Thread by @MichelleNMoon

Following the meeting of @FortHancock21 and @GatewayNPS. They were surprised at the pushback to Stillman proposal at the Town Hall and are proposing creating a Working Group to help them communicate better. @SHFNJ @MonmouthConserv #monmouth

The thesis is that people don't understand the proposal process and are being misled by misinformation. They believe they've communicated enough, and want the working group to assist. There seems to be confusion between those who don't understand, and those who simply disagree.

@NYNJBaykeeper representative recommends @FortHancock21 should not be dismissive of members of the public raising questions/concerns; that's "part of the public process." And along with the misperceptions are real issue.

Another citizen asks what the term of the lease is - NPS superintendent says it's 60 years - an effort to encourage serious long-term investment.

The citizen notes that with climate change/rising water levels that 60 year lease may pose a risk. Next, a rep from the natural resources committee of @LWVNJ asks how close to sea level the site and access road are - response is that it ranges -3 to +5 at the FH site.

Another citizen (who has submitted a proposal for 6 bldgs) notes that Stillman has not submitted detailed plans, only a commitment with a general outline. Nearly 2 years have passed and the commenter wonders whether committee is holding off smaller proposals to favor a large one.

Bennett Brooks (consensus mediator) notes sets of questions center around taxation, cost of services, sea level, and competition for leases. Sup. Nersesian says contract wld include maintenance fee to offset cost of LE, emergency med, fire, etc but is waived on 1st 5 buildings.

Sup. Nersesian says many of these services exist at a smaller scale, serving about 80 employees who live on the park property now. They can project costs but haven't implemented them yet.

Nersesian says: "climate change, protection of resources, equity, access - these are all part of our mission too." Working Group would help w/ messaging, but also could help FH21 understand better what the core of public concerns are and whether there is a way to address them.

Sup Nersesian says we don't need to conceive of development and preservation as in conflict, when the two can marry and enhance one another. The WG could help highlight weaknesses in any proposals that sell those goals short.

Sea level rise is something the agency issues guidelines on. They understand they may have to divest in certain built resources, and that "in 200 years, Sandy Hook might not be there," but for the 50-60 year horizon, they would plan to design for resilience...

EG, put services at 3' above ground level, require resilient finishes. We know there will be more hurricanes, but "believe that if we get 50 years out of this investment and the importance of historic preservation and the millions of people who can get an experience of what FH...

...was like during its period of significance, it's worth it."

But if the developer can't do this, "the property reverts back to NPS and we're no worse than when we started."

Maintaining access road "is a concern." The access road is low, was covered in sand during Sandy. It is also the road to sewer plant, offices, etc - losing the road also means losing access to the whole Hook operations.

The lack of detail in the proposal is because a developer will not engage in detailed design without a commitment. There would be a pilot while other buildings were held, and if it turns out it wasn't feasible, buildings would go back out for lease.

Proposals are not received and rated in the park - that happens in a regional panel. (*Would be interesting to know more about this).

One Q noted that Stillman proposal had been presented only as slides. Sup. Nersesian says they don't release full proposals, citing structural reasons, but says there was not much more detail than in the slides.

The next step in the process would be signing an agreement to do the pilot, and that's when real details would be available. Someone asked for comparitives of other leasing projects in National Parks. This will be looked into - Cape Cod, Fort Mason, Hot Springs, etc.

Sup. N says they will compile more examples and get those out to everyone (*side question: this can indeed be successful, but are there any on a barrier island with a single 2-lane road access?).

The NPS has not spent "a whole lot yet" to stabilize buildings in the meantime but is considering about a $2 million investment to do so. It would not have to be paid back by a developer.

The buildings are deteriorating at an accelerating rate and some are very near the end of their lifespan. The rationale for not requiring repayment is that the buildings have deteriorated further from the time of the proposal.

Why not require for-profit developers to make restored space available for nonprofits? Answer: the financial commitments are already really high and in 8-9 years such a partner has now shown up.

Some have had the vision of a "Woods Hole of the South" where entities converge to preserve the landscape with education, tourism, business, etc. But the partners have not materialized. We have to be "a little entrepreneurial."

This committee would be unpaid volunteers as are all the federal parks committees as far as this group knows.

NPS: Preservation standards: Same use - highest level. Adaptive reuse - what we're shooting for here. Reconstruction - a valid method if something collapses. Something we could consider. Bldg 23, Monmouth County project, is doing that on a collapsed building.

Shawn Welch: The WG would be an advisory body to advise the committee to advise the NPS. w/r/t sea level issues, the peninsula changes shape and size over time. The Coast Guard is out there and the NPS would be required to maintain access.

Gerry Glaser says perhaps the committee has not done enough to reach out to local environmental organizations: @NJSeaGrant, @littoralsociety, @CleanOcean, etc. Lillian Burry talked about her conversations with @MonmouthConserv as an example of building involvement. #FortHancock

Gerry Glaser: the committee has the authority to draw in "whoever we want" in the working group; "we control that process." Kate Stevenson suggests 5-7 people on group, getting both local and national reps of environ. grps

Dan Saunders says that the public seems unaware of "all the past efforts" and that the #FortHancock advisory committee has "worked through all that." *NOTE: While this may be true, the resulting information is not easy to find in a single location.

Tony Mercanante thinks that people may think new buildings are being proposed- they're not. He notes that 5 units per building, ~180 new cars out there, etc. "Does change things," but the federal government hasn't stepped up to restore, so this may be the only shot.

Mercantante notes that even in the stimulus, there was no finding allocated to preserve #FortHancock - public funding seems not to be materializing. (NOTE: I wonder if the lack of NPS investment here reflects any assessment of the significance of FH?)

Nersesian suggests other organizations who have commented and would be good reach out to for working group: @NJAudubon, @NJSierraClub #FortHancock

Gerry Glaser recommends better engaging local press corps. One charge for WG would be to make sure that external communication mechanisms are used.

Glaser notes that a single poster has helped as a communications tool. The Advisory group has not used this kind of interpretation extensively to speak to park visitors onsite.

The #FortHancock advisory committee is slowly discovering the notion of interpretive communication. Signs, interpretive center, plaques for restored buildings. I recommended some front-end evaluation so they have some idea of what the public wants to know.

Regarding working group composition: Nersesian recommends adding representation from groups with expertise in historic preservation. #FortHancock

Scherenberger says the working group needs to clarify what is not clear, vs. what is clear but that public objects to.

Note: The #FortHancock21 advisory committee appears to have very limited diversity. It is 60% male, appears 100% white, and overwhelmingly older and affluent.

Glaser noted the need to impose metrics on the pilot project. What would be considered a success? What kinds of impact will be measured? Brooks: those metrics should be developed by NPS, not just Stillman. #FortHancock

The advisory committee expressed consensus that the NPS should move forward with the Stillman proposal and should create this working group of about 6-7 people, centered on groups that are struggling w/proposal and have interests at risk, along w/historical/cultural experts

Brooks: the working group should not just have a good conversation among 7-10 people, but should broadcast more broadly. The group should recognize gulf in public outreach, and burden is on the committee to communicate more effectively.

NPS will provide a public summary of this meeting and a recording of it as well.

@threadreaderapp unroll