Your Turn
Plan to preserve Hook ‘rings alarm bells’

Jennifer Francis

Guest Column

I attended the public forums to discuss the redevelopment of Fort Hancock hosted by Congressman Frank Pallone Sept. 18 and Oct. 26 at Sandy Hook.

The objective of the gatherings was to provide an opportunity for the public to question representatives from the National Parks Service (NPS) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation about the plan by Sandy Hook Partners to preserve Fort Hancock.

After listening to the comments, criticisms, and emotional appeals on both sides of this issue, I am struck by two things.

The first is the high degree of community polarization over the fate of Sandy Hook.

The gap between those in favor of the plan and those opposed is deep and wide, with respected, caring, intelligent members of the community on both sides. Second, no one wants to see the fort’s historic buildings fall into ruin.

The gaping divide between groups stems from how to solve this problem, not whether the problem exists. While the forums did not perceptibly bridge this divide, the discussion did clarify for me the reasons for its origin, as well as foster some ideas for reaching across it.

A major reason for the polarization is that the public’s opinion was not sought in the early days of the discussion about options for preserving Fort Hancock.

Perhaps it is too late to go back to square one, and perhaps not, but every effort should be made at this stage to include members of the community — the park’s true owners — in discussions to resolve controversies and to make decisions regarding the restoration of the fort.

I see this as an appropriate and perhaps essential measure for the NPS to pursue.

The 36 buildings at Fort Hancock slated for renovation by Sandy Hook Partners will be leased not only to research- and education-oriented organizations, as they have trumpeted, but also to for-profit businesses. Realtors, consultants, and other service providers were mentioned as possible occupants.

A tremendous source of concern is the extent to which the fort’s lessors will consist of commercial enterprises. We are told that approximately $75 million will be required to pay for the renovation.

As with any loan, much more than this will have to be paid back to the lenders.

Can rent from primarily nonprofit organizations service this level of debt?

It seems unlikely.

Commercial businesses attracting large numbers of spenders must be anticipated. Details of this aspect of the plan are conspicuously absent, and much of the community’s discomfort is attributable to this lack of information. Moreover, the number of buildings in the present plan could be expanded to include dozens more, which would further increase the debt load as well as the potential dependence on commercial enterprises to pay for it.

Just because a building is old, does not necessarily mean it is “historic.” Many of the fort’s structures have little historic significance and even less architectural merit — thus a case might be made for their removal rather than renovation. This action has precedence.

After World War II, a number of buildings deemed no longer of value were demolished. I submit that successful preservation of the fort does not require saving every structure on the historic site.

Having listened to the emotional statements made on both sides of the issue, it seems the only viable path across the gap is a compromise, yet I did not hear this word mentioned at the forums.

While a good compromise, by definition, leaves both parties equally satisfied and upset, it may be the only way to move forward on preserving the fort while minimizing the need for commercial enterprises to pay a big renovation bill.

Moreover, the looming court injunction on the project would mean further building deterioration. Perhaps Congressman Pallone would focus his support for this issue, which so deeply divides his constituency, on facilitating such a compromise.

Finally, we all want to preserve Fort Hancock and commemorate its role in the nation’s history, but clearly the plan on the table rings alarm bells in the minds of many members of our community.

We should explore new ideas for bridging the widening gap before the truly historic buildings fall apart, and before we embark on a project that may forever degrade the natural treasures that make Sandy Hook a unique gem in our back yards.

Jennifer Francis is an assistant research professor at the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, Highlands