Burry opposes Laurelwood housing proposal

The Laurelwood housing contract is a relic of the Cold War, when the threats we faced came from Soviet ICBMs.

 

Today, we are in hot water with an invisible army of fanatical terrorists, careless of their own lives and who believe they will become martyrs by killing Americans and harming American interests. This is the reality we live with every day.

The Laurelwood draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in more than 400 pages, fails to provide adequate assurances that the security of Naval Weapons Station (NWS) Earle will be sufficient to protect it from the potential threat that unimpeded access to 300 unregulated civilian housing units represents.

NWS Earle is an installation vital to our national security and essential to our ability to conduct military operations in much of the world. We are offered only the most vague, generalized statement that security will be adequate. The fact that these are unsupported assertions is defended by the fact that this is a secure facility and, therefore, the Navy can't fully discuss the security measures being employed. While this may be true, it is not good enough.

It seems almost weekly that a story surfaces that points to issues of national security and threats being made to it around the world. We have seen the trial of the conspirators who planned to attack Fort Dix. We saw how simple and easy their access and plan of attack was. On the world stage, we saw the devastation that a handful of dedicated terrorists could cause when the city most of us remember as Bombay was virtually paralyzed by the sudden and well-planned assault. Now the Navy has awarded a contract to upgrade security at the front gate at Earle in the amount of $8 million. This is a clear recognition that what exists there now is not sufficient. Allowing housing at Earle is just like putting a new lock on the front door while adding an open pathway through the yard and into the house.

It doesn't take a security expert to understand time, distance and duration. Having 300 units of housing a stone's throw — or a grenade toss or rocket launch — away from a facility of this importance for 30 years is simply unacceptable anywhere, including in the heart of Monmouth County.

I do not question the good intentions of the contract when it was made or the dedication of the Navy to making this work as well as possible. There is no perfect security; there is very good security, but that is not good enough when there is a better alternative at hand.

I am confident that if the Navy were to approach the owner of these units with a reasonable offer to buy, they would find a willing seller. The idea that a buyout would be too expensive must be weighed against the cost and consequences of a successful attack on this facility. It can also be measured in more common terms.

If heightened, but still imperfect, security measures cost an average of $3,000 per day over 30 years, the total would be $33 million. While I certainly cannot speak for the owner, I am confident that the same amount of money would warrant serious consideration.

From a security perspective, this would be the one perfect solution. We should settle for nothing less.
Lillian G. Burry
Director
Monmouth County Board
of Chosen Freeholders