Nassau County residents today will "take to the polls to vote for or against their county taking out a $400 million bond" to build a new arena for the Islanders, "along with other 'sports-entertainment' venues," according to Brett Cyrgalis of the N.Y. POST. Islanders Owner Charles Wang "has done everything in his power -- including blurring the line of electoral politics -- in order to try and get his beloved franchise a new home on Long Island." Wang said, "You don’t take anything for granted, but I think we have got some momentum. We’ve gotten our message out, despite (negative) sound bites. It’s going to be very tight, but we’ve worked very hard getting here." Wang would not disclose the "exact amount of money he has shelled out over the past couple weeks while trying to get the referendum passed." Today's vote is a "last-ditch effort trying to keep the team in the place he calls home." Wang: "We want to be on Long Island, this is our home" (NYPOST.com, 7/31). In N.Y., Nicholas Hirshon notes Nassau County voters are "widely expected to approve plans to replace outdated Nassau Coliseum." If the referendum passes, it "must still be approved by Nassau legislators and a state watchdog group overseeing the county's finances." Approval could "end Queens' flirtations with luring the hockey team to form a sports base with the Mets and U.S. Open." Queens Chamber of Commerce Exec Dir Jack Friedman said, "I don't want to wish anything bad on Nassau, but should the vote go the other way, they have my number." Islanders Senior VP Michael Picker said, "We're not staying a day longer in this building than we have to. If it doesn't work here, we'll have to explore all of our options" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 8/1). On Long Island, Randi Marshall offers "questions and answers about some of the key issues" surrounding today's referendum (NEWSDAY, 7/31).
ALL IN FAVOR? NEWSDAY on Saturday voiced its support of the referendum, penning an editorial under the header, "Vote Yes For New Nassau Arena." The referendum "should be approved by voters," and after that the agreements between Nassau County and Wang "must be tightened to bind the man and the team to the deal and tightly cap the county's contribution." The editorial continued, "The taxpayers can and should be decisively shielded from a disastrous downside by the county legislature. If this cannot be done, the Nassau Interim Finance Authority, the fiscal monitor of the county, should scuttle the deal. But right now the process should continue to play out" (NEWSDAY, 7/30). In N.Y., Larry Brooks wrote it is not "so clear cut that the referendum’s defeat necessarily means extinction of the once remarkable franchise." There is "no indication if a potential buyer might surface in the wake of a defeat at the polls, someone who would keep the team in the area under a different scenario, even if not in Nassau County." There also is no indication if NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman "would be loyal to the market and to the team’s fans or whether he would be loyal to Wang, if the owner chose to sell or move the team out of market." Brooks added, "If you think that paying for a new coliseum yourself is the only way to keep the Islanders here, and if you believe that’s a worthy investment, then by all means cast your vote that way in the referendum. Just as long as you’re aware that there almost certainly are going to be other options to keep the Islanders where they belong, in New York, if the referendum goes down, even if not necessarily in Nassau County" (N.Y. POST, 7/31).
LOOK THE OTHER WAY: In N.Y., George Vecsey wrote, "Normally, I am on the side of public projects. I’m all for high-speed railroads and repairing the infrastructure, but not so sure about an arena for a hockey team. ... Many residents wonder if this bond is practical for a team that has surely seen better days -- and a county administration and team ownership that never have" (N.Y. TIMES, 7/31). In Montreal, Pat Hickey wrote, "I've long been opposed to the use of public money to fund arenas and stadiums, and the Long Island proposal is one of the most egregious examples of corporate welfare for a billionaire owner. ... The Islanders have tried to make the picture rosier by projecting $229 million in annual revenue for the new building, which would produce a $26.3-million return to the county. The only problem is that the chances of the arena producing that much revenue are slim to none" (Montreal GAZETTE, 7/30).
