Save Sandy Hook.org

BREAKING NEWS..Pallone..end Ft. Hancock lease

October 21st, 2008

Pallone urges park service to end Ft. Hancock lease
Wants state, local officials and nonprofits to create plan

Pallone urges park service to end Ft. Hancock lease
Wants state, local officials and nonprofits to create plan

U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-6th District) called on the National Park Service (NPS) last week to terminate a lease agreement with Sandy Hook Partners (SHP) to redevelop historic buildings at Fort Hancock.



Instead, Pallone wants the NPS to "bring state and local officials and nonprofit organizations to the table to create a comprehensive plan for Fort Hancock to preserve the historic buildings."



Pallone also called on the U.S. Department of Interior's inspector general (IG) to complete an investigation of the lease that he requested and that the IG began 15 months ago.



Pallone's request to the park service came in a letter to NPS director Mary A. Bomar. It followed a ruling by the 3rd Circuit Court on Sept. 26 in support of the lease being granted to Sandy Hook Partners.



Pallone opposed that ruling. After the court decision, the NPS gave the developer another extension of 90 days to come up with the funds for the proposed renovation project. This three-month period does not begin until Save Sandy Hook, a group opposed to the lease agreement, decides whether or not to appeal the decision.



"If Mr. James Wassel, owner of Sandy Hook Partners, does not meet his commitment by the end of the 90 days, I believe the lease agreement should be terminated," Pallone wrote in a letter Oct. 14 to Bomar. "There are serious questions regarding Mr. Wassel's ability to produce the necessary funds to move forward with the three-phase project. Those fears have been realized over the last four years as NPS has granted Mr. Wassel repeated lease extensions due to SHP's lack of financial resources. This lease agreement is also being investigated by your inspector general."



Pallone also asked that once the lease expires, the NPS end the commercialization of Fort Hancock's historic buildings.



"Once, SHP's lease expires, I ask that you end all private commercialization bidding for Fort Hancock's buildings," he said in the letter. "There is no room on Sandy Hook, a Gateway National Park, for redevelopment plans that would include the opening of private businesses such as bed and breakfasts and cafes in the renovated buildings. Instead, I believe the National Park Service should bring state and local officials and nonprofit organizations to the table to create a comprehensive plan for Fort Hancock to preserve the historic buildings."

Instead, Pallone believes the NPS should bring state and local officials and nonprofit organizations to the table to create a comprehensive plan for Fort Hancock to preserve the historic buildings.

In a second letter, Pallone urged the U.S. Department of Interior's Inspector General Earl Devaney to complete an investigation of the lease agreement that he formally asked for in July 2007

"Since you agreed to investigate this questionable agreement, very little has changed at Sandy Hook. SHP has yet to come up with the necessary funding to proceed with its plans," Pallone wrote to Devaney. "Many in my community are frustrated about the lack of transparency with the NPS process and would like to know when the investigation will be completed."

Since the park service selected Sandy Hook Partners as the developer, Pallone has questioned Wassel's ability to produce the necessary funds to move forward with the three-phase project. He has said the park service should not have approved the lease without SHP demonstrating the requisite financing to complete the plan, something that has been required in similar circumstances at other parks.

"I continue to question Mr. Wassel's ability to produce the necessary funds to move forward with the three phase project," the letter continues. "The conceptual plans indicated that redevelopment would include the opening of private businesses such as bed and breakfasts and cafes in the renovated buildings. It was this over-commercialization of the fort that initially led me to oppose the plan.

"Those fears have been realized over the last four years as NPS has granted Mr. Wassel repeated lease extensions due to SHP's lack of financial resources," Pallone said. "Both the NPS and SHP have used a lawsuit filed by concerned citizens as an excuse for these continued delays, but I seriously question why this agreement remains in place if Mr. Wassel cannot meet any of the promises he made back in 2004. The Third Circuit Court upheld the lease so there is no longer any excuse for Mr. Wassel.

"This entire process has been and remains a debacle. Beyond the commercialization concerns, the National Park Service should never have signed this lease agreement without SHP demonstrating the requisite financing to complete the plan. I have been told of similar circumstances where NPS officials at other sites refused to enter into lease agreements for commercial development without evidence of sufficient financial resources.

"I request your office complete this investigation quickly so that the findings can be made available to the public. Based on my July 2007 letter, I expect the investigation to address the following questions:

"Why did the National Park Service approve the deal with SHP when they lacked proof of any financing at the time of the agreement? Are there any financial requirements currently in place within the National Park Service that must be met before a lease agreement can be made? If so, were those requirements met in the case of the agreement signed between the NPS and SHP? Finally, is there any requirement that SHP submit to NPS any loan agreements that have been made with outside entities?

"Finally, are there any prohibitions or limits on the NPS' ability to continue extensions of the lease agreement? To date, as many as five or six extensions have been granted for six months to a year. Does NPS require any proof of financing to approve these extensions? Can extensions continue to be granted in the future? When does the process end? When would the contract be extinguished so that we can move on to other options that would not involve private redevelopment?"

http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2008/1023/front_page/008.html