Apparently, the National Park Service is not content to simply pursue the bad idea of leasing buildings in Fort Hancock to private commercial entities; the agency now seems committed to doing it in a particularly problematic way.
Recently, Sandy Hook Partners announced its plan to seek partial funding for "the first phase" of its proposal to develop 36 buildings at Fort Hancock. When the plan was initially put forward, there was no talk of phases, and for very good reason.
Back then, according to the NPS’s Request for Proposals (RFP), one of the requirements for developers seeking to lease the buildings was to "document the source and availability of all funds with current audited financial statements, financing agreements, letters of commitment, and similar supporting documents from all sources.
"If funds are to be obtained from lending institutions (banks, savings and loans, etc.), the letter (bearing the lending institution’s letterhead) of commitment must include as a minimum the amount of the loan, amount of interest, term of the loan, and all encumbrances upon the loan."
According to Jim Wassel of Sandy Hook Partners, the standard was and is to "show the ability to obtain financing."
That, of course, would seem all but impossible based on the language in the RFP, but at this point no one can be surprised that the rules of the game are being changed in a way favorable to Sandy Hook Partners, or its predecessor in the process — Wassel Realty Group.
Those changes have been made almost from the outset of the process when the park service’s initial request for proposals noted a 15- to 25-year lease term as being its goal, but ended up choosing Wassel’s proposal, which calls for a 60-year lease term.
Now, Wassel is talking about obtaining funding for only the "first phase" of his project.
If he is allowed to pursue the project in phases, then the NPS must give up any pretense to maintaining control of the property.
Agreeing to allow Wassel to take control of some of the buildings removes one of the main reasons cited for choosing the plan in the first place — that it involved so many of the fort’s buildings.
Giving the go-ahead on part of the plan will give Sandy Hook Partners the upper hand in its dealings with the park service on everything else because it will have the contract without any corresponding commitment.
That is a recipe for an even bigger disaster than the one NPS already seems committed to creating.
You can almost hear NPS officials saying they feel the need to accept whatever Wassel seeks to do on our property as a means of "avoiding costly litigation."
What they won’t say is that they created the situation that gave Wassel the ability to bring such litigation in the first place.
Finally, the backers of Wassel’s plan who support the project on the basis of historic preservation need to face reality.
In its current form, Sandy Hook Partners’ plan does not call for the buildings to be preserved in any way that would reflect the history of Fort Hancock.
The buildings will not be restored to reflect any significant period of their military use and there is nothing remotely connected to historic preservation in converting a former mule barn into a cafe and bar or making over an officer’s residence into a training facility for stockbrokers.