Park service should rethink plans for Hook

Well, it's that time of year: the National Park Service grants its eighth deadline extension to the proposed developer of Fort Hancock as he tries to get funding for the supposed commercial reuse of 36 buildings.

When the developer, James Wassel, applied to rehabilitate the buildings in August 1999 under the NPS's dubious privatization and commercialization plan, he had to provide proof of his ability to finance the project. He didn't, but the NPS picked him nonetheless.

Since then, Wassel and his organization, renamed Sandy Hook Partners, has failed to meet seven financial deadlines, the latest June 30, as he blames everything but sunspots for his inability to raise the cash.

The latest extension is no surprise, but his failure has led a number of people, including Rep. Frank Pallone, to urge the NPS to toss the whole plan out the window.

There has been a lot of confusion over this funding issue. Initially, Mr. Wassel predicted it would cost about $90 million to rehab the buildings. Then at one of several public meetings forced on the NPS by citizens outraged at the commercialization plan, Mr. Wassel asked in frustration where this number - $90 million came from.

I could understand his confusion. The number was, after all, buried on Page 1 of the project's Environmental Impact Assessment that he and the NPS co-authored. Easy to miss. Since then, the number has varied from $72 million to $60 million to ... who knows, a buck sixty-eight?

In a related event, beach-goers this year may have noticed that Sandy Hook has closed on weekends as early as June because of overcrowding.

It's not surprising, since the NPS has closed down several acres of its North Beach parking area, claiming it wants the grassy area to revert to natural habitat. Any increase in natural habitat is a good thing. However, although Sandy Hook is home to more than 300 species of wildlife, some endangered, the NPS has refused to do an environmental impact study of its commercialization plan. Nor has it convincingly explained why these extra few acres are so important in a 1,665-acre park that it must reduce summertime recreational use. Cash is more important than critters.

If I were a suspicious person, I'd guess the excluded acreage is a good part of the 837 parking spaces - about 16 percent of the park's total spaces the NPS says it needs for its moribund commercialization plan. By closing the beach parking area now, the NPS hopes to avoid having it being linked to its commercial plans, thus muting any public outcries.

I think the NPS should admit its foolish and ill-planned venture into entrepreneurship is a bungled mess and get back on its original track - attracting nonprofit and community-based organizations to use the buildings the taxpayers own. It's time the NPS admitted its mistakes and refocused on conservation and recreation. But illusions and delusions are hard to give up.

George Moffatt

Oceanport