Guest Column
Fort Hancock can be preserved without privitization
Stephen Szulecki
Guest Column
Fort Hancock can be preserved without privitization
I was ambivalent about the implementation of the Sandy Hook Development Plan, realizing there is merit on both sides of the argument. A recent newspaper article discussed the opposing viewpoints of preservation verses conservation, and made me consider what is at stake.
Although there is great merit in restoring the structures of Fort Hancock, if privatization is the only answer it would not be worth it.
Envision with me some likely impacts if this project goes forward:
Posted signs stating "customer parking only" or "this section closed for private event"; loss of serenity and tranquility due to noise from commercial air conditioning units or the music from a pub; traffic and noise from trucks bringing daily supplies; and large parking lots built for ‘customers.’
Webster’s definition of a park is, "open public place usually with grass and trees." Can we sustain the notion of a park with a sign on an office building that may read, Sandy Hook Corporate Park, no solicitation, no parking without a permit? Is this what we want to see when we visit Sandy Hook?
In New Jersey, we’ve seen the privatization of the Garden State Arts Center (GSAC), aka the PNC Bank Art Center, and Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV — now the Motor Vehicle Commission, or MVC), both proved disastrous. The GSAC was a beautiful amphitheater built and operated in the public interest for decades. While operating in the black, it was leased to a for-profit company and its name was sold.
The PNC Art Center now operates with the primary goal of generating a profit.
Profit itself is not bad, but it is too often pursued at the expense of aesthetic features or issues that are uniquely in the public’s best interest, like reasonably priced tickets.
After the MVC was privatized, cost saving measures were instituted, computer systems were not upgraded and corruption ensued. This all at the expense of New Jersey drivers, and some might say resulted in a weakening of our national security. I raise these examples because too often we are intoxicated by the touted positive outcomes and we don’t fully recognize the potentially negative outcomes.
I’m a both a preservationist and a conservationist at heart. My parents’ house in Manalapan is over 200 years old and is one of the few remaining colonial houses in the area to have been preserved.
We don’t need to privatize Fort Hancock in order to preserve it. If all the efforts until now were directed to finding a creative solution, we would be on our way to preserving these structures without privatization. It is not realistic to expect in the current climate complete federal funding. However, if a grassroots private/corporate funding effort could cover one-quarter or more of the needed funding, federal monies could be leveraged for the balance.
Some creative approaches might include: rent to nonprofit uses; coordinate with AmeriCorps’ volunteer program; collect museum fees; increase park concession fees; hold fund-raising events; allow reasonably sized corpor-ate/private pla-ques on buildings for major contributors; collect rent from the Coast Guard for use of Sandy Hook; open the campground to the public; set up a non-profit organization to handle issues like fundraising or securing loans that the National Park Service can’t engage in.
Some of these ideas can potentially generate large sums of money for the renovation of the Fort buildings. If the roofs of the buildings were taken care of initially, the renovations could be done over a period of years to defray the capital outlay.
There are solutions to the preservation of Fort Hancock that don’t include privatization. We need to bring to bear the great talents of the citizens of Monmouth County and the state of New Jersey, and energize our political leaders to action.
We live in a state with the highest population density and precious little open space when compared to the developed portion. We are also a state that doesn’t see its fair share of resources from the federal government. Further, we have an obligation to conserve and preserve the environment for its own existence and to allow us a place of retreat.
Sixty years ago my father worked on the slate roofs of the Officers Row houses. Today I feel as if my family had a part in their preservation and, as legacy to those efforts and to the many soldiers that served in and among these structures, it is only fitting they continue to be a fully public accessible and publicly owned landmark.
Stephen Szulecki is an environmental air quality consultant who lives in Highlands.