News
Battle Over Sandy
Hook Continues
Save Sandy Hook files appeal of ruling by federal judge
By John Burton
OPPONENTS OF THE proposed commercial development of the historic Fort Hancock portion of Sandy Hook have filed another legal challenge to the planned development with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia.
The appeal was filed late last month by the nonprofit organization, Save Sandy Hook, a grassroots group opposed to the commercialization of national parkland at Sandy Hook.
Sandy Hook is part of Gateway National Recreation Area.
The National Park Service has granted Sandy Hook Partners, a development firm headed by Rumson resident James Wassel, the right to lease and renovate 36 buildings in the Fort Hancock portion of Sandy Hook for use by commercial tenants.
The appeal was filed in response to a decision by a federal judge last September granting the NPS's request for a summary motion dismissing Save Sandy Hook's lawsuit.
Save Sandy Hook filed its intent to appeal the ruling last November.
Mary Little Cooper, the federal judge in Trenton hearing the arguments, determined that the plaintiffs failed to meet the criteria for standing in the matter because they failed to demonstrate that they have suffered damages.
The National Park Service and the U.S. Attorney's Office, representing the federal entities, and Sandy Hook Partners and the Wassel Realty Group, the defendants in the suit, challenged Save Sandy Hook's lawsuit on those grounds.
Concerns about the future of Sandy Hook began to surface nearly nine years ago when the National Park Service (NPS) announced it would seek requests for proposals for developing the structures located at Fort Hancock, a former military installation located at the northern tip of Sandy Hook.
The park service sought to establish a public/private partnership that would allow for improvements to the buildings located at Fort Hancock.
The NPS received 22 proposals in response to their request. From those, Sandy Hook Partners was selected as the designated developer.
The buildings designated for renovation and leasing under the agreement with Sandy Hook Partners were constructed for use by the military in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Fort Hancock is listed in the National Register of Historic Properties and maintained by the NPS as a historic district.
Over the years, many of the buildings there have aged and deteriorated from neglect.
Proponents of the NPS plan to lease the buildings to a commercial developer see it as a means of saving the deteriorating structures and restoring the buildings to active use.
Save Sandy Hook is a not-for-profit group that has voiced objections to the plan, citing the environmental impact the development would have to Sandy Hook's 1,665 acres and its delicate ecosystem.
"Plaintiff's contend that the proposed uses purportedly 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 of the Gateway National Recreation Area was created," the plaintiffs' brief stated.
The group also alleged the NPS and the Department of the Interior violated its own rules concerning the issuing of the contracted lease agreement by not insisting that the developer show documentation for the necessary financing to support the project.
Over the years, since the federal government's awarding of the contract, the NPS has granted a series of extensions to Sandy Hook Partners, citing the ongoing litigation for inhibiting the developer's ability to nail down financing. Coleman has continued to say the suit was not an impediment and the developer had failed to show financing prior to the 2004 suit.
As of yet, the developer has not provided the financing and currently has until June, based upon the latest extension offered by the NPS.
Up until now Save Sandy Hook has met with two defeats in federal court. In 2006 Judge Cooper dismissed the complaint, but allowed the plaintiff to amend it to be resubmitted, which Save Sandy Hook did.
However, that amended complaint was again rejected last summer, leaving the group to move to the Court of Appeals.
Coleman said this week his group is seeking its day in court and to hear testimony from federal officials concerning the bidding process.
"How could they (NPS) possibly do this when it is a clear violation of their own guidelines?" Coleman asked. "You should be able to hold your own government to a little more accountability, it seems to me."
The U.S. Attorney's Office, which is representing the federal government in these proceedings, has yet to file its response to Save Sandy Hook's arguments, according to Coleman.
Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, did not respond to a request for comment by press time on Wednesday. In the past the U.S. Attorney's Public Affairs Office has declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.
Along with the lawsuit, opponents of the lease agreement continue to wait on the outcome of an investigation being conducted by the inspector general for the U.S. Department of the Interior of the lease agreement.
U.S. Representatives Frank Pallone and Rush Holt (both D-NJ), both who have been critical of the lease agreement and the NPS's actions, were the catalysts for the investigation No time frame has been established for the appeal's oral arguments, according to Coleman.
