Save Sandy Hook.org

BREAKING NEWS

December 2nd, 2005

I'm pretty sure Congress never envisioned a day when we would be privatizing national parks," when it set up the guidelines that allowed for this proposal, the judge speculated.

Clearwater Gains Right To Join Suit Against Lease of Fort Hancock

TWO RIVER TIMES

The Week of December 2 - 9, 2005

Clearwater Gains Right To Join Suit Against Lease of Fort Hancock

By John Burton

TRENTON - A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that the Monmouth County Friends of Clearwater can participate in the lawsuit opposing the proposed lease agreement between the federal government and a private developer for Fort Hancock.

Following a motion hearing conducted at United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, East State Street, Magistrate Judge John H. Hughes ruled in favor of Friends of Clearwater, a not-for-profit environmental organization.

Friends of Clearwater was seeking to be included in a suit brought by Save Sandy Hook, an organization that has been fighting against the proposed public/private development plan for 36 buildings located at Fort Hancock, at the Gateway National Recreational Area at Sandy Hook, a federal park situated between Sandy Hook Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, in Middletown.

The plan calls for Wassel Realty, headed by Rumson resident James Wassel, to lease the buildings for 60 years from the federal government's National Park Service and renovate and rehabilitate the buildings to be used for a mix of educational and commercial interests.

Save Sandy Hook and Friends of Clearwater have been fighting the plan objecting to the selling off of the government owned property intended for the public use and arguing that this proposal would have significant environmental and quality of life ramifications.

"We're very pleased with the outcome for both of our clients," said attorney Paul Josephson, representing Save Sandy Hook and Friends of Clearwater, following Wednesday morning's motion hearing. "It will give Clearwater its day in court and that's what this case is about."

The U.S. Attorney's Office, and the lawyers representing the Wassel group, named as defendants in the suit filed last December, opposed the inclusion of Clearwater organization in the suit.

They argued that the organizations do not have standing to bring suit and the suit should be dismissed. In addition, the defendants' lawyers made the technical argument that this federal court was not the proper venue for Clearwater to be heard. Clearwater, they stated in legal filings, had leased one of the Fort Hancock buildings for 16 years and used it as its headquarters. The organization had submitted a proposal seeking to continue to use the building. Federal authorities rejected the organization's offer because Clearwater had submitted a proposal, a failed one, the proper jurisdiction for the "disappointed bidder" would be in the Court of Federal Claims, in Washington, D.C., said Irene Dowdy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, who argued the motion before Hughes.

"The whole thrust of the amended complaint is that Clearwater submitted a proposal and that the selection process was not fair," Dowdy said in her argument to Hughes.

"This court does not have jurisdiction to hear these claims," she continued.

Josephson had countered with an equally arcane discussion that under federal guidelines a disappointed bidder would have to go to the Court of Federal Claims if this proposal concerned procurement as opposed to acquisition. And, he said, government documents indicted in a number of cases where federal officials have said that this lease agreement is not about procurement.

Josephson acknowledged that, "we're sort of in uncharted waters here," concerning the nuances of this case as it relates to the leasing of federal property.

"I'm pretty sure Congress never envisioned a day when we would be privatizing national parks," when it set up the guidelines that allowed for this proposal, the judge speculated. "I may be going over the line here."

After approximately more than an hour of hearing from the lawyers and spending time reviewing the voluminous legal briefs, "I think the easiest way to handle this," Hughes said, "[is to] grant the application in its entirety."

The lawyers were directed to prepare and submit their written briefs about the defendants' counter motion requesting that the suit be dismissed because the plaintiffs lack standing.

Those arguments will be heard sometime in the future by Federal Judge Mary Little Cooper, Josephson explained. "We've cleared a couple of hurdles," Josephson said. "Now our next hurdle is standing."

After the hearing Dowdy declined to discuss the motion hearing or comment on the case.

Ronald P. Herksch, Wassel's attorney, did not make an oral argument but did offer his views afterwards. "We dispute the plaintiffs' allegations regarding the contract and the factual claims," he said.

"Basically, what you have here is you have people who want the park to be used the way they want to use it," he said of the plaintiffs.

http://www.tworivertimes.net/lead.php

Press Releases :

November 13th, 2008

Save Sandy Hook will continue to figh...

...commercialization was never envisioned by the founders of the National Park Service