Public needs to know about plans for fort

Sandy Hook Partners’ plan for redeveloping Fort Hancock may be the absolutely best proposal submitted to restore the decaying buildings in Gateway National Park. However, we will have to rely on the National Park Service’s word that that is the case.

This week Russel Wilson, the park’s superintendent, said Sandy Hook Partners’ proposal and all of the others that were submitted as possibilities for restoration of Fort Hancock are not available for public view.

Considering that there is currently a public comment period open on the proposal, it would seem reasonable that the public should have access to what it seeks to comment on.

It would seem equally reasonable that the public should have a chance to look at some of the alternatives so it has some context for making comments.

No matter what the merits of the Sandy Hook Partners’ proposal, people cannot be expected to comment meaningfully upon it without knowing exactly what it is and what other possibilities are out there.

It should be noted that the park service has seen fit to reveal some aspects of the proposal, going so far as to invite media outlets to Fort Hancock where some aspects of the Sandy Hook Partner’ plan were discussed and some of the buildings to be restored were toured. It also should be noted that at that time the park service saw fit to mention some of the other proposals as well, most notably those that seemed particularly ill-suited to the park. However, somehow full disclosure is not permitted.

While additional information might be helpful, it is difficult to see the benefit of being ill-informed as opposed to uninformed.

Park officials maintain that, should the plan currently under consideration fall through, other prospective bidders for the site would gain a competitive advantage when the process is reopened. How that competitive advantage would work against the park service is not explained. It would make more sense to have full disclosure of the process to facilitate any future negotiations since anyone considering making a proposal would have a better idea of what is and is not acceptable.

For all the talk of competitive advantage and all the silence on what the competition is, the bottom line is, the National Park System is part of the government which means it belongs to the people of the United States.

Without a clear and compelling reason for keeping these issues secret, it doesn’t seem right that the custodians of public property should have the ability to keep the owners of that property from knowing how it will be used.