Past coming back to haunt Fort Hancock?
As a newspaper that has covered plans for private development of the Fort Hancock buildings on Sandy Hook in recent years, it has become apparent that the buildings are under some kind of curse.
The curse, apparently, renders those who would like to see the buildings in private hands incapable of talking about the project truthfully.
In the beginning, National Park Service officials put out a request for proposals that somehow failed to fully explain what kind of lease arrangements the federal agency was willing to accept. At the time it seemed like an oversight, the kind of thing that could happen to any federal agency entering new territory.
Subsequently, however, the park service has been equally unreliable about other aspects of the project, such as the developer’s need to show that it had its financing in place.
The developer himself, Jim Wassell, the principal of Sandy Hook Partners, also has been afflicted.
Early in the process, he struggled to give a consistent figure about just how much he would be spending on the project. He still has not quite been able to speak about what specifically will be in the buildings. A high technology facility was spoken of early on, and an educational facility with a large dose of public participation was in vogue for a time, though a conference center and business offices now seem to be at the heart of the project.
Lately the curse seems to have fallen on those who support the project, but do not have a direct interest in it.
Local historical preservationist Michael Huber recently wrote to local papers, saying that U.S. Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Jon Corzine were in favor of the project, only to retract the statement shortly after because he could not recall where he had gotten the information.
Just last week Ron Emrich, the head of Preservation New Jersey, wrote to us to speak of the necessity of moving ahead with the project, but, unlike Huber, he did not put words in Sen. Lautenberg’s mouth; he took them out. Emrich used a fragment of a single quote by Lautenberg to make it appear that the senator was in favor of the project. Taken in its entirety, the senator’s statement says just the opposite. Taken with other statements from the same article, it is quite clear he was not speaking in favor of the project.
It’s time for those who are so interested in the history of Fort Hancock to delve into the building’s past. Maybe they can find out why it is so hard to speak truthfully about the place.