Guest Column
Judith Stanley Coleman
Public hearing, comment period should be extended

There is a need to balance the historical, environmental and education importance of Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook with the development plans. We are concerned that privatization will lead to the commercialization of one of the last natural beach areas in the Northeast. We worry that development means the emphasis on preserving the land will be diminished by restoring the buildings.

Land, building and parking easements should be considered to ensure that privatization of Fort Hancock doesn’t result in sprawl and ruin the natural beauty of Sandy Hook.

According to the park service’s own projections, presently 85 percent of all visitors to the park drive through New Jersey rather than use mass transit.

We are concerned development will add to overcrowding conditions in our county, an area that is already overrun with cars, people and insufficient parking.

The environmental assessment study concludes there is no need to conduct an environmental impact study. The fact that the study was prepared in part and paid for by the developer gives an appearance of impropriety to a process that should be conflict-free.

There is a need for an independent, objective assessment of the impact the development of Fort Hancock will have on the environment and infrastructure of Sandy Hook.

The specifics of the plan the National Park Service and the developers have for Fort Hancock have not been disclosed.

In addition, none of the original proposals submitted through the request for proposal process or the leasing agreements with the selected tenants have been released. How can we be sure the developer/lessees will not be allowed to change the agreed-upon uses and develop more of the land?

The original 22 proposals submitted in 1999 should be made public, as well as the leasing agreements between the park service and its prospective tenants.

There has not been an adequate public review and comment period. The open house tours held at Fort Hancock Feb. 28 and March 2 did not provide an appropriate forum to address the public concerns.

The National Park Service should hold public hearings to allow for a real exchange of information and comments. A public record of the hearing should be kept.

The public review and comment period should be extended until after public hearings are held and adequate information is disclosed to the public.

In view of these concerns and the many others that have been expressed, it is my sincere hope the National Park Service will recognize the public’s need for more information concerning the redevelopment of Fort Hancock.

Judith Stanley Coleman, president of the Monmouth Conservation Foundation, Middletown, has twice met with representatives of the National Park Service to discuss concerns regarding the development of Fort Hancock.