LOT FULL
If you've ever tried to get to Sandy Hook (Fort Hancock) on a weekend in the summer to enjoy a day at the beach, you've likely seen this sign - after you've spent 2 hours in traffic on Rt 36, got stuck at the old drawbridge a few times, and then snuck past the Park Rangers who guard the entrance like a prison. Interestingly enough, the sign doesn't read "Beach Full", it reads "Lot Full", which tells me that there probably is space for you and your family, fellow taxpayers, on the beach, you just can't park anywhere to get to the beach. I propose an interesting solution since it is the duty of the National Park Service (NPS) to provide adequate facilities to the public: build more parking lots! Wait, maybe even better.... build a parking deck! Interesting concept I think - suppose you are an environmentalist and you oppose more parking lots because the lots would be paved on the beach - why not "build up" and make a parking deck? It doesn't need an environmental impact study since the lot could be on the foot print of an existing lot and a deck could be built in the winter, when whatever birds you pretend to care about are gone, so what possible complaint could an environmentalist have? None, and we the tax payers who pay for that park/beach, can get to use the beach we pay for, this is a "problem" I think I have a reasonable solution for.

"Go Home Bennys"
NO! Please don't. You "bennys" are welcome in this district. You "benny"s are tax payers too and your money has been spent on this park and beach as well. Don't go home, come, and bring friends. If you're not "in the loop" the term "benny" is some quasi derogatory term that some small minority of people in this district have come up with to mean "Bayonne, Elizabeth, Newark and New Yorkers" who come to Sandy Hook/Fort Hancock because it is the closest beach (that they paid for). The "locals" who operate under the guise of being environmentalists, claim that the BENNYs come and pollute the environment. This may be true, but I don't think it is, at least, in the 27 years I've been alive and living here I haven't seen it happening. At the same time, the local store owners in the highlands and such complain that people drive on by to Long Branch and don't stop to spend money - but would you stop in a neighborhood in NY with your NJ license plates if you know that the people in that NY town don't like people from NJ? I personally like to shop and spend money where I feel welcome, and I pass by places where I don't feel welcome. Enough of the fake "environmentalism" - this is a national park, which means that all tax payers had chipped in to pay for it, and all tax payers, local or not, have the right to come, and I for one, welcome anyone and everyone to come to our district, enjoy the beaches, visit the shops and restaurants and enjoy your day out. Parking need not be an issue - we have room for you!

Development at Fort Hancock
This issue is very confusing to me because I just can't understand why anyone wants to "preserve" Fort Hancock - I don't understand what or how it is "historic" and I don't understand the sense in preserving something artificial, that is also condemned and dangerous. When I was a boy scout many years ago, I went to a camping trip at Sandy Hook. I remember camping out in front of the old bunkers, and seeing some very nice barbed wire fencing and "NO TRASSPASSING" signs; the bunkers are condemned, and nearly falling down, if they haven't already fallen down or been knocked down in the years since. I also recall seeing many outposts and small buildings with the same warnings. There is also a lot of poison ivy which I'm told was planted there on purpose as a deterrent/problem for invaders, but maybe that is just a rumor. In general, what is left of Fort Hancock is just old, condemned buildings that are uninhabitable and were built to standards that are far below current standards. The cost to "restore" these buildings is surely much higher than the cost to demolish them and build new, to code, buildings. At the same time, locals claim this Fort is "historic" but I've read a good number of history books and I can't seem to find "The Battle of Fort Hancock" in any of them. I can find one case of a German submarine sank off of the coast of NJ in 1945, but then I'm reasonably sure that it wasn't sank from a gun battery at Fort Hancock. Even still, suppose we assume that the presence of Fort Hancock was important and "historic" because it was a deterrent and prevented subs from getting into NY Harbor - I'm reasonably sure that since the Army abandoned the post, we no longer have that threat and the harbor is protected from some other source now. Again, let's be honest, there really isn't anything "historic" about the Fort that is any more historic than an old coin.

So what about the Fort now?
It seems like a few private investors are interested, or were interested, in private development on the property that was the Fort. I support that development and wish that locals weren't pretending to be environmentalists in order to keep "the bennys" from coming to town. The park currently makes no money, it is always an expense to us, the tax payers because the beach is "free" you pay for the parking, but someone (us taxpayers) pays for the Park Rangers, the life guards, the parking lot attendants, etc. We pay for the paperwork, the pens, the pencils, the offices, etc - the park makes no money. Suppose now, if you will, that NJ wanted to restore it's glory days of being the hottest resort destination on the east coast. Wouldn't it be ideal if some private investment company, who has to make money because that is what private companies do, or they go out of business, could "lease", lets say even 10 acres of land and build resorts at Sandy Hook - not hotels - RESORTS - something you might go to the Caribbean to enjoy, right here in District 6. Now I know we don't have Caribbean weather here, but then there is always room for indoor attractions, there are plenty of places that operate a few months out of the year and make all of their money in a few short months. Consider then that the land could be leased from the NPS, and I don't mean another political "$1 land deal", I mean a real lease, million bucks/year? I have no idea, I'm not in real estate, lets say's it's only really worth $100,000 per year even, that is not $100,000 MORE than the NPS was making this year and that $100,000/yr lease now covers some cost that you and I used to pay. Moreover, since the land now operates a business, we have additional sales tax, we have "hotel tax", we have more workers in the district earning and paying income tax (which I still think we can get rid of) and surely we can suspect that the "river taxi" will bring people from these resorts down to Red Bank (in our district) or to Sea Bright (in our district) or Long Branch (in our district) or the Highlands (in our district) or Atlantic Highlands (in our district) and so on. It's just a win for everyone, AND, since there is currently nothing on the land except for old, condemned buildings, beach access isn't changed, AT ALL, because what we really did was make currently unusable beach, usable again, a win for everyone.

Of course, because Frank Pallone doesn't care about all of the small businesses in our district, nor does he understand that we the people need jobs in our district, he opposes any and all development, in the name of being an environmentalist, but he doesn't explain the costs associated with being an environmentalist, nor does he give any thought to the fact that the "environment" doesn't need to be destroyed to build a resort - the plover, the horseshoe crab, the clams, they'll all be there, unharmed, but the acres of poison ivy and all of the square feet of condemned buildings will become safe, usable, profitable space and the cost to us tax payers is nothing, in fact, we the tax payers, in theory, pay less because the resorts cover our costs.

For someone who is anti-corporation, you sure want corporations to do a lot
Sure I do, but notice I'm not cutting a corporation any slack here. I'm not offering them a lease at a discount, I'm not offering them a tax break and I'm not proposing they get anything that you and anyone else can't get from the government. How do we decide who can build on the property? We set a minimum reserve price, zone the land how WE the people want it used and auction off the lease to the highest bidder. If the highest bidder is a millionaire environmentalist who wants to do nothing, great, we the tax payers have their lease payment on the land WE own to offset our costs. If the highest bidder wants to build on the land according to the zoning WE define, even better, as I think WE could all agree that a massive money making venture would be good for our bottom line. Maybe WE the people also want gambling to be allowed at these resorts and we can break the stronghold that is Atlantic City and bring casino money to our district. Use of public land that WE own should be decided based on what WE the people decide, not used according to a millionaire politician with an agenda and a very vocal minority of loyal followers. And the bidding process shouldn't some secret bidding process that only friends of some politician can bid on - this should be something anyone can bid on - a very public auction. Frank Pallone would never support this type of development, and we the tax payers will continue to foot the bill for our parks and have our govenor threaten to shut down our parks "because they are too expensive". Privatizing the parks is a bad idea unless the land can be be sold to pay back every dime that every tax payer has ever paid into that land - but leasing the land for private use where the lease is realistic and honest could provide a great revenue stream to offset tax payer expense. I don't support selling public property to private firms, but I do support leasing space to private firms.