After reading the recent column “Nassau County residents cheated on Sands casino deal” I feel I was cheated out of the time it took to read this article, which was filled with disparaging remarks, innuendo, and out-and-out falsehoods.
The author must not feel burdened by the never-ending tax increase and the lack of decent jobs in Nassau County, as that would be the only reason to explain the insensitivity or incomprehension of the realities that currently exists for those who live here.
Based on the most obvious misinformation in the article it is worth noting the following:
1. While the author asserts that “trust” serves as the foundation for the relationship between Nassau County and Las Vegas Sands regarding community benefits, it is important to emphasize that every aspect of the agreement has been extensively documented and legally established.
The commitments between Sands, the Nassau County executive and the Nassau County Legislature are bound by legal frameworks. This contract was not a clandestine agreement but a meticulously negotiated and proficiently executed arrangement guided by highly skilled attorneys.
2. One of the enforceable terms outlined in the agreement is a payment of $54 million to the county once Sands assumes ownership of the Coliseum, accompanied by a 25% increase in rent payments.
Additionally, once awarded the gaming license and fully operational, Sands has committed to doubling the rent and ensuring a minimum of $50 million annually in gaming tax revenue for the county.
The Town of Hempstead will receive $20 million annually along with a one-time $25 million community benefit upon winning the license, followed by an additional $4 million in annual community benefits.
In summary, these contractual obligations, rather than mere promises, will result in Sands contributing over $80 million per year in new taxes to Nassau County alone.
3. John Durso has garnered national recognition for his unwavering advocacy on behalf of working individuals, while Dana Durso, his daughter-in-law, holds an elected position and contributes to the Nassau County Planning Commission.
Consequently, the author’s defamatory remarks targeting them are not only startling but also profoundly offensive.
Throughout their professional journeys, both individuals have dedicated themselves to championing the rights of Nassau County residents, without any personal interest in a Sands development. Therefore, any insinuating impropriety or wrongdoing is morally unacceptable, to say the least.
4. The author’s perplexing conflagration of the NYU proposal with the Sands proposal is confusing.
The transfer of the Coliseum lease was a private transaction between two companies: Nicholas Mastroianni and NYCB Live, and Las Vegas Sands.
Sands engaged in negotiations with Mastroianni for the lease transfer. The county’s decision did not involve choosing the recipient of the lease but rather approving or disapproving the privately negotiated lease transfer.
In essence, the county Legislature’s vote was a straightforward choice of whether to permit the Coliseum lease to be transferred.
A “no” vote would have meant the county’s asset, the Coliseum, would continue to deteriorate.
Conversely, a “yes” vote would enable Sands to participate in a once-in-a-generation opportunity that will generate over $80 million new tax revenue, create over 5,000 full-time jobs, and establish an international attraction in Nassau County.
It’s a decision that seems obvious and logical to improve the overall economic health of our community.
5. The narrative surrounding Shelden Adelson was convoluted and difficult to follow, but let’s focus on the essential point: Adelson was a supporter of Republican causes with right-wing leanings.
However, it is crucial to note that he passed away several years ago, rendering his political inclinations largely irrelevant in this state. Similarly, the resume of Bruce Blakeman’s brother from 30 years ago holds little significance in the current context.
Reflecting on instances when I’ve felt “cheated” in life, I often find that those experiences stem from encounters with misinformation.
Before the author presents her opinions in future articles, it would be prudent for her to thoroughly examine and raise concerns based on information that is factual rather than fiction.
This approach requires research and an open mind, but it would lead to a more constructive and meaningful debate. After all, isn’t fostering health discourse the fundamental role that journalism is meant to fulfill?
Luis Vazquez, President
Long Island Hispanic Chamber of Commerce