President Bush pledged to clear the National Park Service’s (NPS) backlog of projects during the 2000 campaign. The funding shortfall Bush inherited at the time was $5 billion; it is now $7 billion and climbing. Who knew at the time, his administration’s solution to this backlog was to turn over our public parks to private developers through what has been termed, “public-private partnerships”? If the project is shifted from the NPS to a private developer, it comes off the government’s list and the backlogged funding obligation disappears. This may very well be politically expedient, but it results in schemes that are contrary to the mission of our NPS.
Fort Hancock at Sandy Hook is one of the first to be targeted for privatization. A similar effort was unsuccessfully applied to Ellis Island, when the now superintendent of Sandy Hook was in charge there. It took the action of the courts to stop it.
Why is it that Fort Columbia in Washington state, an almost identical installation to Fort Hancock, also built as a military coastal defense facility, has been restored, preserved, and protected without a private developer’s involvement? Why can’t this be done in New Jersey, which is arguably the richest state in the union and whose residents, as a whole, pay a disproportionately large amount in taxes? Moreover, since we are the most densely populated state in the union, we are in the most need for open, noncommercialized space, particularly along the shore.
If this project is truly about historic preservation and restoration, then how do you reconcile the modifications to the interior and exterior of the buildings that will be necessary for the uses proposed: restaurants, conference facilities, pubs, bed and breakfast lodging, research facilities and office space? To operate these type of facilities in a commercially viable and safe manner requires the addition of modern features such as commercial air conditioning, fire escape ladders, safety lighting, wheelchair ramps, handicap parking next to the buildings, extensive signage, and so on. These elements guarantee these buildings will not be restored, in the technical sense of the word, but rather will appear on the inside and outside like modern buildings with some historic characteristics, regardless of what is claimed. An example of true restoration in our area is under way at the Church of Seven Presidents, in Long Branch. This is the type of restoration fitting of Fort Hancock, not the wholesale giveaway under the guise of preservation as seen with the NPS plan.
I think the “test” as to whether the current plan or any plan is right for Sandy Hook is: Will a visitor to Fort Hancock, after this project is completed, feel the experience of the fort, as it was when it was in use as a fort? And isn’t it to achieve that experience why the fort is worth saving?
For, indeed, these buildings are not architectural masterpieces, they are not designs of renowned architects; it is the history these buildings convey that gives them their historic value. If that is lost, it is better the land not be scarred by their presence. So, I ask you, who is Fort Hancock being “preserved” for? If your answer is not for the public at large, do something before it is too late. Make your voice heard by your local, state, and federal representatives. Help save Sandy Hook!
Stephen Szulecki
Highlands