iStar takes out full page ad in Newsday [Magnifying Glass Required]

A big iStar ad from today’s Newsday (and a big thank you to whoever started sharing this image). It’s small  and blurry, so I suggest you go to the store and actually buy today’s paper for a better read. 11391630_1579542825654299_687642100261693640_n

Please read the terms of service before you comment.

comments

28 thoughts on “iStar takes out full page ad in Newsday [Magnifying Glass Required]”

  1. I also noticed in Newsday today that there was no article on this Hearing. A Hearing about potential 140 million in real estate taxes over the next 25 years. A hearing that will show Builders are arguing apartment projects can’t be profitable in Long Beach if they are under 18 stories factoring in the additional 3 stories because of FEMA height regulations . Thereby changing the Long Beach Apartment Building landscape. This is not News, but Trollies are?

  2. Can we get a few things straight about tonight’s meeting? This meeting is solely concerned with the financial impact that this tax abatement will have on iStar’s ability to make the project a financial success.

    Stay on that topic!

    Since the IDA is concerned with that , certain items they should not be discussed or brought up.

    These items include:

    The Zoning Variance- It has been granted, nothing you say will change it
    The Hospital – it is closed, get over it
    The Firefighters – The ones on the grant no longer work for the city
    The LNG – it is 21 miles offshore for pete’s sake
    The Ambulances – Unless the person next to you is having a heart attack they should not be mentioned this evening

    Keep it focused…..

  3. Istar’s zoning variance application indicated $5.5 million of new real estate taxes a year after completion. They asked for the height and density variances for economic hardship reasons and did not say they also needed a Pilot. The got the variance and have now done a bait and switch.

  4. Oh and the fact that they said at the ZBA hearing that they were ready to develop immediately means squat as well. If you read the transcript they did not say “we are will not be asking for PILOTs”.

  5. RoE speaks truth. In addition, below is the criteria the IDA will use to decide if they grant the PILOT or not. If you are agains the PILOT, it would be wise to undermine any and all of the below points to the best of your ability.

    Section 5. DEVIATION FROM PILOT
    a. The Agency shall have the right, but not the obligation, to deviate from the PILOT schedules set forth in sections 4.c. , 4.d. and 4.e. of this Policy in terms of duration, amounts and phase-in of such PILOT, as applicable.

    b. Such deviation may be considered by the Agency upon request of the Applicant or upon its own motion.

    c. Any such deviation will be made only with the specific approval of the Agency’s members after giving consideration to the following factors:

    i. The ability of the Project to achieve the goals of the Agency’s Strategic Financial Assistance Policy, as it may be amended from time to time;

    ii. The environmental benefits of a Project, including, without limitation, the “Green” component and/or the LEED certification of a Project, if any;

    iii. The manner and extent to which the Project complies with the enumerated factors set forth in §874(4)(a) of the Act as amended from time to time;

    874(4)(a) states:

    Agencies shall in adopting such policy consider such issues as:

    • The extent to which a project will create or retain permanent, private sector jobs

    • The estimated value of any tax exemptions to be provided

    • Whether affected tax jurisdictions shall be reimbursed by the project occupant if a project does not fulfill the purposes for which an exemption was provided

    • The impact of a proposed project on existing and proposed businesses and economic development projects in the vicinity

    • The amount of private sector investment generated or likely to be generated by the proposed project

    • The demonstrated public support for the proposed project

    • The likelihood of accomplishing the proposed project in a timely fashion

    • The effect of the proposed project upon the environment

    • The extent to which the proposed project will require the provision of additional services, including, but not limited to additional educational, transportation, police, emergency medical or fire services

    • The extent to which the proposed project will provide additional sources of revenue for municipalities and school districts.

    The Strategic Financial Policy looks for:

    A. retaining and attracting “knowledge based” industries and services which: (1) produce high-technology goods, and/or (2) are intensive users of high technology and/or employ the highly skilled workforce that is required to benefit fully from technological innovations, including, but not limited to, communications, finance, insurance, real estate, business services, health, education, defense, aerospace, energy,
    homeland security and life sciences;

    B. the expansion and improvement of Nassau County’s sports, entertainment,
    film and tourism industries;

    C. the construction, reconstruction, maintenance and operation of affordable
    or “workforce” housing;

    D. the clean-up and reuse of “Brownfields” and other environmentally
    challenged sites;

    E. the development, redevelopment, betterment and more complete use of existing “downtown”, underdeveloped and highly distressed areas;

    F. the development or redevelopment of the Hub Strategic Area (as such
    capitalized term is used in Resolution No. 2011-13 adopted by the members of the Agency on June 22, 2011);

    G. the development or redevelopment of the Bethpage Strategic Area (as such capitalized term is used in Resolution No. 2011-14 adopted by the members of the Agency on June 22, 2011)

  6. @ Rules of Engagement. @ Further Rules. It’s a Public Hearing, you don’t get, to many of them in Long Beach, on major issues. Based upon your stated positions on Public Safety , Infra Structure , I suggest you just let the Residents speak.

  7. TTTD, When the residents start to speak about matters not related to the hearing’s subject the IDA will not be concerned with that and that will only waste everyone’s time. People need to stay focused, hospitals, ZBA, ambulances, LNG and firefighters have nothing to do with tonight’s hearing. If people feel those are relevant topics to bring up that is fine but they need to save it for an appropriate venue on those topics.

  8. Eramo wrote this article for MRZine which is a oine version if a the socialist magazine Monthly Review. According to their “About Us” page….”From the first, Monthly Review spoke for socialism and against U.S. imperialism and is still doing so today.” And yes, Eramo is clearly a socialist and he is our elected representative. But he is running for reelection this November!! This is also from the “About Us” page for the site Eramo writes for…….”In the subsequent global upsurge against capitalism, Monthly Review played a global role.”

    Here’s the link to the page:
    http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/about.html

    Is this the philosophy you want from your elected city council member or his democratic “team”?

  9. He will be re-elected in a landslide, they all will. That’s why anyone expecting anything from this IDA to stop the project – is delusional. Its going through, tax free, and the rest of us will pick up the tab. Unless of course you get subsidized housing already, or have a religious exemption to have your house taken off the tax rolls – then you will be fine.

  10. Tonight’s meeting regarding the iStar PILOT tax waiver had at least 40 speakers. The meeting opened with a prepared statement by iStar representative, followed by s very strong statement by Denise Ford opposing the iStat PILOT tax waiver request.

    She was followed by Al Damato, with an equally strong statement opposing the PILOT request.

    Harvey W continued the statement of opposition. Others opposing the PILOT were the Chamber President, various union leaders (iStar has not agreed to use Union labor), two Civic groups and the Beach-to-Bay Civic Assiciation, as well as 30+ Long Beach residents.

    The full-house cheered the PILOT opposition.

    There were fewer than 10 people speaking in favor of the PILOT, most of whom were not residents of Long Beach.

    Let’s see what the IDA does after they evaluate tonight’s public hearing statements and other criteria.

  11. Really? Al D’Amato? You do realize he is THE man behind the siphoning off of the $150+ million that FEMA designated to restore/rebuild Long Beach Hospital. There is no way in hell that he is looking out for LB residents. He’s up to something. Perhaps trying to look like some kind of savior when he is in fact screwing us, OR he’s got something cooked up like seeing to the failure of the iStar project so he can bring casino gambling to Long Beach. Remember he suffered a failure in his attempt to develop the Sands of Atlantic Beach. Maybe he’s still seething from that oceanfront property loss. I don’t trust this guy. He has all his cronies installed on the board of South Nassau Hospital, including his own VP of his lobbing firm Park Strategies. Al’s firm has collected over $800,000 in lobbying fees from SNCH since he installed them and was paid to lobby specifically for “FEMA funding related to storm damage at Long Beach Medical Center”. I’ve seen at least two disclosure forms totaling at least $60,000 to get those funds and direct them to Oceanside. His appearance is more than a little fishy, wouldn’t ya say? http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldxmlrelease/2014/Q1/300650489.xml

  12. Republican Ida doesn’t care at all. City of 35,000 had 30 people speak out against it. Thank you Ed Mangano, Denise & Al for lying to our faces and working behind the scenes to push it through.

  13. Na, Momma is just a typical troll who is trying to make the Republicans look bad, that simple. She obviously can’t count because there were far more than just 30 residents who spoke out against it. As a matter of fact if you you the math, 90% of the Long Beach Residents who spoke were against this PILOT.

    I am willing to bet Momma is the same troll who said that Ford wouldn’t get up and actually speak against the PILOT, and she did! So Momma needed to change names and flip da script.

  14. I want to believe the members of the Long Beach City Council had no idea when they supported Builders of the Super Block application for Two 17 stories buildings, with 522 apartments , in a one block area, that the Builders would apply for a Pilot tax break, but it was distressing to hear last night that the Long Beach City Council supported the Builders request for the Pilot tax break, when one of the positive elements of the” oversized project” was to increase the City of Long Beach, tax base. Further, one member of the Council was quoted in the press, that the Council could not express an opinion against the Builders request for the Pilot Tax break, for fear of being sued if the Builders were denied the Pilot tax break. If this oversized project goes through with a Pilot Tax break, it will go down as one of the worst apartment building projects in Long Beach, and I really hope no one associated with Long Beach Government had any business connection to the Super Block developers.

  15. I don’t think Lenny mentioned this at the last Council meeting.

    IStar executive Karl Frey said the Long Beach City Council has endorsed the amount and duration of the tax breaks. And who are these guys?
    Last year, the City of Long Beach approved the project and the city’s local development corporation has promised the developers $1.5 million off the mortgage recording tax.
    Who did we vote for ? The “local development corporation” promised the developer $1.5 million off taxes that should be coming to us.
    This is crazy !!!!

  16. I was wide awake during the whole thing and happy to see some, but not nearly enough, people actually hit on points that may actually have some sway with the IDA. I am confused, however, as to why you think that asking people to make effective and relevant arguments is somehow a way “for local dems to justify the istar mess”. Do you not understand that making arguments relevant to the IDA is the ONLY way this mess gets undone?

Comments are closed.