This project clearly is ill planned, ill designed and it seems to change daily. This project will lead to commercial intrusion into Fort Hancock, yet the NPS appears unwavering in its intent to force this costly project on the taxpayers. To this Save Sandy Hook objects.
SaveSandyHook.org
We don’t believe the only way to preserve these buildings is to lease them to a private, for-profit real estate company, which will then sublease them for what we suspect will be primarily commercial use. Indeed, a ”change clause” in the leasing agreement practically guarantees all-commercial tenants.
We also believe that despite NPS assurances, taxpayers will wind up paying for half of this commercialization project through tax subsidies of $40 million or more, and peak summer beach use could be reduced by 30-35 percent.
We ask that the NPS put their current leasing plan on hold while an independent review is made to determine the best way to preserve the buildings consistent with the public welfare and the recreational and conservation objectives of Sandy Hook.
We also ask that our state and federal representatives oppose this project.
NPS created the problem – For 30 years, the NPS failed to board up the buildings or even close sash or storm windows. Instead, it allowed broken windows and doors to remain unrepaired for almost three decades, exposing the interiors of the buildings year-round to the elements. In February, 2003, 22 buildings were open to the weather during a Northeaster. In February, 2004, 24 buildings were exposed. To escape the onus of its mismanagement, the NPS now insists that only commercialization can save these buildings.
Taxpayers’ subsidies – Although the NPS has not revealed any financial details of this project, we calculate that a rehabilitation program of $80 million (one of many cost figures that have been floating around) using a for-profit developer could cost the taxpayers almost $17 million in historic tax subsidies and $22 million in tax writeoffs. In effect, the taxpayers would be paying about $40 million-- half the cost of this rehabilitation program--and have to accept non-park-oriented businesses as part of the “bargain.” Ironically, using NPS figures, we have calculated that the NPS could do the job for about $28 million, one-third the cost, and keep the commercial opportunists out of the park.
Reduced recreation The proposed development will reduce access to traditional recreational activities in the Park by relocating between 665 (for 36 buildings) to 1,400 parking spaces (for 78 buildings) from beachfront recreation to the commercial project in the Fort. The NPS claims these shifted parking spaces will be available for beach use on weekends during the summer months, a contradiction of earlier NPS planning documents. In addition, the relocated parking spaces will be further from the beach, making them inconvenient if not inaccessible for beach-goers. In addition, the NPS has no idea who the project tenants will be, let alone what their parking requirements will be, so claims that these shifted parking spaces will be available on weekends are bogus. Nor has the NPS studied the impact the mating habits of the piping plover, and endangered species, will have on B Beach, which could reduce parking by another 350 spaces if the bird continues its encroachment on recreation.
Closed process -- The NPS signed a letter of intent, which mentioned a proposed lease, but then refused to divulge any details to the public. Following public protests, Reps. Pallone and Holt forced the NPS to reveal some details, and Pallone forced the NPS to hold a public meeting. However, the NPS withheld any documents until the day of the hearing, tried to minimize participation by starting the meeting at 3 p.m. on a Sunday, then severely limited public comment to three minutes per person. Faced again with protests, the NPS reluctantly held a second meeting, but again restricted public comment. No meeting notices were placed on park bulletin boards or on the electronic billboard at the park entrance.
Traffic problems -- The impact of traffic on the park and adjacent communities has not been adequately studied, despite two traffic studies. NPS documents state the proposed development may attract up to 800 more cars per day and 1,200 additional employees, unsubstantiated figures that contradict NPS estimates on parking needs (see above). NPS estimates also don't include the undetermined number of customers the project is expected to attract, in addition to the substantial number of recreational users (beach, fishing, birding, etc.) that visit the park in the summer months. NPS estimates also don't address the impact the additional 42 buildings eligible for leasing -- a 116 percent increase -- would have on traffic.
Developer's qualifications -- The proposed real estate developer has been vague, if not misleading, about his qualifications in historic restoration and reuse. He claimed he was the “master developer” of the Faneuil Hall in Boston and South Street Seaport in New York City (tourist-oriented "destination" shopping malls). However, his former employer, the Rouse Corp., denied this, stating he actually was a shopping mall leasing manager. He initially claimed, in newspaper articles, his firm had about 80 people, but later amended his statement to describe most of those people as consultants who received equity positions in the project. He has admitted he has never been involved in a historical rehabilitation project such as Sandy Hook, and most of the individuals listed in his proposal (who are not employees as he intimated) appeared to have worked on high-rise office and shopping mall projects. He also refuses to reveal his company's past or current clients and projects, claiming such information is "irrelevant.”
Uncertain building use -- The plan calls for a mix of educational, environmental and commercial tenants, but only vague references have been made by the NPS and developer about whom these non-profit and educational tenants will be. This raises the question of just how many educational, environmental and other non-profit groups will ultimately be included in the tenant mix, if any at all. It also suggests the developer may request substantial concessions for new construction at a later date to make the project viable.
Change clause in lease -- The proposed contract will allow the developer to amend or change approved building uses subject to the prior written approval of the NPS. Language contained on page 20 of the lease all but guarantees such approval, stating "…such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed...” This clause in effect gives the developer the ability to enter into an open–ended deal to use a total of 78 buildings for commercial use.
Free office space -- While all the educational and non-profit organizations at Fort Hancock pay rent to the NPS, including a daycare center, the developer has been given rent free a spacious, 6,500-square-foot building that had been previously renovated at the taxpayers' expense. In addition, the NPS has announced that the developer will pay reduced rent for buildings he renovates for six years, another taxpayer subsidy. As noted, the developer expects part of his profits to come primarily from a federal 20 percent tax credit for renovating historic buildings, another taxpayer subsidy.
Economic pressure – Press reports state the NPS had advised the executive director of one educational organization now leasing in Fort Hancock that it may not get rent abatements for the value of their programs to the public, and for improvements it makes to its leased buildings, because the individual was publicly critical of the NPS's leasing plan. The NPS later backed off from this threat.
Control of the fort --NPS documents state, including a letter to Rep. Pallone, that the number of buildings available for leasing can be increased by 42 from the current 36 to 78. That total would leave the real estate developer in control of about three-quarters the buildings in the Fort Hancock rehab area for commercial purposes.
Questionable economics -- If the developer can borrow the funds, the NPS has said it will sign a lease before revealing the details to the public. The NPS falsely claimed the Wharton School approved the financial plan, when actually it was just one adjunct professor, William Alexander, a former developer and now a part-time professor. However, his analysis was not made public. Mr. Alexander was paid $30,000 as an NPS consultant, and he has favorably reviewed other NPS projects. Therefore, his objectivity is suspect. In a press release he dismissed the public’s concerns over this project, but offered no details to support his analysis.
Funding questions -- Requests for proposals were sent in August of 1999. The real estate developer was informed in March 2000 that he would be the NPS's developer, yet in the first quarter of 2004, he apparently has not yet been able to secure funding for this project. The NPS's letter of intent in November 2001 informed the developer he would have six months to secure funding after a finding by the NPS of no significant impact. Only after that can the NPS and the developer enter into a lease. NPS closed the public comment period June 16, 2002, but delayed almost nine months to respond to comments. The procrastination is to give the developer extra time to secure financing. The NPS has now twice agreed to extend the letter of intent to keep this project alive.
Driving out non-profits -- The need to repay the $60, 72 or 90 million (the figures keep changing) to rehab the buildings may pressure both the developers and the NPS to increase the number of commercial tenants beyond what the NPS currently claims will be permitted, since commercial tenants could better afford fair market rents. The change clause in building usage (Page lease 20, and “Change clause in lease,” above) in the proposed lease already suggests this possibility. As economics force community service organizations out of Fort Hancock in favor of commercial tenants, this project will evolve over time into an all-commercial, mini-mall venture, notwithstanding the bland assurances of the NPS.
Conflicting purposes -- The economics of the proposed project favors commercial enterprises, such as hotels, restaurants, bars, and retail stores, which contradict NPS claims that the project will foster the study and conservation of marine life in the coastal zone.
Objectivity of EAS -- The Environmental Assessment Study (EAS) minimizes the impact this project will have on the ecology and recreation of Sandy Hook, and concludes there is no need to conduct an environmental impact statement. However, the EAS was prepared and paid for in part by the proposed developer, which raises questions about the objectivity and propriety of the document and the validity of its conclusions.
Lack of an EIS -- The Environment Assessment Study said there is no need for an environmental impact study (EIS), even though the NPS has no information on who the proposed tenants will be, the number of their employees, or how many daily and weekend customers they will attract. The NPS admits 85 percent of all visitors to the park drive through N.J. rather than use mass transit, so any development will add to overcrowding conditions in Monmouth County. We need an independent assessment of the impact this development plan will have on the environment, including parking, traffic, sewage and air quality. The Monmouth County Planning Board has urged the NPS to conduct such an analysis, and the Sierra club has called for a review of the Environmental Assessment Statement.
NPS misrepresentation -- In denying the need for an EIS, the NPS falsely claimed there were no objections from elected officials, ignoring the objections of Gov. James McGreevey, U.S. Sen. Lautenberg, and then-state Senate President John Bennett; deliberately excluded from its final report a 1,900-signature petition hand-delivered to NPS headquarters that objected to the plan; ignoring editorial objections to the plan; and falsely claiming the plan to be non-controversial, when critical articles appear almost weekly in the press.
Impact on ecology -- Traffic, parking, air pollution, commercialization, the number of leased buildings, and sewage will effect the park’s recreational use and fragile environment, issues the NPS initially avoided by not developing an environmental impact statement (EIS). Only after public protest did the NPS say it may develop an EIS, but later said this was not necessary. This reluctance suggests the NPS is more interested in commercial development than the ecology of Sandy Hook.
Violating NPS's historic trust -- The push to privatize and commercialize Fort Hancock represents part of a pervasive problem that threatens all our National Parks. The lack of adequate funding by Congress to maintain the parks has led the NPS to turn to privatization, which in turn opens the door to commercialization. Fort Hancock is the NPS’s largest announced privatization plan, and it is regarded by many NPS officials as the template for future privatization plans. Many federal elected officials, aware of their complicity in the decline of our national parks, remain silent on this issue. Whether this privatization plan succeeds or fails, it will increase the pressure for greater commercial development for decades to come.
Need for objective assessment -- An independent, objective assessment of all facets of this development project is needed to protect the recreational, environmental and historical requirements of the park and the interests of the taxpayers who own it, and not just turn Fort Hancock over to commercial interests for their private profit.
How You Can Help:
Contact your political leaders and express your concerns.
Donations are greatly appreciated as a non profit charitable community group.
We now accept secure credit card donations through PayPal, and checks by mail .
Sign our online petition.
Get involved! Contact us at the email address above.
• Sandy Hook was the departure point for British soldiers defeated in the famous Battle of Monmouth, which also gave rise to the legend of Molly Pitcher;
• Following World War II, the southern portion of Sandy Hook became a state park; In 1972, the state park and Fort Hancock became part of the Gateway National Recreation Area;
• The barrier island was home to Unami Indians for thousands of years, and offers an important historical and cultural link to the now-lost original inhabitants of New Jersey;
• Sandy Hook Light was ceded to the Federal Government in 1789. In 1823 a light ship, the Sandy Hook, was put into operation, to facilitate shipping. A light ship is still in use today, and the lighthouse is no longer listed by the Coast Guard as a seacoast lighthouse. Nontheless, Sandy Hook Light and its fellow lights at Navesink still shine, warning mariners of the dangerous shoals of the New Jersey coast.;
• Sandy Hook was the site of the first lighthouse on the East Coast, erected in 1764 by New York merchants to protect their shipping;
• Sandy Hook was fortified during the War of 1812 and Fort Hancock and its gun batteries were established in 1895 to protect Raritan Bay and New York Harbo;
• Sandy Hook peninsula is the only undeveloped barrier beach area on the northern end of the New Jersey Shore, north of Island Beach State Park. ;
• Sandy Hook is host to more than 300 species birds and is an important way station on the Atlantic Flyway for migratory birds and butterflies;
• Sandy Hook was held by Loyalists during the American Revolution, supporting the British occupation of New York Harbor;
• Sandy Hook was one of the first landfalls sighted by Henry Hudson as he explored the Atlantic coastline;
• Fort Hancock in the 1950s was an integral part of the East Coast Nike missile defense system;
• The tall, white lighthouse at Sandy Hook, New Jersey was the fifth lighthouse to be built in America, when erected in 1764, and today is the oldest standing light tower in the United States. originally called the "New York Lighthouse, " its unfailing beam has befriended innumerable vessels as they have passed in or out of New York.;
• Sandy Hook has a restored station built by the U.S Life-Saving Service, the forerunner in the late 19th Century to the modern U.S. Coast Guard, which is still stationed at Sandy Hook;
• In 1761, the merchants of New York City financed a lottery to raise sufficient funds to erect a lighthouse on Sandy Hook, to guide ships past the New Jersey Shoal into New York harbour.;
• Sandy Hook offers millions of citizens a variety of historical and recreational activities in a fast-growing metropolitan area that needs greater access to such facilities, particularly water sports;
• There are currently five beach-nesting bird colonies on the ocean beach at Sandy Hook, with an average of 20 pairs of Piping Plover from 1985 to 1995. In 1995, over 600 Least Terns nested along with the piping plover at Sandy Hook, the largest number of Least Terns in New Jersey that year. The backdune areas on Sandy Hook sustain Spotted Turtles, Box Turtles, Eastern Mud Turtles, and several regionally rare plant species such as Virginia pine.;
• Sandy Hook in 1874 was the first ordnance testing facility of the U.S. Army, including the famous Rodman Gun and the disappearing predecessor to Aberdeen and White Sands; Sandy Hook has the highest concentration of American Holly on the East Coast in a 264-acre maritime forest that includes stands of trees that are 170 years old;