North Hempstead residents may get to vote in November on a proposed takeover of the Roslyn Country Club by the town, which aimed to acquire a piece of the property, after months of negotiation, through the use of the town's .
submitted 4,000 signatures to the town clerk asking for a public vote on the proposed borrowing of $7.5 million to acquire and renovate the Roslyn Country Club property.
On Tuesday, North Hempstead Supervisor Jon Kaiman anticipated that a vote on the matter would be brought before the public during the November election.
Which leads to the question: How would you vote? Would you support the town's initial plan? Are there other ways to tackle a renovation? Do you have other ideas for this property? Tell us in the comments.
Editor's Note: This article has been updated to state that the town intends to purchase the property through its environmental legacy fund, not eminent domain
Demand forecasting isn't the Town's strong suit. "Pricing memberships to cover all the costs" while "finding the 1200-1500 members required to pay those above-market prices" is counter-factual due to demand elasticity and demand destruction, and so unlikely as to be downright laughable, if not a total fabrication from the start. Doesn't even pass the laugh test.
They’ll can find detail on the Town website. Or dial 311 and ask. Or…they can call Ed Scott (knowing he's seeking a Board seat) to ask why the Roslyn park is incapable of generating the same membership as other Town facilities (but he doesn't know; he's only guessing). They can email Marianna Wohlgemuth (knowing she’s seeking another quasi-governmental board seat). Ask her to justify her $2200 expense estimate (but she doesn't know; as she says, she just repeated a number “someone” incorrectly gave her about a 50+ acre facility in East Hill). Or write Lee Kalinsky (cutting a deal for Petrus) how he knows the costs; or ask Lloyd why debt service would be nearly $1million a year (he writes that “another speaker” said so). And so it goes. No substance. Ultimately, seems that there’s a LOT more substance to the critics’ personal interest and ambition than there is to their criticisms. If support for destroying this park plan is so strong, get a recognized expert on park construction, management or operations, collect funds to consult for a few hours and bring her to the next meeting. We are all ears.
"Pricing memberships to cover all the costs" while "finding the 1200-1500 members required to pay those above-market prices" is counter-factual due to demand elasticity and demand destruction, and so unlikely as to be downright laughable -- if not a total fabrication from the get-go. Bottom line: the Town's business case doesn't even pass the laugh test.
@Christine O- I think you're right... It does seem as though all this opposition is more of a personal vendetta! I smell a rat...
I supported the present administration, only to find it veering off in completely uneconomic and irrational directions driven by politically connected cronyism, which I simply refuse to support. (Not limited to the RCC issue, I will add.) Any objective scrutiny of the RCC business case says it's completely made up to suit the Town's argument, which I think Ms. DiGiorgio is onto. But don't take my word for it, bring in your own independent expert if you have any doubt. They'll likely tell you, as I have, that the Town's "business case" can't pass any objective laugh test. You ought to ask the promoters why they did that, which once again, I think Ms. DiGiorgio is onto. Be careful what you ask for, lest you get it.
And noone but you suggests the a breakeven at 1200-1500. Breakeven is 1000 per the Town's models and detailed run rate (available on their website: readers, check it out). Another number you've pulled out of a dark orifice. As for demand destruction, you're just being silly and I won't respond.
But you knew that, right, steve-o?
As I stated earlier, it's OK if you're not an economist and don't understand the relevant terminology. But now you're being obstinately stupid about it. The 1200-1500 membership figure includes tennis memberships (look it up) at the stated above-market prices (look it up), also subject to demand elasticity and destruction (look up these easy to understand economic terms, and stop acting dumber than you probably are). Now tell me you looked all that up and still refuse to smell the catering, oh obstinate one.
NT, clear as mud. You make my point. Over and over. Anyone who understands NTs arguments and can tie them into real information should vote against the Park.
Substance please. Would be happy to debate these points. My reaction is "the business case is good." Every bit as much substance as NT's point. Folks, nothing is perfect, I'm the first to acknowledge that. But if you are relying on things that NT is saying and that his or her fellow park haters are saying then you are buying a pig in a poke. Please consider carefully before you vote.
2./ Mr. Kaiman's dismissive comments to questioners at Town meetings have been memorialized in videos posted on Patch. Town meeting minutes citing the Las Vegas-based dialogue between caterer and Mr. Dwyer have been cited on Patch. These (videos and cites) are classics. 3./ Ms. DiGiorgio has developed a further set of facts on prior membership data and pricing, as well as comparable club price points, about which she wrote on Patch. Have at it. You can do your own homework, right?
1./ The Town's "business case", as disingenuous as that forecast is, in my opinion, is published on the Town's website. 2./ Mr. Kaiman's dismissive comments to questioners at Town meetings have been memorialized in videos posted on Patch. 3./ Town meeting minutes citing the Las Vegas-based dialogue between caterer and Mr. Dwyer have been cited on Patch. 4./ These (videos and cites) are classics, and ought to be carefully considered in context of the above "forecast". 5./ Ms. DiGiorgio has developed a separate set of facts on prior RCC membership data and pricing, as well as comparable club price points, about which she wrote on Patch. 6./ Whether it's a pig in a poke, or pork shared between Town and caterer, you can decide. 7./ Paraphrasing Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men": "You want substance? You can't stand the substance." In particular, those foisting on the taxpayers a disingenuous pig of a forecast can't stand the substance.
You wan't these readers' votes, NT? At least show them the respect of doing a little homework, laying out your arguments and explaining why. Sheesh! 1. And it's a "bad business case" because.... 2. Your going to vote against a park because you feel insulted....?!? 3. Not relevant. 4. Not relevant. 5. Substance please. Argue them. Why are they right/more logical? What are they? Why should anyone believe your conclusions are worthy of their vote? "Somebody said so" doesnt hold a lot of water. 6. Huh? Don't even know what you're referring to. Why is a caterer involved? What pork for the caterer? Anything to support this or are you just making up "facts?" 7. Not relevant. Readers, again, NT likes to speak in a loud voice, but doesn't say much you can assess and decide how to use your vote. This is nothing but rhetoric. An empty vessel. Folks you need to vote your heart, but please don't allow a facility like this to go unbuilt based on nothing more than "I hate it." All of the park hater leaders seem to have personal interests wrapped up in this. If you're going to vote against, you really ought to be comfortable you have the facts. Not saying every fact goes my way or this is a slam dunk decision. I AM saying the "facts" you read here just...aren't. I'm just sayin'...
1./ The Town's "business case" is published on the Town's website. 2./ Demand forecasting isn't the Town's strong suit. Pricing memberships high enough to "cover all the costs" while finding 1200-1500 pool and tennis members required to pay these above-market membership prices is counter-intuitive due to price elasticity in the demand for discretionary purchases, and demand destruction with above-market pricing. The Town's business case is disingenuous and doesn't pass the laugh test. 2./ The supervisor's dismissive comments to questioners and refusal to answer their questions at Town meetings have been memorialized in videos posted on Patch. Watch them. It is highly unprofessional to refuse to respond to legitimate questions. I imagine it would be very uncomfortable to justify a downright laughable demand forecast or a total fabrication from the get-go, but the questions deserve a candid response. And the plan deserves to be vetted objectively and independently. 3./ Town meeting minutes quotes citing a Las Vegas-based dialogue between the caterer and an elected official have been cited on Patch. These are highly relevant to the disingenuous demand (and P&L) forecast and the refusal to respond to criticism. If you can't understand that, you're not listening or interested.
4./ The videos and town meeting minutes cites ought to be very carefully considered when weighing the validity of the Town's demand and P&L "forecasts". 5./ Ms. DiGiorgio has developed a separate set of facts on prior RCC membership data, membership pricing, and comparable facility membership price points, about which she wrote on Patch. Perhaps she will expand on these in the future and report back on Patch. 6./ You act as if you can't understand the above issues, either individually or collectively, in context. I suppose it's possible that these issues are still way over your head, but at this point, I suspect it's more likely you are simply unwilling to acknowledge anything but your own narrow viewpoint. 7./ I'll repeat this periodically until the referendum and see if you've done your homework. Remember to show your work.