Park and Deride: City Council Confronted on Parkland Issue

One of the more powerful moments in last Tuesday’s hearing - no, it didn’t come from CM Ferreras’s desultory and confused questions designed to cover up her intentions to throw all of the opponents under the EDC bus - came when Geoffrey Croft testified about the parkland issue. His testimony seemed to capture the attention of Chairman Comrie-and underscores the importance of the letter WPU has sent to Council legal eagle Elizabeth Fine asking that she render a legal opinion on the assertion by Corporation Counsel that a Robert Moses-inspired 1961 memorandum obviates the need for the land in question to go through the alienation process. Here is Croft’s testimony:

Good Afternoon,

My name is Geoffrey Croft, president and founder of NYC Park Advocates.

It is truly a sad day when we are talking about a plan that seizes 48 acres of public parkland in Flushing Meadow-Corona Park to allow one of the country's largest developers to build the largest mall New York City. 

Sounds inconceivable right?  Just when you thought this administration couldn't get any lower here we are today. 

The 48 acres of public parkland was NEVER part of the original plan in anyway. In any way and it certainly was never approved by the City Council.  This is nothing but an end run around the law and City Council will be complicit when you/if you rubber stamp its approval.   

If the 48 acres of public park land they are attempting to seize for the project are no longer needed for parking than it should revert back to its original use. This is what our elected officials should be pushing for instead allowing our public spaces to be given away to politically connected developers. 

The City Council has a legal obligation to protect public parkland and that certainly includes not giving it away to private developers.   There are a number of legal issues surrounding the attempted disposition of this public land.  Last week we were signatures on a letter, along with Willets Point United, which was sent to City Council lawyers Elizabeth Fine and Gary Altman requesting a legal opinion from the Council on these issues, a copy of which I have provided today.  

The City Council has a legal obligation to do its due diligence on this important issue before any decisions are made. It's telling that less than three minutes have been spent talking about the parkland during this hearing.  

Let's be very clear:  The 1961 statute that the city and the applicants are so desperately trying to rely on in order to justify being allowed to develop the public parkland for non-park purposes does not permit a shopping mall, much less a 1.4 million square foot mall.    

Administrative Code 18-118 explicitly states that any monies gained from a temporary lease on the property must go back into the property. Back Into The Property not line the pockets of Related or Sterling Equity. 

To quote the law directly, the revenue must aid "in the financing of the construction and operation of such stadium, grounds, parking areas and facilities, and any additions, alterations or improvements thereto, or to the equipment thereof." 

Clearly this is not the case unless the applicant is representing that this is being done to off-set unfortunate investments made by the Wilpons.  Is that the plan?

Clearly the intention of the law was not to allow any project to make a permanent claim on the parkland or its facilities, because the revenue was supposed to fund the property.

The law simply does not authorize the Willets West project. It does not enable use of the parking lot or authorize retail stores - and certainly something that is primarily a shopping mall.

The bill does say trade and commerce, but that obviously refers to conventions, not stores. Obviously a shopping mall was never intended as the bill language states.

The park land we are talking about here today for this irresponsible project was never alienated as required under state law nor are they planning to nor are they planning to replace it if approved. 

By law PARKS ARE NOT allowed to be used for such non-park purposes. In fact State law -which our elected officials have taken an oath to uphold - prohibit such commercial development.

If ever there was a poster child for non-park purposes-building the city's largest mall would be it. 

This is public park land and it does NOT belong to Mayor Bloomberg or to Seth Pinsky, the Related Companies or the Wilpons - it belongs to the people of the city of New York. 

The proposed giveaway of public park is being done simply to sweeten the deal for Related so they have a guaranteed revenue stream "up front" in order to help them off-set their investments in building the rest of the Willets Point.  

This is disgraceful.   This plan is about greed pure and simple. It is a nightmare for the residents of Queens in so many ways and for the city's taxpayers at large who are greatly subsidizing this project. 

The corporate welfare must end. 

Thank you

Political Corruption and Willets Point: The Christine Quinn Story

Wayne Barrett-as per usual-has a riveting expose of the unlikely rise of Christine Quinn to the Speakership of the City Council in 2005. The rise of this former community activist and neighborhood scourge was predicated on some good old fashioned insider trading-relying on the quid pro quo support of three of the city’s Democratic County bosses: Joe Crowley, Jose Rivera and the now disgraced Vito Lopez.

As Barrett points out:

“It was December 2005 and 39-year-old Christine Quinn, an obscure one-term Chelsea councilwoman, was on her way to the Westchester Square headquarters of the Bronx Democratic County Committee to close the deal that would make her speaker, second only to the mayor in the power she would wield in City Hall. Her path to the Council leadership—positioning her to shape the city’s fiscal and development policies for the next four, and ultimately eight years—was, by city charter design, an inside game.”

And it was a game she played well-and continued to play well as certain special interests feasted on their special relationship with the former enfant terrible of community organizing. This was seen right off the bat in 2006 when Quinn took over and rolled over for the Bronx Terminal Market and Yankee Stadium deals midwived by the Bronx political bosses:

“Just a couple of months into her speakership, in February 2006, Quinn was embroiled in the Council’s consideration of the two projects that meant more to Jose Rivera than any others in his reign as Bronx Democratic leader: the redevelopment of Yankee Stadium and the construction of the nearby Gateway Center Mall. They were giant projects – and, hence, opportunities to gather campaign contributions and political sway. (One measure of the value: between 2004 and the end of 2008, when Rivera was ousted as leader, his varied campaign committees collected $58,625 from the Yankees and the Related Companies, which built the mall).”

When both deals were concluded, the developers of the BTM and the Yankees got the goldmine and the tax payers got the shaft-a trend that was to characterize Quinn’s entire tenure as council speaker:

“The Yankees wanted a new Metro North train stop at the stadium and didn’t want to contribute a cent to the project, even though there was no money in the MTA budget to pay for it. In the final 24 hours of pre-vote negotiations at the Council, they got it, outraging The New York Times editorial board.

The size of the project meant that new parks would need to be built near the stadium, replacing old community parks. At the Yankees’ urging, the Council agreed to pay the entire cost of these parks, which would escalate from $116 million to $190 million over the life of the project. The Yankees also made it a condition of the deal that the city would pick up the cost of a 9,300-space parking garage, which totaled $100 million in direct subsidies and $278 million in tax-exempt bonds.”

The Terminal market became terminal for the 23 mostly minority wholesalers who were evicted in the ultimate sweetheart deal-these entrepreneurs were scattered to the four winds and most have gone out of business after losing the synergy of the market and its location. The developer Related, however, did a tad better owing to the close friendship between Deputy Mayor Doctoroff and Related boss Steve Ross:

“The Related Companies’ no-bid contract for the mall, approved by the Council a few weeks before the Yankees’ deal in early 2006, did not require any percentage payments to the city geared to mall revenues, unlike many projects on city-owned land. Instead, while Related earns $27 million a year from its current mall tenants, it is only paying the city $800,000 as compensation for the project. The justification is that it generates jobs – a point that Yankees President Randy Levine has made repeatedly, at one point saying critics “should be encouraging us to create jobs instead of engaging in political grandstanding.” But the pay averages $8 an hour, a thin reed on which to justify such a huge subsidy. The Council rubber-stamped these terms, and Related became one of Quinn’s biggest financial supporters, having bundled or donated $58,254 to her campaigns since 2006.”

This, as we shall see, was a harbinger of the Willets Point deal that came later.

”Roll the calendar forward to 2009. That’s when Queens leader Joe Crowley surfaced at the Council with a project of his own to champion. A member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Crowley rarely gets involved in Queens controversies. But he interjected himself into the debate over another Related Companies project: the $3 billion redevelopment of Willets Point.”

Here’s where insider trading gave way to outright corruption-with Quinn paddling along with the tide:

“It didn’t help appearances that the project was a bit of an ethical mess. Claire Shulman, the 83-year-old former Queens borough president, had set up a nonprofit local development corporation, Flushing Willets Point Corona LDC, to build grassroots support for the project. The LDC was underwritten by a $250,000 city grant and real estate interests, including Related’s co-developer on the project, Sterling Equities, the real estate arm of Mets owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz. But Shulman had failed to register the group as a lobbyist with the city clerk and was fined $52,000 for the omission. Then she registered it, and a storm ensued, since LDCs are barred by law from lobbying the Council. The Times quoted her saying that “we lobbied the city for the city,” a statement that eventually resulted in a state attorney general’s finding that the LDC had “flouted the law” and a settlement that barred it from lobbying the Council. Quinn did not criticize the grandmotherly Shulman at the time - indeed, she shared stages with her, beaming about Willets Point – and remains silent on the lobbying gaffe.”

A true partner in crime-and Quinn made sure that the council did not do any real over sight of the Willets Point development even though it became obvious that the illegal and unethical actions of the city and its consultants were polluting the development process:

“As quickly as the cheering died down, the angry Willets Point businesses sued the city to block the project. The case dragged on until May 2012, when on the eve of an appellate review of elements of it, the Bloomberg administration suddenly withdrew its plan. The winning lawyer said: “The city knew it was going to lose.” Among other things, the city had presented two conflicting environmental impact statements, one saying that traffic on a new expressway ramp to be built for the project would boom by 50 percent, the other estimating a 15 percent increase. It held a public hearing on the project without a Spanish interpreter, though the room was filled with clamoring Hispanic businessmen.”

At every corrupt step of the way, Quinn shot down any oversight or council review-she was all in for Joe Crowley from the beginning and was not going to abandon him in his hour of need; and the EDC’s fraudulent environmental/traffic review could not garner a council oversight hearing with Quinn’s thumb on the scale.

This is depressingly similar to the deal making in the Bronx-even more so now that Related has been injected into the Willets Point deal with predictable conclusions: gone is the affoirdabkle housing, replaced by-what else?-another mall:

“Now, a revised project is back before Quinn, slated to come to a Council vote in October. Critics note that it cuts the affordable housing units in half, and that the developers may not have to build any if they delay the housing project for a decade, which they are permitted to do under the deal. The emphasis now is on a huge mall, an echo of Related’s Gateway development in the Bronx.”

This brings us to the present and the City Council’s first hearing on Willets Point scheduled for Tuesday. The signs are indeed ominous with Quinn still at the helm-but with a great deal of hope that current mayoral frontrunner will put the kibosh on this corporate welfare deal when and if he gets into office in January (Or that Bill Thompson will also set it aside when he finds out all that went into this toxic farrago).

Making things even more foreboding is that the land use subcommittee is balking at letting WPU do a 20 minute power point presentation at Tuesday’s hearing. The power point is a devastating takedown of the city’s proposal and we can understand why proponents of the project would balk at its use. But why would the council committee not want it shown? After all, the city gets unlimited time for all of its phony dog and pony shows.

Our main concern goes back to Barrett’s original thesis: the unseemly role of the county leaders in the selection of the speaker. That hasn’t really changed, and Joe Crowley still wields enormous power and he definitely doesn’t want a public exposure of all the unethical and illegal maneuvers that he has spawned and continues to sanction.

Exit question: are the aspirants for speaker blocking the Willets Point presentation for tawdry political reasons and not simply housekeeping logistics? If so, they are putting their own political ambitions before the needs of the residents of Queens, the businesses of Willets Point, and the tax payers of NYC-just like Christine Quinn has done for 8 years.

The Willets Point plan: a bad deal in every way

Queens Chronicle OP-ED:

The Willets Point plan: a bad deal in every way
by Benjamin M. Haber

Good and responsible government does not exist in the absence of transparency, and in particular when it involves land use matters which have been notorious in favoring real estate interests and those with political connections. Years ago Daniel Doctoroff, then Mayor Bloomberg’s economic czar, bragged before a group of real estate moguls that under the Bloomberg administration they received about 90 percent of all zoning requests they wanted.

When it comes to transparency the Bloomberg administration earns a failing grade. A case in point is Willets Point. For decades, and most of Mayor Bloomberg’s term in office, the city collected sewer rent from the owners of property in Willets Point, notwithstanding there were no sewers. It collected real estate and other taxes and did not spend any money on the area’s infrastructure.

A body and fender shop’s operations, which for the most part serve the needs of the poor and the middle class, cannot be as spotless as a Bloomingdale’s department store, which makes it all the more important government take care of the infrastructure.

As a coverup for his failure in doing so, Bloomberg declared the site a blight that must go, even though it would mean removing more than 200 small businesses, terminating employment for their 1,000 employees and causing havoc to their thousands of dependents. Cleanup of the so-called blight, which the city will pay for, for the benefit of a developer, could have been done for Willets Point businesses. But it will not be, since they are not real estate moguls with tentacles in the city treasury.

The cost to correct the area and repair the infrastructure, to alienate parkland, free of charge, and to provide subsidies, will be several hundreds of millions of dollars, all to be paid for by taxpayers for the benefit of a private developer. For Bloomberg to allow this taxpayer ripoff ignores his responsibility to be fair and above-board with the public. It’s unacceptable.

It was Bloomberg’s original plan to develop Willets Point into a huge shopping mall, with yet another convention center; luxury housing with a small portion of affordable housing for the middle class; a small park and a school. Building a school next door to LaGuardia Airport, the Mets’ stadium, the United States Tennis Association and a huge mall would be absurd, a feigned icing on the cake to make it appear the proposal was not a private commercial development, but a needed public undertaking.

Willets Point and its surrounding areas have automobile access only through the Van Wyck Expressway, Grand Central Parkway, Northern Boulevard and Roosevelt Avenue, private streets being out of the question. These arteries have been and are choked to capacity. Queens was ranked as having one of the most congested vehicular arteries in the country and there is no way — I repeat, no way — to increase their capacity to absorb the tens of thousands of additional vehicles the Bloomberg plan would bring.

Faced with a vehicular nightmare and unable to come up with a solution, Mayor Bloomberg has devised what can be described as the mother of all lack of transparencies. The original Willets Point plan has suddenly been split into two phases. His much-heralded original Willets Point plan is now relegated to phase two, which for all practical purposes will be on the back burner and probably not accomplished for decades.

The reason for the so-called split is not just the vehicular problem, but Bloomberg’s desire to help out his billionaire friend Fred Wilpon, the owner of the Mets, who have not being doing well financially. Phase one will allow Wilpon to move his parking lots — which are on parkland, as is Citi Field — to Willets Point and to construct a huge mall on the current Mets parking lots. Parking in Willets Point and the mall will not address the vehicular problem, but will destroy the small businesses on Northern Boulevard, Roosevelt Avenue and 108th Street, the malls in Rego Park and on 20th Avenue in Whitestone, and the shops in downtown Flushing. Were I in business in any of those areas, I would hesitate to sign a long-term lease. Unless these merchants and the public make known to the mayor, their City Council members and community boards their opposition, the mayor’s plans will be a fait accompli.

Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said he wished to be remembered for what he did for the poor and not for the rich. Notwithstanding some laudable philanthropic acts Bloomberg has accomplished as a private individual, as mayor he has viewed his constituents as the wealthy and powerful and not the poor and middle class. I do not believe he will leave a legacy as noteworthy as that of President Roosevelt.

Benjamin M. Haber is a civic activist and retired attorney who lives in Flushing.

City is subsidizing billionaire's project

The following letter to the editor was printed December 2, 2012 in the Times Ledger:

The New York Times reported in its Nov. 12 issue that Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to increase school lunches to $2.50 from $1.50, slash $8.3 million from libraries and increase fees on parking meters.

It is to be noted that Bloomberg has no plans to reduce the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that will subsidize his ill-advised Willets Point plan, nor does he plan to reduce subsidies that will benefit New York Mets billionaire owner Fred Wilpon for a shopping mall adjacent to the Mets stadium.

While Bloomberg is to be applauded for his philanthropic contributions as a private citizen, his current plans demonstrate once again that as mayor he has no interest in the poor, the middle class and small businesses in this city.

It should make one recognize the value of term limits.

Benjamin Haber
Flushing

WPU members interviewed on WHCR radio

Photographs of Willets Point United members Irene Prestigiacomo and Joseph Ardizzone during the live community affairs radio program on 90.3FM, hosted by Leroy Baylor; Sunday, October 28, 2012.
Prestigiacomo and Ardizzone, together with documentary video producer Robert LoScalzo, recounted the City's illegal tactics in attempting to implement Mayor Bloomberg's plan to take over Willets Point and give it to the Wilpons and Related Companies -- including lobbying by NYCEDC and Claire Shulman's LDC in violation of state law which the NYS Attorney General has confirmed. The wide-ranging conversation lasted nearly one hour, and included topics such as the shameful refusals of many area elected officials to do anything to help end the City's withholding of municipal services and purposeful neglect of Willets Point; the abuse of eminent domain for the aggrandizement of private interests; the failures of AG Schneiderman and the state Inspector General to hold anyone to account; and other topics raised by listeners who called in.

EDeceit

At the eminent domain hearing of the other week, EDC reached new heights in deception-or, perhaps, depths is a better turn of phrase. Somehow the agency is trying to find a way to make its totally new Phase I segmentation of the Willets Point development pass muster- even though there has never been any portion of the project that has been conceived that doesn’t include ramps.

Here’s what the agency’s crack spokesperson told the hearing:

“The plan does not anticipate completion of new connections to the Van Wyck Expressway during Phase 1, as was previously contemplated. This is primarily attributed to the need to prioritize among the multiple infrastructure and site improvements that will be provided by the City as part of the district's redevelopment. The completion of the new connections to the Van Wyck Expressway is not necessary for the initial development phase, and thus may be deferred until after the completion of Phase 1. We are continuing to work towards the necessary regulatory approvals for the ramps, and anticipate approval in the coming months. Phase 1 will be completed and the substantial Phase 1 benefits will be realized, even – even if the connections are not approved by the Federal Highway Administration and the New York State Department of Transportation."

Read the first two sentences with great care. Somehow, the decision to leave the building of ramps to a later phase of development is a result of needing to, “prioritize among the multiple infrastructure and site improvements...” Oh, please! The reason for leaving out the ramps is because WPU has traffic jammed EDC with the regulators.

But the real nugget in the EDC statement is the assertion that the new phase of development will go forward to completion “even if” the ramps are not approved. Really? What does this mean?

If the ramps are never approved, then only the small Phase 1 can proceed. That is a major departure from what the City Council reviewed and approved, because ALL scenarios considered by the Council included at least the possibility and promise that the entire 62 acre site would eventually be developed.

It was that goal that the Council deemed worthy of supporting, and (rightly or wrongly) worthy of the use of eminent domain. ("… it is a transformation exercise on all 62 acres" -- Bob Lieber testimony to Council, November 29, 2007.) Had the Council been asked to approve just a mini-development to complement the Wilpons' CitiField, and to authorize eminent domain to achieve it, the outcome might have been very different.

But there is another real sticking point in the EDC strategy-segmentation. As WPU’s lawyer Mike Gerrard told the Daily News: “All of their documentation shows it's a single project for which the ramps are needed." If it now turns out that it isn’t a seamless development, EDC must submit a supplemental EIS for a land use review.

Bloomberg open to Islanders coming to Queens

Originally published: May 12, 2010 8:51 PM
Updated: May 12, 2010 10:12 PM
By RANDI F. MARSHALL, Newsday
randi.marshall@newsday.com

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg indicated Wednesday that he was open to the idea of the New York Islanders heading to Queens.

"I'd love to have more teams move here," he said at a news conference. "That'd be great."

Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon told Newsday Tuesday he had spoken with Charles Wang, who owns the Islanders, about building an arena for the team near Citi Field. Wilpon also said it remains a possibility he could buy the team.

Wednesday, the Mets confirmed their interest in building an arena that could house the Islanders or a Major League Soccer team. Wilpon was not available for comment.

Asked at a news conference about the possibility of the Islanders moving to Queens, Bloomberg, who did not mention Wang by name, said, "I don't know whether it's just the owner or the team negotiating, using us as a negotiating ploy out on Long Island." The mayor said he hadn't yet talked to the Mets' owners.

Wang did not respond to calls for comment Wednesday.

Despite Wilpon's interest in the Islanders, Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray said she's still focused on keeping the team in Nassau County by creating a smaller-scale zone for the Lighthouse Project, the $3.8 billion mixed-use development proposed by Wang and partner Scott Rechler.

Murray said she hopes to have that zone plan completed by June.

"I'm aiming for sooner rather than later," she said. "I'm not looking to drag this thing out, that's for sure."

Murray said she hasn't seen plans for the zone yet, but expects to "very, very shortly."

The Islanders aren't Wilpon's only option if he were to build a new arena near Citi Field. Major League Soccer commissioner Don Garber said Wednesday he is in preliminary discussions with Wilpon to bring soccer to the area. Said Garber: "Queens is a hotbed of soccer interest."

And the Islanders may not be a perfect match for Wilpon, either. The Mets-owned SNY network wouldn't be able to televise Islander games, because the Islanders' contract with MSG lasts through 2031.

The Dolan family owns controlling interests in MSG and Cablevision. Cablevision owns Newsday.

If Wilpon does build a new hockey arena and the Islanders move to Queens, it may mean the end to an arena in Nassau County, experts said. Some pointed to other ideas, from a convention center to a small business incubator for that site. Murray said an arena will be part of the recommended zone.

The potential venture between Wang and Wilpon in Queens comes more than four years after the two vied for the right to develop 77 acres around Nassau Coliseum. Their proposals were similar, although Wilpon was the first to suggest a minor league baseball stadium, which Wang later added.

Wang and Rechler won the bid. "The one thing we didn't have was control of the Islanders," Wilpon said at the time about losing the bid.

Now, with the land still undeveloped, some sources worry that if Wang and Wilpon worked in Queens together, the best possibilities for the Coliseum and its surrounding space would go with them.

"It's like the creativity leaves Long Island and goes to Queens," said Vision Long Island executive director Eric Alexander. "I hope that's not the epitaph."

With Jim Baumbach and Neil Best

Islanders rumor puts Willets Point in spotlight

Originally published: May 11, 2010 10:09 PM
Updated: May 12, 2010 1:53 AM
By RANDI F. MARSHALL AND JIM BAUMBACH, Newsday
randi.marshall@newsday.com, jim.baumbach@newsday.com

The news that Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon has spoken to Charles Wang about building an arena in Queens and relocating Wang's Islanders hockey team to the site puts the spotlight on Willets Point: a 62-acre tract in Queens near Citi Field known as the Iron Triangle.

Last year, 29 potential developers formally filed paperwork with the New York City Economic Development Corp. to redevelop Willets Point. While Wang was not one of them, Sterling Equities, the Wilpon family's umbrella company, was, the EDC confirmed Tuesday. The EDC said a formal request for proposals will be issued later this year.

On the surface, a marriage between Wilpon, Wang and Willets Point seems ideal - there's a sports team already in place and the city wants to add housing, office space and retail. It was unclear Tuesday whether Wilpon would build an arena on the Willets Point land, or elsewhere near Citi Field.

Wang did not return calls for comment Tuesday.

Interviews show that developing Willets Point will not be easy.

New York City officials have said they are not contemplating the idea of the Islanders, or Wang's $3.8-billion Lighthouse project, heading to Queens, because an arena isn't part of the approved plans for Willets Point. The entire process, they said, would have to start over.

"There would have to be a very strong economic and development case made for it," said a New York City Economic Development Corp. official who asked not to be named.

Tuesday, Andrew Brent, a spokesman for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said, "There are no plans for a professional sports facility" at Willets Point.

With unpaved streets and no sewers, the Willets Point area is home to more than four dozen industrial businesses. The redevelopment could include a hotel, convention center, retail and residential.

Meanwhile, a number of business owners at the Willets Point site say they won't leave, despite city efforts to make a deal. About 21 of them have filed a lawsuit against the city.

"They're taking my home. They're taking my business. They're taking everything I worked for," said Plainview resident Jerry Antonacci, who owns waste management company Crown Container. "If they want to bring the Islanders here, or anything else, they better schedule it for 2020 or 2025, because we're going to fight it. We're not going easy."

But the city is moving forward. "Willets Point represents one of the city's most significant long-term development opportunities," said Brent, the Bloomberg spokesman.

Wilpon, Wang talk about moving Islanders to Queens

Originally published: May 12, 2010 1:52 AM
Updated: May 12, 2010 2:09 AM
By KATIE STRANG, Newsday
caitlin.strang@newsday.com

Jeff Wilpon, the Mets' chief operating officer, said Tuesday he has talked with Islanders owner Charles Wang about building an arena in Queens as a possible home for the hockey team.

Wilpon told Newsday in an exclusive interview that he has had recent discussions with Wang about relocating the team to a new Queens arena and also said that it remains a possibility that he could buy the team.

"I've had conversations with Charles," Wilpon said by phone Tuesday, "and we've talked about Queens. We'd like to be helpful and I think Queens is an option. We built Citi Field well under budget and on time. I have all my guys ready.

"We haven't really discussed ownership. It has been more of, 'Can we get something synergistic with Citi Field and a hockey arena, what can happen here?' "

Although the majority of their conversations have focused on building a new arena, Wilpon has not ruled out the possibility of owning the Islanders.

Wang has lost an average of $23 million a year since buying the team 10 years ago and is impatient with the pace of the proposed Lighthouse Project.

With the Town of Hempstead attempting to downsize Lighthouse development plans and Wang frustrated by the additional time and money it would cost to scale it back, the two sides have failed to come to an agreement. Still, Nassau officials say they would like the team to remain in the county.

"We are working hard to keep the Islanders in Nassau County," County Executive Edward Mangano said Tuesday.

A modified development plan is expected to be presented at some point this summer, Hempstead Town officials said.

In addition to the potential landing spots for the Islanders, there has been speculation that Wang, who did not return calls seeking comment, might turn to the National Hockey League for assistance and ask the league to take a controlling interest in the team.

"Totally and uncategorically untrue," NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said in an e-mail to Newsday.

The Wilpon-Wang connection, however, sheds new light on the team's situation.

Wilpon said he has been in touch with Major League Soccer commissioner Don Garber about bringing a soccer facility to the area as well, although the likelihood of building both a hockey and soccer venue looks slim.

"We probably can't do both," Wilpon said. "We just need to look at what could be done, as diverse as it is."

"We've had numerous discussions with Charles [Wang] and with Don Garber about soccer as well. We've been in touch, talking to Charles about what can be done synergistically with all of his technological [assets]. He likes the market here and they have all been positive conversations with him."

While the dialogue between Wilpon and Wang is an encouraging sign to Islanders fans who would like to see the team stay in New York rather than relocating to Kansas City or a Canadian locale, nothing is imminent.

"We are certainly willing and able and happy to work with Mr. Wilpon, but we have not heard any concrete plan as of today of bringing the Islanders into Queens," Queens Borough President Helen Marshall said. "It has to be real."

Wilpon said in the interview he, Wang and Garber are talking.

"It wouldn't be fair to say we have made any verbal agreements or even a handshake agreement, but we're definitely in the exploratory phase with both of them," Wilpon said.

Randi Marshall contributed to this story