Iam responding to the letters by Mr. Moffatt and Ms. Francis. (Sept. 7 issue) Mr. Moffatt states that he doesn’t understand what I was complaining about in my “somewhat intemperate” criticism of the editorial “The numbers don’t add up.”
My issue with the editorial written by Ms. Jennifer Francis is not about her passion for Sandy Hook. I believe that people on both sides of this debate have a desire for the best solution for the buildings on Sandy Hook.
Although I fail to see how letting existing buildings deteriorate into a pile of rubble is beneficial to anyone, that is not what motivated me to reply.
Ms. Francis is certainly free to express her point of view on the matter, but in her argument, she makes use of the non-sequitur, innuendo, exaggerated and fabricated numbers to come up with a $600,000 monthly payment in order to project dishonesty onto James Wassel and Sandy Hook Partners.
She also did this adding her official title so that few will question her wisdom. That is the source of my outrage.
Have we as a culture become so inured to these types of hit pieces, that we do not even notice these tactics?
I know Mr. Wassel to be a good and honest man. I could not let such character assassination go unchallenged.
Ms. Francis states that she will stick by her numbers, but which ones? In one editorial, she claims that they will have to borrow $80 million and in her next reply she states that the partners will need to borrow $65 to $85 million.
She also inflates the number of buildings. Mr Moffatt uses the number I have heard; 36 buildings for 60 years. Ms. Francis however, now blows that number up to “between 100 and 120 buildings. In order to arrive at a $600,000 monthly payment, she assumes that Sandy Hook Partners will finance $80 million over 10 years at 7 percent, “which is likely a conservative estimate.”
I am not the one pretending to know the details, but I seriously doubt that will be the actual scenario.
I am sure that Ms. Francis knows about construction loans and takedowns and that the money will be borrowed in smaller amounts as the building progresses.
She also questions my use of the term “a few.” I used that phrase because, as far as I know, the Sandy Hook Partners are working on three buildings and that is a few.
The reason it was important for the monthly payment number to be so high, was to accuse Mr. Wassel of renting to other than not-for-profit organizations. I know that right now they are working on the chapel, and the theater. Is that OK?
In the minds of Mr. Moffatt and Ms. Francis, it would be a crime to rent to commercial tenants. I do not however hear any griping about the Sea Gull’s nest or the concessions that sell over-priced items. Since when do we expect an individual to risk a great deal in time and money without fair compensation?
I have no problem with bed and breakfasts, small restaurants, and other small venues that would be appropriate for the size of the existing buildings. I actually look forward to them.
Not-for-profits should expect to pay fair market value if they want to occupy one of the historic Officer’s Row buildings. I also know for a fact that there are already offices on Sandy Hook. God forbid! How do they differ from any office that could fit in one of the 36 buildings?
The park service let those buildings deteriorate and now they have entered into a legal agreement to allow Sandy Hook Partners to renovate them. This agreement was recently upheld. There will however, be an appeal by Save Sandy Hook;
A classic example of a dishonest euphemism. Is it jealousy, or is it envy that motivates this crew?
I have heard the floral and fauna argument, and I must say that I do not recall any crying when the bicycle path was installed. Certainly that disturbed much more of the environment than the rehabilitation of existing buildings on existing parcels with existing infrastructure.
There will not be any new buildings, or any new additions to buildings, so where exactly is the damage to the flora and fauna? Are we talking about bats and poison ivy?
Ms. Francis dismisses the Officer’s Row buildings as of “little historical importance.”
I say they are a treasure that should be preserved. Sandy Hook receives many visitors during the summer. Few venture more that a few hundred yards from their cars. The area in dispute is but a tiny fragment of the beauty of the Hook.
Perhaps if there was a place to stay and relax there, it might be better used.
I will finish by saying that my earlier comments were overly harsh and sarcastic, and I apologize to Ms. Francis for the tone of my criticism.
Jim Fitzmaurice
Rumson