We have read the article by Mary Lou Strong that appeared in this paper on Nov. 7. Ordinarily we do not reply to such drivel, but this deserves some answers.
I am the president of Save Sandy Hook and my husband is the secretary. Save Sandy Hook (SSH) consists of 14 people, residents of our area. They join in our response.
SSH was formed to oppose the commercialization of Fort Hancock at Sandy Hook. We continue to oppose that because commercialization was never envisioned by the founders of the National Park Service. Our objections have been stated over and over, in this paper and others.
Ms. Strong apparently can’t read the English language and if so, does not understand it. Back in August 1999, the National Park Service (NPS) put out requests for proposals for the rehabilitation of several buildings at the fort. Proposals were received in November 1999. One of the questions was about financial ability and another was a request for financial statements for the past two years. Neither of these was answered as required.
A firm commitment for all the needed money was demanded. Here are the answers:
• Wassell Realty Group (WRG) is a real estate company that associates with over 100 selected real estate professionals around the U.S. WRG works on unique real estate projects and assembles the appropriate real estate professionals to maximize the value on each specific property. As such, the business structure of WRG does not maintain any ongoing balance sheet items of any consequence, other than minor assets such and minor liabilities.
• The financial capability for the Sandy Hook project is demonstrated in the pro forma, which indicates that each project within the group stands on its own and will be organized and structured as a separate entity and that there have been statements of interest from several significant financial groups.
But were these answers printed in the copy of the answers given to the public? No! They were crossed out so the public couldn’t see what was said or not said.
Then in November 2001, NPS entered into a letter of intent with Sandy Hook Partners — a corporation not even in existence in August 1999 (incorporated in October 2001). But NPS, relying on its fiscal experts — chiefly William Alexander of the Wharton School of Finance — and a commercial developer, stated it was satisfied with the financial ability of Sandy Hook Partners. Based on what?
SSH went to court and twice the learned Judge Cooper said SSH had no standing, wasn’t a bidder. But never once did she feel it necessary to call in an NPS official and ask under oath how could you give a contract to someone who didn’t have the money.
And Sandy Hook Partners doesn’t have it yet, nine years and three months after being required. Enough of this nonsense that SSH litigation prevented Sandy Hook Partners from securing financing. Our litigation didn’t even start until December 2004, more than five years after the requirement to show financial ability.
Ms. Strong, it would be nice if you could acquaint yourself with the facts before throwing stones at people. Your personal attacks are beneath you.
As citizens — and speaking for our group SSH — we will continue to fight for what we believe is right, and all the anti-open-space people like Mary Lou Strong can write all they want. We hope it makes them sleep better.
Judith Stanley Coleman and James M. Coleman Jr. are residents of Middletown