million Wangbucks OR 11.5% of all total revenue per year, whichever is higher.

Secondly, the point to the minor league ball park is to generate more summer time revenue for the project.

Thirdly, and most importantly, even if they build the thing & no one ever shows up, that $58 a year is going to still be a hell of a lot less expensive than the tax increase Nassau county homeowners will be forced to endure when there is a dark empty arena. Where do people think that revenue is going to come from if the Islanders move out? Do you really think without a tenant that building will stay in use?

I don't live in Nassau, so I really only care about how this effects the Islanders. But looking at it logically, it makes more sense to spend the $ now, then it does to spend a lot more $ later in increased property taxes & lose a team and arena.
That's cute and all.

But, in this economy especially, why should taxpayers have to front ANYTHING to some filthy rich guy to fund his toy? That's what this is. This is Wang asking the citizens to give him some money so he can upgrade his toy. Let's not make this any more than it already is. Wang doesn't give a flying **** about Long Island or any of the citizens there. He cares about lining his already well lined pocket with their cash.

The tax payers should be voting this down and telling him to go **** himself. Nothing more, nothing less. He has more than enough money to cover this via his own cash and other private funding. It's a joke that you think anyone in their right mind should even think of giving this clown their money to fund his toy some more.

Hopefully he's shot down come August, but I am sure he'll find a way to hoodwink the taxpayers into giving him cash.

EvilCorporateLawyer is online now  
Old
07-14-2011, 12:58 AM
  #41
Isles Junkie
Registered User
 
Isles Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
It will be replaced with something else that will make money. Tax money should never be used to fund stadiums. Ever. Your owner is filthy rich. Let him fund it.
He wanted to fund a renovated NVMC & the Lighthouse Project. the Town of Hempstead said no. Why should he fund a building that he isn't going to own anyway? How about you go and build a house and then pay me rent for you to live in it.

What else is going to go there? Another stinking mall? is that what Long Islanders needs? Another place to shop and eat? Roosevelt Field is like 3 minutes away. More housing? ok fine, enjoy the more housing & the increased property taxes that go along with it.

Taxes aren't paying for it anyway. Not in the sense that you're talking about. Tax $ is fronting the bill & they're being paid back + profit over the course of 30 years. 14 million a year at a minimum x 30 years = 420 million dollars. so the county profits from this even if no one ever shows up.

I guarantee that no matter what they build there, your property taxes will increase a hell of a lot more then they will to build a new coliseum.

Isles Junkie is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 01:01 AM
  #42
Isles Junkie
Registered User
 
Isles Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post

But, in this economy especially, why should taxpayers have to front ANYTHING to some filthy rich guy to fund his toy?
Because it's in their future interest to do so. Your taxes will increase no matter what happens. That is a guarantee. It's just a question of if you want them to be raised 58 dollars or 200 dollars.

Isles Junkie is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 01:06 AM
  #43
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isle Junkie View Post
Because it's in their future interest to do so. Your taxes will increase no matter what happens. That is a guarantee. It's just a question of if you want them to be raised 58 dollars or 200 dollars.
How can you be so sure that the latter will even occur. Can you tel the future?

All i know right now, is that it is 100% certain that my taxes will raise if this passes.

As a citizen, i am completely against funding sports stadiums through taxes, specifically in this economy.

So no, i won't be voting yes. And it has nothing to do with the islanders or whoever plays there.

Just a note, i go to a lot of concerts and hockey games at the mausoleum, so it's not like i have nothing to do with that arena.

Puckface NYR* is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 01:06 AM
  #44
Kind of Blue
Registered User
 
Kind of Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isle Junkie View Post
This is a MAJOR problem. People simply do not know the facts.
With all due respect, I think I do know the facts here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isle Junkie View Post
That $58 is only if not a single person ever shows up to a game or a concert or Disney on Ice EVER. The second they sell their 1st ticket, they'll be paying off the loan. The second they sell their first hot dog they'll be paying off the loan. The deal is either 14 Million Wangbucks OR 11.5% of all total revenue per year, whichever is higher.
It has not been guaranteed anywhere that the $58 will be eliminated or even reduced once the renovated arena opens in Year 3, despite the fact that the county will start receiving revenue from the arena at that point. You also have to keep in mind that the debt service is $26 million per year and there is no guarantee that the county's share of arena revenues will cover that (if fact it almost certainly will not), so it is very safe to assume that the increase will be needed over the life of the loan either in whole or in part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isle Junkie View Post
Secondly, the point to the minor league ball park is to generate more summer time revenue for the project.
The only thing certain is the cost, and it is extremely difficult to predict whether the revenue a minor ballpark would generate would justify that investment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isle Junkie View Post
Thirdly, and most importantly, even if they build the thing & no one ever shows up, that $58 a year is going to still be a hell of a lot less expensive than the tax increase Nassau county homeowners will be forced to endure when there is a dark empty arena. Where do people think that revenue is going to come from if the Islanders move out? Do you really think without a tenant that building will stay in use?
I did say that it wasn't a terrible deal, but I think a much more favorable deal could have been brought to the taxpayers. And Wang needed to make an initial investment here.

Further, it is a baseless assumption that taxes would be increased if the Islanders left.

Also, it should be pointed out that if the Isles did leave, it would not simply remain a "dark empty arena." Several developers stated interest in developing the land at the site when the original Lighthouse Project was presented. And those developers wouldn't need much if any public money. (That location could also possibly be of interest to MLS, though they certainly would prefer to be in Queens.)

Kind of Blue is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 01:22 AM
  #45
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
That's cute and all.

But, in this economy especially, why should taxpayers have to front ANYTHING to some filthy rich guy to fund his toy? That's what this is. This is Wang asking the citizens to give him some money so he can upgrade his toy. Let's not make this any more than it already is. Wang doesn't give a flying **** about Long Island or any of the citizens there. He cares about lining his already well lined pocket with their cash.

The tax payers should be voting this down and telling him to go **** himself. Nothing more, nothing less. He has more than enough money to cover this via his own cash and other private funding. It's a joke that you think anyone in their right mind should even think of giving this clown their money to fund his toy some more.

Hopefully he's shot down come August, but I am sure he'll find a way to hoodwink the taxpayers into giving him cash.
If you want to talk impact on the taxpayer having this project built will actually benefit the taxpayer in the long run

Why?
1. Jobs. This project equals direct jobs in the construction of and then operation of the buildings. With less unemployed there becomes a larger taxbase for the gov't to collect from thus easing everyone else's individual tax burden.
2. Increases your own home's worth. Location, location, location. Being a reasonable distance from a project like this makes your home more valuable. That's huge especially in an economic climate like this one where we're seeing people's homes fall in value dangerously fast, leading to many walking away from their mortgages which then lowers surrounding homes values even more etc...
3. Jobs. Indirect jobs. People going to games/concerts/baseball games/etc helps surrounding business. People go to/leave from the event, stop by a local restaurant on the way. Buy some gas. Buy some tailgating stuff from the supermarket. Just some quick examples, you get the point.
4. Jobs. Direct suppliers. This kind of a project once completed will require substantial orders of all sorts of items (food, drinks, overpriced stuff you buy at the event). Those industries get boosted when they start having to supply a place such as what is being proposed.

On it's face I get why people don't want to spend taxpayer money on the project. But pragmatically, that's the only way it's going to get done. If we don't contribute to it being built another location will. And another location will because they'll recognize how great it'll be for their area to have a pro sports team playing there. If we let the Isles go on principle then in practice we'll be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

Kel Varnsen is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 01:29 AM
  #46
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckface NYR View Post
How can you be so sure that the latter will even occur. Can you tel the future?

All i know right now, is that it is 100% certain that my taxes will raise if this passes.

As a citizen, i am completely against funding sports stadiums through taxes, specifically in this economy.

So no, i won't be voting yes. And it has nothing to do with the islanders or whoever plays there.

Just a note, i go to a lot of concerts and hockey games at the mausoleum, so it's not like i have nothing to do with that arena.
Any intro to macro-economics student would be able to tell you that specifically in this economy the government should be making larger expenditures like this. When the citizens aren't spending, the government has to pick up the slack. That's the only way we can hope to achieve full employment. And we will continue to have budget problems until we are in full employment because it won't be until then that we'll have a large enough tax base to fundamentally make big change.

There is a time to cut spending but that's during times of economic prosperity, not recovery.

Kel Varnsen is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 01:56 AM
  #47
Isles Junkie
Registered User
 
Isles Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
With all due respect, I think I do know the facts here.


It has not been guaranteed anywhere that the $58 will be eliminated or even reduced once the renovated arena opens in Year 3, despite the fact that the county will start receiving revenue from the arena at that point. You also have to keep in mind that the debt service is $26 million per year and there is no guarantee that the county's share of arena revenues will cover that (if fact it almost certainly will not), so it is very safe to assume that the increase will be needed over the life of the loan either in whole or in part.


The only thing certain is the cost, and it is extremely difficult to predict whether the revenue a minor ballpark would generate would justify that investment.


I did say that it wasn't a terrible deal, but I think a much more favorable deal could have been brought to the taxpayers. And Wang needed to make an initial investment here.

Further, it is a baseless assumption that taxes would be increased if the Islanders left.

Also, it should be pointed out that if the Isles did leave, it would not simply remain a "dark empty arena." Several developers stated interest in developing the land at the site when the original Lighthouse Project was presented. And those developers wouldn't need much if any public money. (That location could also possibly be of interest to MLS, though they certainly would prefer to be in Queens.)
Hopefully it was an error on your part, but this isn't a renovated arena. It's a brand new arena.

Both the arena & the stadium would have their naming rights sold & that would be considered revenue which would go into the pie.

Saying taxes would increase is only baseless if you don't take logic into account. NYI leave, arena dark (and it would be) Nassau fights over who gets to build Walmart, Costco and Best Buy. Walmart fights back that they don't want a POS arena sitting there housing all the rats & Nassau fights for another year about how they're going to pay for the demolition of NVMC and your taxes increase in the meantime with no guarantee they'd go down once the brick & mortar store is up.

Is that what LI really needs? Another place to shop? The TOH isn't going to let anything useful be built there. There's already precedence with them saying no to the LHP. Prospective developers are going to want all 77 (?) acres to develop on.

You live on LI, you know how their politics work better than I do. It'll be 2020 before anything is built there, and the taxpayer definitely will feel it in the wallet.

Isles Junkie is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 02:25 AM
  #48
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
Any intro to macro-economics student would be able to tell you that specifically in this economy the government should be making larger expenditures like this. When the citizens aren't spending, the government has to pick up the slack. That's the only way we can hope to achieve full employment. And we will continue to have budget problems until we are in full employment because it won't be until then that we'll have a large enough tax base to fundamentally make big change.

There is a time to cut spending but that's during times of economic prosperity, not recovery.
And how many jobs have been estimated as an outcome of this project.

There are much better and more lucrative ways to increase the job market through our taxes.

Puckface NYR* is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 02:29 AM
  #49
LyNX27
Registered User
 
LyNX27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 2,258
vCash: 500
With the thought of the Islanders possibly going to Nevada, or Washington, or one step closer to Wisconsin, I can't vote yes. But then again, I can't vote.

LyNX27 is offline  
Old
07-14-2011, 02:51 AM
  #50
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,205
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
If you want to talk impact on the taxpayer having this project built will actually benefit the taxpayer in the long run

Why?
1. Jobs. This project equals direct jobs in the construction of and then operation of the buildings. With less unemployed there becomes a larger taxbase for the gov't to collect from thus easing everyone else's individual tax burden.
2. Increases your own home's worth. Location, location, location. Being a reasonable distance from a project like this makes your home more valuable. That's huge especially in an economic climate like this one where we're seeing people's homes fall in value dangerously fast, leading to many walking away from their mortgages which then lowers surrounding homes values even more etc...
3. Jobs. Indirect jobs. People going to games/concerts/baseball games/etc helps surrounding business. People go to/leave from the event, stop by a local restaurant on the way. Buy some gas. Buy some tailgating stuff from the supermarket. Just some quick examples, you get the point.
4. Jobs. Direct suppliers. This kind of a project once completed will require substantial orders of all sorts of items (food, drinks, overpriced stuff you buy at the event). Those industries get boosted when they start having to supply a place such as what is being proposed.

On it's face I get why people don't want to spend taxpayer money on the project. But pragmatically, that's the only way it's going to get done. If we don't contribute to it being built another location will. And another location will because they'll recognize how great it'll be for their area to have a pro sports team playing there. If we let the Isles go on principle then in practice we'll be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
So fund it your-*******-selves. Pay some seat licences for the stadium and cover what the taxes would have to cover.

I mean, you'd actually need fans to do that. But it's a way to cut out the tax payers who shouldn't be involved in the first place.

There are many things that can be built there that will make more money for the area in terms of taxes, jobs, etc. than a sports stadium.

Indirect jobs works in theory, but really won't be much of a help due to the area. In a big city, such as NYC, this is completely true. But in a more suburban environment, this is just not the case.

The jobs lost can be replaced by jobs in something like a shopping mall or whatever the hell else they choose to build there. These small part time jobs that would be lost are simply not worth it at all in the long run.

EvilCorporateLawyer is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:19 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.