The National Park Service held a second public hearing June 1 on the proposed development of Fort Hancock. The Park Service in response to public pressure released information prior to the hearing, and a traffic study was completed and released a day prior to the hearing. Once again the public signed up ahead of time and was allowed to speak for three minutes. The Park Service introduced its panel of experts and presented a brief overview (the same one as last time). This time the League of Women Voters was brought in to moderate.
The release of information (the 22 proposals including the accepted one by Sandy Hook Partners, the Historic Lease Agreement, and the original Request for Proposals) prior to the hearing was helpful, but in effect prompted more questions because so much information was stricken due to supposed confidentiality requirements. Many of the concerns presented at the hearing were specific and deserved to be addressed as thoroughly as possible. It is my opinion that the June 1 public hearing did not address those concerns.
The public review and comment period is due to end June 15. However, there are so many fundamental questions that remain unanswered about the details of the proposed development plan as submitted by Sandy Hook Partners. We do not know how the buildings will be used nor do we know the number of people and cars attached to the proposed use of each of these buildings. There are also many questions concerning the financial viability of the plan, the private developer Sandy Hook Partners, and what the repercussions will be if the proposed plan fails.
If indeed we are all committed to preserving the environmental essence of Sandy Hook, there must be a way to ensure that this fragile area is protected from commercialization, sprawl, and excessive traffic. How can the environmental impact of the proposed plan be determined if the specifics of the project are unknown? In addition, the traffic study that was recently completed by the Federal Highway Division was a farce. I have read many traffic studies in my lifetime, and this one was not only deficient but also was premised on the existence of a bridge that will not be built for several years, if at all. The impact to Route 36 and the surrounding areas was never considered.
The mission of the National Park Service, in its own words, is to preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. I ask the National Park Service to consider if it is fulfilling its mission and protecting the public interests by agreeing to accept the Sandy Hook Partners’ proposal without knowing the specific details of the proposal.
Most importantly, it is my understanding that the terms of the lease agreement between the Park Service and Sandy Hook Partners will not be finalized until after the public review and comment period. The lease agreement represents the only contract between the parties and is where all the details will be worked out. Therefore, the public will be excluded from commenting on the most important part of the process. I find this unacceptable.
I do not intend to give up this fight. Many people, the general public and the press included, who have taken the time to review the information released by the Park Service understand that a poorly conceived plan may result in terrible consequences for the people of Monmouth County and the state. I believe that many more will come to understand once they are presented with the facts. I am asking the National Park Service to extend the public review and comment period past the June 15 date. The public has the right to have their questions answered and their concerns addressed before this is a done deal.
Judith Stanley Coleman, president, Monmouth Conservation Foundation