Developer’s current use
of park facilities without charge among reasons cited
Save Sandy Hook, a grassroots group formed to prevent commercialization of Sandy Hook, has collected more than 1,500 signatures on petitions seeking to block private development on the 1,700-acre barrier peninsula.
Headed by Judith Stanley Coleman, Middletown, Save Sandy Hook is opposed to the National Park Service’s plan to sign a 60-year historic lease with private developer Sandy Hook Partners LLC.
The lease would allow the developer, headed by James Wassel of Rumson, to rehabilitate and adaptively reuse at least 36 historic buildings on Fort Hancock for a mix of commercial, educational and hospitality uses.
In a recent statement, the group called for balancing Fort Hancock’s historical, environmental and educational importance against any development plans and rejected the park service’s position that privatizing the historic buildings is the only way to save them from continued deterioration.
"Sandy Hook is truly a beautiful example of open space," the statement said. "If the buildings are merely engines of growth, how can we support the fragile infrastructure of the Hook and protect its unique environment and wildlife."
The group’s list of objections to the proposal to allow commercial development on Sandy Hook includes:
• The park service has withheld information on the proposals, the proposed lease, failed to notify the public about meetings, and restricted public comment at meetings to three minutes.
• The developer has misled the public about his qualifications in historic redevelopment when he actually has been involved in retail mall operations and has admitted he has no experience comparable to the Sandy Hook redevelopment.
• While the proposed development plan calls for a mix of educational, environmental and commercial tenants, no specifics are available. ·
• A clause in the lease agreement gives the developer the potential to lease 78 buildings and allows the developer to change approved uses with the approval of the park service.
• While educational and nonprofit organizations pay rent for the buildings they occupy at Fort Hancock, the developer has been given, rent-free, a 6,500-square-foot building previously renovated at taxpayers’ expense.
• Park service documents say the number of buildings available for historic leasing can be increased from 36 to 78, giving the developer control of more than half of the usable Fort Hancock buildings.
• The letter of intent signed in November 2001 gives the developer six months to secure funding after a finding that the project would have no significant environmental impact by the park service. The agency has repeatedly postponed release of its response to public comment to give the developer more time to secure financing.
• The need to repay $60 million-$72 million in financing may pressure the developer and the park service to increase the number of commercial tenants who could better afford fair market rents.
• The economics of the proposed project favor commercial enterprises, not the study and conservation of marine life in the coastal zone.
• The development will reduce access to beachfront recreation by shifting some 600 parking spaces away from the beachfront to the proposed redevelopment area.
• The impact of traffic on the park and adjacent communities has not been adequately studied. The development could result in 800 more cars per day and 1,200 more employees, and estimates don’t include the 42 additional buildings available for leasing.
• The Environmental Assessment Study minimizes the impact the project will have on the ecology and recreation at Sandy Hook, and concluded a broader environmental impact statement is not needed. The EAS was prepared by the park service and the developer, raising questions about its objectivity.
• An independent assessment of the impact of the project on Fort Hancock and the county is needed and was called for by the Monmouth County Planning Board.
• An independent, objective assessment of all facets of the development project is needed to protect the recreational, environmental and historical requirements of the park and the interests of the public.