|
Long Branch, NJ --- U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) today urged the National Park Service to terminate a lease agreement it has with Sandy Hook Partners (SHP) to redevelop Sandy Hook's Fort Hancock.
The New Jersey congressman also called on the U.S. Department of Interior's Inspector General (IG) to complete an investigation of the lease that he requested and that the IG began 15 months ago.
Pallone's request to the National Park Service (NPS) came in a letter to Mary A. Bomar, Director of NPS. It followed a ruling by the Third Circuit Court on September 26th in support of the lease being granted to Sandy Hook Partners. Pallone opposed that ruling. After the Court’s decision, the National Park Service decided to give Sandy Hook Partners 90 days to come up with the funds for the proposed renovation project. This three-month period does not begin until Save Sandy Hook, a group opposed to the lease agreement, decides whether or not to appeal the decision.
"If Mr. James Wassel, owner of Sandy Hook Partners, does not meet his commitment by the end of the 90 days, I believe the lease agreement should be terminated," Pallone wrote in his letter to NPS Director Bomar. "There are serious questions regarding Mr. Wassel's ability to produce the necessary funds to move forward with the three phase project. Those fears have been realized over the last four years as NPS has granted Mr. Wassel repeated lease extensions due to SHP's lack of financial resources. This lease agreement is also being investigated by your Inspector General."
The New Jersey congressman also asked that once the lease expires, the NPS end all private commercialization bidding for Fort Hancock’s buildings. There is no room on Sandy Hook, a Gateway National Park, for redevelopment plans that would include the opening of private businesses in the renovated buildings. Instead, Pallone believes the NPS should bring state and local officials and non-profit organizations to the table to create a comprehensive plan for Fort Hancock to preserve the historic buildings.
In a second letter today, Pallone urged the U.S. Department of Interior's Inspector General Earl Devaney to complete an investigation of the lease agreement that he formally asked for in July 2007. (A COPY OF BOTH LETTERS FOLLOWS.)
"Since you agreed to investigate this questionable agreement, very little has changed at Sandy Hook. SHP has yet to come up with the necessary finding to proceed with its plans," Pallone wrote to IG Devaney. "Many in my community are frustrated about the lack of transparency with the NPS process and would like to know when the investigation will be completed."
Under the terms of the lease, SHP agreed to renovate 36 of Fort Hancock's 100 buildings. Since the beginning, Pallone has questioned Wassel's ability to produce the necessary funds to move forward with the three phase project. The New Jersey congressman does not believe NPS should have approved the lease without SHP demonstrating the requisite financing to complete the plan, something that has been required in similar circumstances at other parks.
October 14, 2008
Ms. Mary A. Bomar
Director
National Park Service
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Ms. Bomar:
I am writing to request that the National Park Service (NPS) deny any further extension of the lease agreement with Sandy Hook Partners (SHP) to continue the redevelopment of Fort Hancock at the Gateway National Recreation Area's Sandy Hook Unit.
As you know, on September 26, 2008, the Third Circuit Court ruled in favor of the lease granted to Sandy Hook Partners. I do not support this ruling. After the Court’s decision, the National Park Service decided to give Sandy Hook Partners 90 days to come up with the funds for the proposed renovation projects. This three-month period does not begin until Save Sandy Hook decides whether or not to appeal the decision. If Mr. James Wassel, owner of Sandy Hook Partners, does not meet his commitment by the end of the 90 days, I believe the lease agreement should be terminated.
There are serious questions regarding Mr. Wassel's ability to produce the necessary funds to move forward with the three phase project. Those fears have been realized over the last four years as NPS has granted Mr. Wassel repeated lease extensions due to SHP's lack of financial resources. This lease agreement is also being investigated by your Inspector General.
Once, SHP’s lease expires, I ask that you end all private commercialization bidding for Fort Hancock’s buildings. There is no room on Sandy Hook, a Gateway National Park, for redevelopment plans that would include the opening of private businesses such as bed and breakfasts and cafes in the renovated buildings. Instead, I believe the National Park Service should bring state and local officials and non-profit organizations to the table to create a comprehensive plan for Fort Hancock to preserve the historic buildings.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter, and should you require any further information from my staff or me, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
FRANK PALLONE, JR.
Member of Congress
October 14, 2008
Mr. Earl Devaney
Inspector General
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Mr. Devaney:
On July 2, 2007, I wrote to urge you to investigate a lease agreement that was signed more than four years ago between the National Park Service (NPS) and Sandy Hook Partners (SHP) for the redevelopment of Fort Hancock at the Gateway National Recreation Area's Sandy Hook Unit.
Since you agreed to investigate this questionable agreement, very little has changed at Sandy Hook. SHP has yet to come up with the necessary finding to proceed with its plans. Many in my community are frustrated about the lack of transparency with the NPS process and would like to know when the investigation will be completed.
Under the terms of the lease, SHP, which is owned by Mr. James Wassel, agreed to renovate 36 of Fort Hancock's 100 buildings. I continue to question Mr. Wassel's ability to produce the necessary funds to move forward with the three phase project. The conceptual plans indicated that redevelopment would include the opening of private businesses such as bed and breakfasts and cafes in the renovated buildings. It was this over-commercialization of the Fort that initially led me to oppose the plan.
Those fears have been realized over the last four years as NPS has granted Mr. Wassel repeated lease extensions due to SHP's lack of financial resources. Both the NPS and SHP have used a lawsuit filed by concerned citizens as an excuse for these continued delays, but I seriously question why this agreement remains in place if Mr. Wassel cannot meet any of the promises he made back in 2004. The Third Circuit Court upheld the lease so there is no longer any excuse for Mr. Wassel.
This entire process has been and remains a debacle. Beyond the commercialization concerns, the National Park Service should have never signed this lease agreement without SHP demonstrating the requisite financing to complete the plan. I have been told of similar circumstances where NPS officials at other sites refused to enter into lease agreements for commercial development without evidence of sufficient financial resources.
I request your office complete this investigation quickly so that the findings can be made available to the public. Based on my July 2007 letter, I expect the investigation to address the following questions:
Why did the National Park Service approve the deal with SHP when they lacked proof of any financing at the time of the agreement? Are there any financial requirements currently in place within the National Park Service that must be met before a lease agreement can be made? If so, were those requirements met in the case of the agreement signed between the NPS and SHP? Finally, is there any requirement that SHP submit to NPS any loan agreements that have been made with outside entities?
Finally, are there any prohibitions or limits on the NPS' ability to continue extensions of the lease agreement? To date, as many as five or six extensions have been granted for six months or a year. Does NPS require any proof of financing to approve these extensions? Can extensions continue to be granted in the future? When does the process end? When would the contract be extinguished so that we can move on to other options that would not involve private redevelopment?
These are important questions that must be answered soon. Should you require any further information from my staff or me, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
FRANK PALLONE, JR.
Member of Congress
|
