Hook advocates weigh options
Appellate panel upholds ruling in favor of developer
BY JAMIE ROMM Staff Writer

MIDDLETOWN — Opponents of commercial development on Sandy Hook may just call the National Park Service's bluff and allow plans to go forward in a less than favorable economic climate

"Given that the ill-conceived development proposal has been unable to offer proof of the requisite financing in over eight years, and in light of the present credit meltdown in this country, we are … of the opinion that an appeal may give further life to what we believe is an otherwise doomed project," said Lawrence Luttrell, attorney for Save Sandy Hook.

Luttrell said in a press release that Save Sandy Hook's legal fight to block the development has been used by the park service "as justification for granting an unprecedented amount of deadline extensions to the developer,

"While the issue of whether the National Park Service can unlawfully commercialize assets of the people in direct abrogation of it enabling legislation is bigger than just this proposed development of Fort Hancock, we are conscious that the government and the developer may be benefiting by our efforts to fight a bigger cause," Luttrell said.

In a Sept. 22 ruling, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that the NPS has the right to lease historic buildings on Fort Hancock to developer Sandy Hook Partners for commercial reuse:

"We have carefully examined the record and considered the parties' arguments on appeal and can discern no error in the District Court's ruling. Accordingly, we will affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in Judge Cooper's excellent 56- page opinion. See Laird v. Horn, 414 F.3d 419, 425 (3d Cir. 2005) affirming 'for substantially the reasons set forth by the district court in its well-reasoned opinion.' "

Luttrell said Save Sandy Hook and Monmouth County Friends of Clearwater, appellees in the appeal, have until December to decide whether to take the legal action further.

"We are obviously disappointed with the decision of the Court of Appeals and are of the firm opinion that the decision to convert an outdoor recreation area of a national park to a private commercial development is one that would be ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States," Luttrell said.

"The deadline in this matter to petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States is Dec. 25. I will be meeting with members of Save Sandy Hook Corp. to discuss the options available, including the possibility of waiting until the [Department of the Interior] Inspector General has completed the investigation of the Park Service requested by Congressman [Frank] Pallone [D-6th District]."

James H. Coleman Sr., a member of Save Sandy Hook, said last week the advocacy group will bide its time.

"We had a meeting with the attorney on this and we do have some time to think about it," Coleman said. "We are kicking around a few things and haven't decided what we are going to do.

"Two months is plenty of time," Coleman said. "They've had nine years, what's the big deal waiting until December?"

The three-judge appellate panel upheld a 56-page decision dated Sept. 13, 2007, by Judge Mary L. Cooper that said the "NPS has considerable discretion to administer, use and lease the properties it is tasked with protecting as long as it complies with applicable environmental laws."

Cooper ruled against the plaintiffs' claim that "The issuance of the FONSI [Finding of No Significant Impact] with respect to the Fort Hancock rehabilitation project and the lease with the SH [Sandy Hook] Partners did not violate any provisions" of the National Environmental PolicyAct, the National Historic Preservation Act and the Gateway National Recreation Area.

"The Administrative Record demonstrates that the NPS extensively analyzed all potential impacts of the rehabilitation and reuse of the Fort Hancock Historic District, including any impacts that would be caused by the SH Partners lease," the ruling stated.

In August 1999, the National Park Service (NPS) issued a Request for Proposals for the leasing of historic buildings at Fort Hancock on Sandy Hook. The NPS, which claimed it did not have the funds to rehabilitate the historic structures, received 22 proposals in response, including a proposal from Wassel Realty Group Inc, headed by James Wassel, Rumson.

Wassel Realty's proposal identified 44 buildings at Fort Hancock for possible rental and envisioned "a sophisticated, multiuse facility that would feature a technology driven office space and a state-ofthe art educational facility and conference center."

An NPS-appointed panel evaluated the proposals and recommended Wassel's proposal and another for negotiation in early 2000. Wassel Realty organized Sandy Hook Partners in November 2001, the NPS and SH Partners executed a Letter of Intent committing the parties to enter into a lease, and on July 9, 2004, NPS and SH Partners executed a 60-year lease for 36 buildings at Fort Hancock.

Sandy Hook Partners received a series of extensions of the time allotted to show Wassel had the financial resources to complete the plan before the lease was signed in 2004.

In 2004, Save Sandy Hook filed a lawsuit against Sandy Hook Partners, the park service and the Department of the Interior challenging the lease. Clearwater, which had submitted an unsuccessful bid for its headquarters building on Fort Hancock, joined the suit.

The suit claimed the procurement process for the lease was flawed, and that Wassel had failed to provide proof of having adequate funding for the project.

Last year, Judge Cooper issued an opinion that turned down the challenge to the lease by Save Sandy Hook on the grounds the group did not have standing to challenge the procurement process, and the group appealed. Last week the appellate court ruled in favor of the NPS and Wassel again.

The appellate court opinion stated that "In essence, appellants claimed that '[t]he proposed uses authorized by the lease amount to a thinly disguised corporate office park in derogation of the purposes and values for which the Sandy Hook Unit was created and, as a result, will result in the crass commercialization and privatization of the Sandy Hook Unit in violation of the purposes and values for which Gateway was established.'

Save Sandy Hook asked the district court for "a declaration that the lease violates the above-listed federal statutes and a declaration that the lease is void."