The constituents and leadership of Neighbors Opposed to Privatization at Earle express our deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Scott Kalbach, who served as the Public Affairs Officer at Naval Weapons Station Earle the past three years and unexpectedly passed away on Thursday, August 5, at age 46. Navy officials informed us this afternoon of this tragedy, and we remember Scott as an extremely kind man who always treated us graciously and attentively in matters pertaining to NOPE's concerns about the Laurelwood civilian housing proposal. Scott will truly be missed by our community.
For further information or to send condolences to the family please visit http://www.obrienfuneralhome.com/ or view Scott's obituary in the Asbury Park Press.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Clarifying a post last week on Balfour homes at Earle
The info we received and posted last week about the Department of Navy's intention to open vacant (and, again) privatized homes at NWS Earle was not too far off, but our earlier reference to civilians as a potential rental target was fortunately askew.
A postcard disseminated by Balfour Beatty Communities, owner-operator of some 100 houses unrelated to Laurelwood on NWS Earle, suggests that rental housing could become available to "full military retirees, DOD civilians, reservists and active military who have current base access." Nowhere does the postcard ID people unrelated to the military as prospective renters.
Outside of self-serving financial motives, one can only guess why the DoN, again, is being an inconsiderate neighbor and so eager to fill empty houses on an active Naval weapons facility and stress not only a vital Naval mission, but also the surrounding communities (i.e. educating dependents on the local taxpayers' dime, mounting fear that people that do not belong on an active weapons base are let inside Earle).
One can also guess that the DoN (i.e. decision makers at the Pentagon) wants to use NWS Earle as a test case for better-monetizing underutilized base housing, or to get its monies worth, so to speak, on $6.3 million of main gate security upgrades contracted in March to P&S Construction of Lowell, Mass. Either way, DoN leaders on the federal level continue to show little regard for the impact to the local communities of its ill-advised decisions and poor oversight and business planning on privatized housing.
Certainly we will continue to share any new information on this front with our supporters, and encourage federal and local representatives to keep tabs on the Balfour Beatty housing situation at NWS Earle, which is looking like another, albeit smaller-scale, unfunded federal mandate to the base's host towns.
A postcard disseminated by Balfour Beatty Communities, owner-operator of some 100 houses unrelated to Laurelwood on NWS Earle, suggests that rental housing could become available to "full military retirees, DOD civilians, reservists and active military who have current base access." Nowhere does the postcard ID people unrelated to the military as prospective renters.
Outside of self-serving financial motives, one can only guess why the DoN, again, is being an inconsiderate neighbor and so eager to fill empty houses on an active Naval weapons facility and stress not only a vital Naval mission, but also the surrounding communities (i.e. educating dependents on the local taxpayers' dime, mounting fear that people that do not belong on an active weapons base are let inside Earle).
One can also guess that the DoN (i.e. decision makers at the Pentagon) wants to use NWS Earle as a test case for better-monetizing underutilized base housing, or to get its monies worth, so to speak, on $6.3 million of main gate security upgrades contracted in March to P&S Construction of Lowell, Mass. Either way, DoN leaders on the federal level continue to show little regard for the impact to the local communities of its ill-advised decisions and poor oversight and business planning on privatized housing.
Certainly we will continue to share any new information on this front with our supporters, and encourage federal and local representatives to keep tabs on the Balfour Beatty housing situation at NWS Earle, which is looking like another, albeit smaller-scale, unfunded federal mandate to the base's host towns.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
DoN-Laurelwood still negotiating
One of Congressman Smith's officials called us this afternoon with a brief update that the Department of Navy and Laurelwood Homes, LLC remain in negotiations and that September 30 is the deadline for the sides to reach a settlement on the Navy's buyout of the Laurelwood housing complex at NWS Earle. As soon as we get any new information on this front, we will be sure to pass it along, so please stay tuned.
Friday, July 16, 2010
An eerie silence
The silence remains deafening! By now, NOPE had hoped to learn of some breakthrough in buyout negotiations between the Department of Navy and Laurelwood Homes, LLC, since the parties are evidently beyond the 60-day deadline to address a complaint filed by Laurelwood owner Teri Fischer with the DoN's contracting officer over the Navy's reported initial $9 million bid. But still no word...
Meanwhile, based on first-hand accounts from NOPE sources, NWS Earle and Colts Neck Township Committee are seemingly doing nothing to foster goodwill toward their neighbors, with apparent clandestine meetings over the DoN's bid to rent 49 vacant base homes owned by Balfour Beatty (presumably the Stark Road complex) to either local veterans or civilians. This rumor, in and of itself, portends trouble with Tinton Falls over the decades-long fued over educational responsibility for residents at NWS Earle, as well as interested other stakeholders such as the thousands of resident supporters of NOPE.
It was wonderful for everyone to rejoice back in April when the DoN withdrew its Record of Decision on proposed civilian housing and unimpeded access to Laurelwood at NWS Earle, but the process must be seen through completion to satisfy a NOPE community that, for 30 months and counting, has acted in the best interests of NWS Earle host towns, and likely Earle itself. Maybe it is time for federal, state and local leaders to hold the DoN's feet to the fire again, so to speak, pertaining to poor infrastructure planning and obvious mismanagement of privatized housing deals at NWS Earle.
Housing issues at NWS Earle are causing nothing but unnecessary stress, headaches and, at times, infighting for the surrounding communities.
Meanwhile, based on first-hand accounts from NOPE sources, NWS Earle and Colts Neck Township Committee are seemingly doing nothing to foster goodwill toward their neighbors, with apparent clandestine meetings over the DoN's bid to rent 49 vacant base homes owned by Balfour Beatty (presumably the Stark Road complex) to either local veterans or civilians. This rumor, in and of itself, portends trouble with Tinton Falls over the decades-long fued over educational responsibility for residents at NWS Earle, as well as interested other stakeholders such as the thousands of resident supporters of NOPE.
It was wonderful for everyone to rejoice back in April when the DoN withdrew its Record of Decision on proposed civilian housing and unimpeded access to Laurelwood at NWS Earle, but the process must be seen through completion to satisfy a NOPE community that, for 30 months and counting, has acted in the best interests of NWS Earle host towns, and likely Earle itself. Maybe it is time for federal, state and local leaders to hold the DoN's feet to the fire again, so to speak, pertaining to poor infrastructure planning and obvious mismanagement of privatized housing deals at NWS Earle.
Housing issues at NWS Earle are causing nothing but unnecessary stress, headaches and, at times, infighting for the surrounding communities.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
GAO study into Laurelwood, Section 8 military housing due in September
Responding to a brief email query this morning, our contacts within the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative wing of the U.S. Congress, inform us that late-September is the target to release a much-anticipated (at least by NOPE, anyway...) study into Laurelwood housing and the status of seven other "Section 8" housing complexes on domestic military bases.
The GAO findings, in our view, will not only shed light on why it was a good idea for the Department of Navy to withdraw its so-called Record of Decision to convert 300 Laurelwood houses at NWS Earle into civilian rentals (and construct the ill-fated unimpeded access road through the base), but also prove valuable to the Congress in its oversight of military base housing nationwide. As we have railed for 2+ years, and the GAO has uncovered in other reports, oversight of military housing (and the outsourcing of construction and management of this privately-built and owned housing) is extremely lacking and needs to improve - to prevent situations elsewhere in the U.S. similar to what we have gone through with Laurelwood.
Meanwhile, in the days ahead we will follow up with our elected officials to see whether:
The GAO findings, in our view, will not only shed light on why it was a good idea for the Department of Navy to withdraw its so-called Record of Decision to convert 300 Laurelwood houses at NWS Earle into civilian rentals (and construct the ill-fated unimpeded access road through the base), but also prove valuable to the Congress in its oversight of military base housing nationwide. As we have railed for 2+ years, and the GAO has uncovered in other reports, oversight of military housing (and the outsourcing of construction and management of this privately-built and owned housing) is extremely lacking and needs to improve - to prevent situations elsewhere in the U.S. similar to what we have gone through with Laurelwood.
Meanwhile, in the days ahead we will follow up with our elected officials to see whether:
- the DoN/Earle and Laurelwood Homes, LLC have made progress in buyout negotiations and a Laurelwood teardown schedule;
- A2014, the Assembly measure to have New Jersey's Treasurer probe the financial impact (to the State) of the Laurelwood housing conversion, will make it through committee (Military and Veterans Affairs, which has not met publicly since May) or this companion measure to Senate-approved S762 is dead because of the impending Laurelwood buyout. In our view, it is still important for the Treasurer to conduct this study, if nothing more than to establish a precedent by which NJ's leadership can handle potential other unfunded federal mandates (i.e. to protect New Jersey's interest in the event that Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, Picattiny Arsenal, etc. seek to convert other underutilized privatized military housing or facilities into civilian enclaves);
- the supposed offering of underutilized Balfour Beatty housing at NWS Earle will, indeed, be made available to tenants other than active military (i.e., vets, civilians), as we reported here last week; this is clearly a case worth watching, particularly as Earle's host towns grapple with proposed property tax caps, school budget cuts and reduced state aid, to name a few constraints. The DoN's earlier actions surrounding proposed civilian Laurelwood housing and impeded access through Earle clearly showed the DoD clearly has little concern about how its decisions impact local stakeholders.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Military housing "waterfall" policy
Following up on yesterday's posting about the possibility of the Department of Navy meeting with Colts Neck officials about supposed plans to outlease underutilized Balfour Beatty housing at NWS Earle, NOPE supporters should know at least a little about the U.S. military housing "waterfall policy." The description is footnoted in this May 2009 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), pertaining to the challenges the Department of Defense is facing with privatized military housing (pg. 25):
Back-of-the-envelope math suggests this will leave roughly 90 homes for occupancy, or less than half of the 2004 inventory (when, according to BB's website, the company demolished 100 homes; it is hard to extract from this data, however, whether these were mandated demolitions, i.e. homes reached the end of their 50-year useful lives, or BB realized many homes would simply lay fallow with the DoN continually shrinking the military workforce at NWS Earle).
Let's venture a guess that half of these 90 or so homes are occupied by active military or others who work inside NWS Earle. That would leave about 45 (or 90-180 bedrooms, depending on which units are vacant) to "outlease," or rent to another population. Assuming the DoN is considering letting Balfour Beatty rent the homes to non-attached military (i.e. veterans) or civilians, and that NWS Earle will process all of these people regularly (i.e. background checks, in/out of the main security gate on Rt. 34 in Colts Neck) through the duration of BB's contract, considerable strain could still be placed not only on base force protection (i.e. round-the-clock policing of an "outsider" community), but the host municipalities such as Colts Neck (i.e. municipal services) and Tinton Falls (i.e. schooling).
We would encourage our supporters to contact your municipal and state legislators (i.e. Senator Beck, Assemblyman O'Scanlon and Assemblywoman Casagrande) concerning this matter, and of course to stay tuned here as we attempt to flesh out the details, following word of a supposed Navy meeting this week with Colts Neck Township officials.
DOD has established a tenant “waterfall” that (military housing) projects can use if occupancy falls below a certain rate. Generally, after military families are accommodated, the order of the tenant waterfall is unaccompanied military personnel, active National Guard and Reserve, military retirees, federal government civilians, and lastly civilians. (GAO inspectors) have been told some installation commanders have expressed reservations to private developers about having civilians living in military privatized housing, which at some installations, had resulted in the developer’s reluctance to rent to civilians that can potentially further constrain generating revenue.To reiterate, it appears that the DoN in Washington has another quandry on its hands in terms of underutilized, privately-owned military housing at NWS Earle, and that it may look to impress upon local constituents another unfunded mandate, along the lines of what it had proposed (unsuccessfully) with privately-owned Laurelwood housing. This time around, it involves homes owned by multinational corporation Balfour Beatty; the company's website shows there are 82 Stark Road townhomes (2-4+ bedrooms), 7 Green Drive single-family homes (3-4 bedrooms each) and 40 Green Acres townhomes (2-3 bedrooms each). However, BB's website also suggests that the company will demolish 38 of these housing units this month.
Back-of-the-envelope math suggests this will leave roughly 90 homes for occupancy, or less than half of the 2004 inventory (when, according to BB's website, the company demolished 100 homes; it is hard to extract from this data, however, whether these were mandated demolitions, i.e. homes reached the end of their 50-year useful lives, or BB realized many homes would simply lay fallow with the DoN continually shrinking the military workforce at NWS Earle).
Let's venture a guess that half of these 90 or so homes are occupied by active military or others who work inside NWS Earle. That would leave about 45 (or 90-180 bedrooms, depending on which units are vacant) to "outlease," or rent to another population. Assuming the DoN is considering letting Balfour Beatty rent the homes to non-attached military (i.e. veterans) or civilians, and that NWS Earle will process all of these people regularly (i.e. background checks, in/out of the main security gate on Rt. 34 in Colts Neck) through the duration of BB's contract, considerable strain could still be placed not only on base force protection (i.e. round-the-clock policing of an "outsider" community), but the host municipalities such as Colts Neck (i.e. municipal services) and Tinton Falls (i.e. schooling).
We would encourage our supporters to contact your municipal and state legislators (i.e. Senator Beck, Assemblyman O'Scanlon and Assemblywoman Casagrande) concerning this matter, and of course to stay tuned here as we attempt to flesh out the details, following word of a supposed Navy meeting this week with Colts Neck Township officials.
Monday, July 5, 2010
More NWS Earle housing nonsense to keep our eye on
NOPE business case analyst Fulton Wilcox informs us after attending the June 30 Township Committee meeting in Colts Neck that Mayor Florek casually mentioned the Committee is scheduled to meet Thursday, July 7, to discuss the Navy's intent to rent non-Laurelwood base housing at NWS Earle to non-service members, such as military veterans. Stay tuned here for more details as we uncover them. Tinton Falls (the host for school-age dependents from NWS Earle for the past two-plus decades and a major stakeholder in what happens at the base) should be a party to such a meeting, though we have yet to track down whether Mayor Skudera has been notified or will be a party to the gathering.
The housing in question is managed (and perhaps the leasehold improvements owned) by U.K.-based Balfour Beatty (http://lacklandfamilyhousing.com/subpage.aspx?cid=54&k=neighborhoods). The declining population at NWS Earle as well as the impending closure of Fort Monmouth apparently has left vacancies in the Balfour Beatty managed housing, leaving the Navy again to pay for vacant housing unless Balfour Beatty “outleases” the homes, much as the Navy had hoped to do with Laurelwood housing.
NOPE will keep a close eye on this turn of events this week, considering the potential ramifications (i.e. security, financial, educational, environmental) to all stakeholders in Colts Neck, Tinton Falls and Monmouth County, and in light of the ill-fated and now-defunct Laurelwood civilian housing conversion at NWS Earle.
As much as NOPE objects to letting civilians live on an active military base like NWS Earle, we have little say regarding the pecking order of potential tenants in military base housing, since that is determined by federal law. The fatal flaw of the proposed Laurelwood conversion was that the Department of Navy sought unimpeded access to the base (i.e. no security gate, no background checks on prospective renters), which was clearly a horrific idea -- one that the Navy admitted in retracting the Laurelwood civilian housing plan. In the case of the 40-60 unused Balfour Beatty homes, we assume for now that renters will need to qualify for credentials to pass through front-gate security at the Rt. 34 entrance.
In short, with privatized military housing contracts, if there are not enough active-duty military to live in the homes, there is a pecking order of available tenants the Military can seek to occupy the homes (i.e. military bachelors, contractors, military retirees, veterans, etc.), with civilians the renter of last resort (and we have found many base commanders in the U.S. opposed to civilian housing on their bases). We can only guess at this time that local veterans groups (i.e. proponents of the Accettola Plan, Neptune Housing Authority) are somehow involved in the Balfour Beatty issue, but will track this case closely.
This is just one example of why, NOPE feels, the District 12 legislative team needs to see through the passage of S762-A2014, mandating a State Treasury study into proposed housing conversions at NWS Earle, since housing decisions have a far reaching impact on New Jerseyans, whether they know it or not. To understand the true financial impact of federal/military mandates and conversions such as Laurelwood (and now, potentially, Balfour Beatty homes at NWS Earle) would give the State Legislature the ammunition it needs to protect the interests of the state and host municipalities. We will again contact Assemblywoman Casagrande and Assemblyman O'Scanlon for an update on whether their bill will pass in Trenton.
The housing in question is managed (and perhaps the leasehold improvements owned) by U.K.-based Balfour Beatty (http://lacklandfamilyhousing.com/subpage.aspx?cid=54&k=neighborhoods). The declining population at NWS Earle as well as the impending closure of Fort Monmouth apparently has left vacancies in the Balfour Beatty managed housing, leaving the Navy again to pay for vacant housing unless Balfour Beatty “outleases” the homes, much as the Navy had hoped to do with Laurelwood housing.
NOPE will keep a close eye on this turn of events this week, considering the potential ramifications (i.e. security, financial, educational, environmental) to all stakeholders in Colts Neck, Tinton Falls and Monmouth County, and in light of the ill-fated and now-defunct Laurelwood civilian housing conversion at NWS Earle.
As much as NOPE objects to letting civilians live on an active military base like NWS Earle, we have little say regarding the pecking order of potential tenants in military base housing, since that is determined by federal law. The fatal flaw of the proposed Laurelwood conversion was that the Department of Navy sought unimpeded access to the base (i.e. no security gate, no background checks on prospective renters), which was clearly a horrific idea -- one that the Navy admitted in retracting the Laurelwood civilian housing plan. In the case of the 40-60 unused Balfour Beatty homes, we assume for now that renters will need to qualify for credentials to pass through front-gate security at the Rt. 34 entrance.
In short, with privatized military housing contracts, if there are not enough active-duty military to live in the homes, there is a pecking order of available tenants the Military can seek to occupy the homes (i.e. military bachelors, contractors, military retirees, veterans, etc.), with civilians the renter of last resort (and we have found many base commanders in the U.S. opposed to civilian housing on their bases). We can only guess at this time that local veterans groups (i.e. proponents of the Accettola Plan, Neptune Housing Authority) are somehow involved in the Balfour Beatty issue, but will track this case closely.
This is just one example of why, NOPE feels, the District 12 legislative team needs to see through the passage of S762-A2014, mandating a State Treasury study into proposed housing conversions at NWS Earle, since housing decisions have a far reaching impact on New Jerseyans, whether they know it or not. To understand the true financial impact of federal/military mandates and conversions such as Laurelwood (and now, potentially, Balfour Beatty homes at NWS Earle) would give the State Legislature the ammunition it needs to protect the interests of the state and host municipalities. We will again contact Assemblywoman Casagrande and Assemblyman O'Scanlon for an update on whether their bill will pass in Trenton.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Nothing new to report on buyout discussions
Approaching the July 4 holiday, we are somewhat surprised that the news flow has been dead quiet regarding the Department of Navy's impending buyout of Laurelwood Homes, LLC, considering the parties are near (or past) a supposed 60-day deadline to settle after owner Teri Fischer lodged a complaint with the DoN's contracting officer; in essence, a technical maneuver to expedite a settlement.
NOPE has yet to hear anything about the talks, but will continue to track back with our legislators to see whether they have any new information for us, so please stay tuned.
NOPE has yet to hear anything about the talks, but will continue to track back with our legislators to see whether they have any new information for us, so please stay tuned.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Brief Lockdown Today @ Lakehurst Military Base
The Asbury Park Press reports that the Lakehurst section of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst was locked down this morning. There are very few details, and we'll follow up if there is something critical, but point to this as the type of incident that raised red flags to NOPE in terms of logistics of the U.S. Navy's early plan to convert Laurelwood military housing to civilian rentals from 2010-2040 and, by contract, grant unimpeded access thru the federal base to civilians.
Separately, NOPE continues to track developments in the Navy-Laurelwood Homes, LLC buyout negotiations, as well as the stalled NJ Treasury legislation in the Assembly in Trenton, and will post updates once we learn anything new. Again, thanks to those that continue to support our cause and visit our blog as we see through the conclusion of the buyout and demolition of Laurelwood homes.
Separately, NOPE continues to track developments in the Navy-Laurelwood Homes, LLC buyout negotiations, as well as the stalled NJ Treasury legislation in the Assembly in Trenton, and will post updates once we learn anything new. Again, thanks to those that continue to support our cause and visit our blog as we see through the conclusion of the buyout and demolition of Laurelwood homes.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Man seized at Ga. Army base has land mine, laser scope
Ok, accuse us of piling on. If ever there was evidence that anyone outside of active military should live on active military bases, please read this story on an Anthony Todd Saxon, a civilian arrested in uniform at Fort Gordon (near Augusta, GA). Mr. Saxon had a land mine in his vehicle along with several grenades, night vision devices and a military laser targeting device, according to charging documents filed Wednesday.
This is not to pass judgment on the man or come to any false conclusions about this particular situation, but the evidence continues to mount that not everyone is equipped to on a military base, nor live on one full time, as proponents of Laurelwood civilian housing at NWS Earle have suggested. Remember, the personnel at the Naval Weapons Station are there to do a job, not to play cops 24-7 to a civilian town within its boundaries for the next 30 years -- an opinion validated by the Navy's decision to buy out the Laurelwood housing contract.
This is not to pass judgment on the man or come to any false conclusions about this particular situation, but the evidence continues to mount that not everyone is equipped to on a military base, nor live on one full time, as proponents of Laurelwood civilian housing at NWS Earle have suggested. Remember, the personnel at the Naval Weapons Station are there to do a job, not to play cops 24-7 to a civilian town within its boundaries for the next 30 years -- an opinion validated by the Navy's decision to buy out the Laurelwood housing contract.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Weapons found in SUV trying to enter Tampa AFB
TBO.com reports on two individuals (a man and a woman) who were apprehended after trying to enter MacDill Air Force Base without proper identification late Monday afternoon with 13 loaded rifle magazines, two pistol magazines, military clothing and other "military-style equipment" hidden in their SUV. (Video on this from CNN.com).
Yesterday's incident is yet another example of the need for intense security at domestic military bases and why, fortunately, common sense ruled in the Navy's decision to reverse course on its initial ill-hatched plan to provide civilian renters (and their visitors) unimpeded access to Laurelwood housing and through the heart of Naval Weapons Station Earle through 2040. Anything that would put U.S. service members or regional and perhaps national security at risk makes no sense whatsoever.
Civilian housing, no matter how you slice it, has no place on an active military base, PERIOD - particularly one that has 300 bunkers full of ammunition and has a vital role in storing, moving and providing ammunition to the U.S. Navy fleet. NOPE will remain on alert through the conclusion of the Navy's buyout of the Laurelwood housing contract and demolition of the homes. Supporters, please stay tuned.
Yesterday's incident is yet another example of the need for intense security at domestic military bases and why, fortunately, common sense ruled in the Navy's decision to reverse course on its initial ill-hatched plan to provide civilian renters (and their visitors) unimpeded access to Laurelwood housing and through the heart of Naval Weapons Station Earle through 2040. Anything that would put U.S. service members or regional and perhaps national security at risk makes no sense whatsoever.
Civilian housing, no matter how you slice it, has no place on an active military base, PERIOD - particularly one that has 300 bunkers full of ammunition and has a vital role in storing, moving and providing ammunition to the U.S. Navy fleet. NOPE will remain on alert through the conclusion of the Navy's buyout of the Laurelwood housing contract and demolition of the homes. Supporters, please stay tuned.
Friday, June 4, 2010
NOPE requests more documents from the Navy
Once again leveraging the Freedom of Information Act, NOPE yesterday requested documentation from NAVFAC, pertaining to a) any new supplemental lease agreements between the Department of Navy and Laurelwood Homes, LLC, since January 2008, plus b) any communications to determine whether the Navy has contacted or hired any third-party players, either to fund a buyout or teardown of Laurelwood. We are fairly certain that "request a" can be fulfilled, but are taking a longshot on "request b".
The FOIA was extremely vital to NOPE in uncovering the original 1988 lease between the DoN and builder Dick Fischer Developments #3 (the operater today, and as of 1996, is Laurelwood Homes, LLC, run by Teri Fischer of Seattle, WA) and 64 subsequent supplements through January 2008. Recall that Supplemental Lease Agreement 43 proved the real rationale for the Navy's vigorous pursuit of civilian housing at NWS Earle and proved NOPE's view that the Laurelwood EIS was a cursory, half-truthed document.
(We knew from the get-go that proposed civilian housing and unimpeded access to a Naval weapons depot was a bad idea, and the DoN withdrew its official decision, i.e. Record of Decision, in April; we now await a contract buyout, because the Navy, within a year of 9/11, signed away its right to revoke the contract when duped into allowing Laurelwood to refinance its mortgage.)
This time around, we hope to piece together whether Laurelwood is still receiving rental money from the DoN (recall that Supplemental Lease Agreement 43, as we reported in May 2009, also might have obligated the Navy to pay upwards of $20 million in additional rents to Laurelwood through 2017, based on certain housing occupancy provisions...though Laurelwood's attorney refutes this). Still following the paper trail, NOPE would like to verify what has gone on more recently with the lease.
Regarding the documents pertaining to the Navy's involvement of a third party (and THIS is why it is vital for the NJ State Assembly's Military and Veterans Affairs Committee to pass A2014 once and for all and move it to Gov. Christie's desk for approval), NOPE is concerned that the Navy could look to fund the buyout of Laurelwood Homes, LLC, with an outside party's money and then perhaps re-use the houses in some other fashion. It is sad that, as a community, NOPE is so distrustful of DoN leadership in Washington, DC, but remember that the Department's attorneys have misled us for years about the true motives for the Laurelwood housing complex (i.e., to get out of a bad housing deal and put the estimated $500 million mandate on New Jersey taxpayers), so we must be sure that the property is bought out and the homes leveled, so as to prevent any kind of security, financial or environmental hardships down the road.
We will shed light on any details of each FOIA request in the weeks ahead.
The FOIA was extremely vital to NOPE in uncovering the original 1988 lease between the DoN and builder Dick Fischer Developments #3 (the operater today, and as of 1996, is Laurelwood Homes, LLC, run by Teri Fischer of Seattle, WA) and 64 subsequent supplements through January 2008. Recall that Supplemental Lease Agreement 43 proved the real rationale for the Navy's vigorous pursuit of civilian housing at NWS Earle and proved NOPE's view that the Laurelwood EIS was a cursory, half-truthed document.
(We knew from the get-go that proposed civilian housing and unimpeded access to a Naval weapons depot was a bad idea, and the DoN withdrew its official decision, i.e. Record of Decision, in April; we now await a contract buyout, because the Navy, within a year of 9/11, signed away its right to revoke the contract when duped into allowing Laurelwood to refinance its mortgage.)
This time around, we hope to piece together whether Laurelwood is still receiving rental money from the DoN (recall that Supplemental Lease Agreement 43, as we reported in May 2009, also might have obligated the Navy to pay upwards of $20 million in additional rents to Laurelwood through 2017, based on certain housing occupancy provisions...though Laurelwood's attorney refutes this). Still following the paper trail, NOPE would like to verify what has gone on more recently with the lease.
Regarding the documents pertaining to the Navy's involvement of a third party (and THIS is why it is vital for the NJ State Assembly's Military and Veterans Affairs Committee to pass A2014 once and for all and move it to Gov. Christie's desk for approval), NOPE is concerned that the Navy could look to fund the buyout of Laurelwood Homes, LLC, with an outside party's money and then perhaps re-use the houses in some other fashion. It is sad that, as a community, NOPE is so distrustful of DoN leadership in Washington, DC, but remember that the Department's attorneys have misled us for years about the true motives for the Laurelwood housing complex (i.e., to get out of a bad housing deal and put the estimated $500 million mandate on New Jersey taxpayers), so we must be sure that the property is bought out and the homes leveled, so as to prevent any kind of security, financial or environmental hardships down the road.
We will shed light on any details of each FOIA request in the weeks ahead.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Follow-up to APP letter to the editor
The Asbury Park Press headline to my "letter to the editor" response to the newspaper's May 5 editorial "Navy waves the white flag" is a bit misleading (i.e. "NOPE" got plenty of credit from our elected officials at the April press conference to announce the Navy's impending buyout of Laurelwood), but I am appreciative that the Press ran the letter.
Please read each piece side-by-side. The moral of my letter (for anyone who misunderstood the context) is that the APP editors missed the boat on how literally thousands of members of the public (i.e., citizens who came out to rallies and briefings, signed petitions, called their elected officials, went out on 10-degree winter mornings to distribute leaflets and lawn signs, etc.), through a nonpartisan NOPE grassroots vehicle comprised of citizens and politicians alike, were vital in the outcome over Laurelwood housing.
Nothing more.
NOPE cannot thank the MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY enough for coming together in a crisis, and you deserve your due. The Asbury Park editorial missed this point.
Yes, Rep. Smith, the District 12 leadership and Colts Neck Township politicians' efforts were beyond vital (Mr. Smith's on Capitol Hill, in particular) as the editorial noted, but the APP failed to balance that by noting the efforts on the "other side of the aisle" from Congressmen Menendez and Lautenberg, Rep. Holt, and the Tinton Falls nonpartisan government who also were significant contributors to NOPE's sole mission to bring everyone to the table for a responsible solution to proposed civilian housing at NWS Earle.
The overriding theme is that the conceptual "NOPE"--a combination of the organization's leaders, the entire citizenry of the surrounding area and elected officials--came together and worked as one.
"Community" in the truest form.
Regards,
Bill Holobowski, Chairman
Please read each piece side-by-side. The moral of my letter (for anyone who misunderstood the context) is that the APP editors missed the boat on how literally thousands of members of the public (i.e., citizens who came out to rallies and briefings, signed petitions, called their elected officials, went out on 10-degree winter mornings to distribute leaflets and lawn signs, etc.), through a nonpartisan NOPE grassroots vehicle comprised of citizens and politicians alike, were vital in the outcome over Laurelwood housing.
Nothing more.
NOPE cannot thank the MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY enough for coming together in a crisis, and you deserve your due. The Asbury Park editorial missed this point.
Yes, Rep. Smith, the District 12 leadership and Colts Neck Township politicians' efforts were beyond vital (Mr. Smith's on Capitol Hill, in particular) as the editorial noted, but the APP failed to balance that by noting the efforts on the "other side of the aisle" from Congressmen Menendez and Lautenberg, Rep. Holt, and the Tinton Falls nonpartisan government who also were significant contributors to NOPE's sole mission to bring everyone to the table for a responsible solution to proposed civilian housing at NWS Earle.
The overriding theme is that the conceptual "NOPE"--a combination of the organization's leaders, the entire citizenry of the surrounding area and elected officials--came together and worked as one.
"Community" in the truest form.
Regards,
Bill Holobowski, Chairman
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Judge dismisses CN suit vs. Navy, Laurelwood
The Department of Navy's promise to buy out Laurelwood Homes, LLC and reverse its own plans for unimpeded access and civilian housing at NWS Earle reportedly prompted dismissal of Colts Neck Township's lawsuit over the plan, according to the Asbury Park Press. Otherwise, we await the termination notice from the Navy and will keep NOPE supporters posted on any new developments.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Intelligence expert: No way to eliminate crime at military bases
In the wake of the fatal shooting of Vietnam veteran Ronald Bullock last Wednesday by an off-duty FBI agent at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida, Tampa Bay Online ran an interesting story about military base security that resonates with NOPE's concerns about unimpeded civilian access and housing at NWS Earle.
From the start, NOPE cautioned that the Department of Navy's ill-fated intentions to open 300 unused "Laurelwood" homes to civilians, whether run-of-the-mill civilians or esteemed military veterans with military IDs (as one local advocacy continues to push), was an extremely flawed and dangerious idea for a number of reasons; namely, the distraction to Earle's core mission to provide ammunition to the U.S. fleet, and the obvious overhanging security threat of allowing anyone inside a military base property line without background checks or passing through the main security gate.
The most telling observation about the Bullock tragedy comes from intelligence expert Fred Burton of Stratfor, whose commentary to Tampa Bay Online underscores NOPE's core concern that operating a 300-unit civilian Laurelwood would have been the equivalent of Earle running a small city, and that, as Mr. Burton observed, "there is no way to eliminate crime at military bases any more than you can in a small city."
In short, the Bullock tragedy highlights precisely why even veterans with military IDs (a component of the mysterious "Acccettola Plan" referenced in a recent Asbury Park Press letter to the editor) are not suited to live on an active military ordnance depot such as NWS Earle. There are clearly better venues for housing civilians, veterans or whomever than a place where explosives are handled 24/7.
Most citizens and elected officials (and, implicitly, the Department of Navy itself, in withdrawing the civilian housing plan and agreeing to a Laurelwood buyout) recognize this, but in light of recent off-kilter commentary from veterans housing advocates, we reiterate our view that the NJ legislature needs to pass S762-A2014 for the protection of our State's interested, and the Department of Navy needs to move forward on an expeditious buyout and demolition of the Laurelwood homes...to EVERYONE's benefit, namely its own.
From the start, NOPE cautioned that the Department of Navy's ill-fated intentions to open 300 unused "Laurelwood" homes to civilians, whether run-of-the-mill civilians or esteemed military veterans with military IDs (as one local advocacy continues to push), was an extremely flawed and dangerious idea for a number of reasons; namely, the distraction to Earle's core mission to provide ammunition to the U.S. fleet, and the obvious overhanging security threat of allowing anyone inside a military base property line without background checks or passing through the main security gate.
The most telling observation about the Bullock tragedy comes from intelligence expert Fred Burton of Stratfor, whose commentary to Tampa Bay Online underscores NOPE's core concern that operating a 300-unit civilian Laurelwood would have been the equivalent of Earle running a small city, and that, as Mr. Burton observed, "there is no way to eliminate crime at military bases any more than you can in a small city."
In short, the Bullock tragedy highlights precisely why even veterans with military IDs (a component of the mysterious "Acccettola Plan" referenced in a recent Asbury Park Press letter to the editor) are not suited to live on an active military ordnance depot such as NWS Earle. There are clearly better venues for housing civilians, veterans or whomever than a place where explosives are handled 24/7.
Most citizens and elected officials (and, implicitly, the Department of Navy itself, in withdrawing the civilian housing plan and agreeing to a Laurelwood buyout) recognize this, but in light of recent off-kilter commentary from veterans housing advocates, we reiterate our view that the NJ legislature needs to pass S762-A2014 for the protection of our State's interested, and the Department of Navy needs to move forward on an expeditious buyout and demolition of the Laurelwood homes...to EVERYONE's benefit, namely its own.
Friday, May 21, 2010
NOPE Analyst Fulton Wilcox's response to Manning letter to the Asbury Park Press
NOPE is extremely fortunate to have an individual of Fulton Wilcox's character and professionalism. For those unfamiliar with Fulton's work or who are new to our case, Fulton spearheaded NOPE's business case for why the Navy's proposal for Laurelwood civilian housing and unimpeded civilian access through NWS Earle to the homes made zero fiscal (and mission-critical) sense.
Not only that, but Fulton had dutifully served in our armed forces and has a wealth of experience in military intelligence matters, and at times was confronted disrespectfully (namely, during our trips to testify in Trenton, by veterans housing advocates who we might add were reprimanded by Senate committee members for inappropriate conduct during testimony). Our community is lucky to have such an upstanding citizen and is blessed by Fulton's leadership. He is a significant catalyst for why NOPE works.
Here is Fulton's perspective on why a recent "letter to the editor" from a Mr. James Manning was again out of line, and we hope his thoughts will appear on the Press' commentaries page in the days ahead.
***************************
"As a lifetime member of VFW as well as a business case “number-cruncher” supporting NOPE (Neighbors Opposed to the Privatization of Earle housing), I want to correct a misapprehension regarding the merits of renting Laurelwood housing located within Naval Weapons Station Earle to civilians and, more specifically veterans and homeless veterans.
Mr. James Manning in his recently published letter was mistaken in writing that “politicians did not know what is stake,” because the Navy very rigorously defined what was at stake note only for “Politicians,” but for citizens in NOPE. The Navy’s framing of the options did not invite nor permit any broad-based examination of a social or political nature. One reason NOPE itself was bipartisan (as was Congressional opposition to the Navy’s preference) was because the choices that the Navy defined simply defy conventional political categorization.
There is a misapprehension that because Laurelwood housing is “surplus” to Navy needs that, like other military surplus, it therefore must be “free” or at least “affordable” for use by veterans or in some other charitable context. Not only is Laurelwood housing not free, but because of its location within a working munitions handling facility it is burdened with extraordinary costs and risks compared to similar housing located outside such a military reservation. The Navy, out of worthy motives in the 1980s, inadvertently created a “money pit” from which it is presently trying to extricate itself, and it is hard to see the advantage of veterans groups jumping in.
The Navy described three options with respect to its “money pit,”, which perhaps can be thought of as Plan A, B and C. The Navy did not entertain the “Accettola Plan” as a Plan D., so what was at stake were the consequences of the Navy’s choice among these three options. Plan D could not win the Navy’s approval because the Navy defined what was in play.
To review briefly the Navy’s Plans A, B, and C.
Under plan A, known in the Navy’s jargon as the “Inlease” arrangement, the Navy contracted for the 300 Laurelwood rental units on a “take or pay” basis. After early full occupancy, for more than a decade under the “or pay” commitment the Navy has paid rent on hundreds of empty housing units. For both the Navy and the taxpayer, continuing to pay rent under Plan A for empty rental units made no sense. By the Navy’s account, it had investigated and satisfied itself that there were qualified and interested tenants for this “surplus” housing, so there was no prospect of occupying the 300 units. Although the Navy was determined to end paying rent under Plan A, it could not simply stop paying, so it wanted instead to implement Plan B – the “outlease” as described in the Navy’s terminology.
Under plan B, the private owner of the housing units would rent the 300 housing units within the civilian residential housing market. The Navy would therefore no longer have to pay rent to the owner, because the civilian tenants would do so. However, civilian tenants, their guests, tradespeople and others cannot access the secured base, so as a necessary part of plan B, the Navy had agreed to provide “unimpeded access” via an insecure entrance and access road from State highway 34. To isolate the insecure tenants from the secure base, the Navy at its expense would fence-in the 1.4 mile-long new road and the housing to create a civilian enclave within the otherwise secured base. The Laurelwood complex as well as what would be an extraordinarily expensive driveway all would remain under Navy/federal jurisdiction.
The Navy also possessed but did not admit to plan C - buy-out, meaning that the Navy would buy the 300 housing units (it never had relinquished ownership of the land). The buyout was always an elective option, but under the Navy’s contract, if by April 30, 2010 it had not put in place “unfettered access,” the Navy and the property owner both became obligated to end the relationship through buy-out. After buy-out, the Navy no longer has to pay rent under the “Inlease” terms nor will it incur the security risks and many costs associated with the “Outlease” and the unimpeded access road into the base.
NOPE’s primary objections to plan B - outlease and its reasons for preferring buyout were 1) security and safety advantages, and 2) the avoidance of many lifecycle costs, environmental impacts and complexities which made Plan B so expensive. For example, to meet Department of Defense and Department of the Navy security requirements, the Navy had to pick the longest, least convenient and most expensive of its access road options, increasing costs for both itself and the property owner and ultimately to prospective tenants. Consequently, the start-up cost of Plan B were quite large, beginning with a $10 million investment in the access road, roughly half to be paid by the Navy and half paid by the property owner.
Nothing that the Navy incorporated into its contract or into its public hearings regarding its preference for plan B was friendly to charitable endeavors, and at the time of the debates as to which option the Navy should choose all parties were struggling with how to reduce costs as opposed to having anything surplus to offer for “free” or at a discount. It appears that the Navy switched from its stubborn insistence on plan B – outlease to adopting plan C – buyout only because the complexities and startup costs of Plan B caused it to run out of time. Meanwhile, chronic terrorist interest in U.S. military facilities made it clear that meeting unavoidable security requirements is not an option, while Plan B added avoidable security obligations and competed for resources with mission-focused security.
In his letter, Mr. Manning expressed “shock” that NOPE or “politicians” encouraged the Navy to turn away from the “Outlease” option, but as the brief summary above highlights, the “Outlease” option itself was not deserving of NOPE’s support. What we know about the financial implications of “Outlease” does not suggest that it is friendly to the Accetolla Plan. For example, if the property went onto the rental market at market rates, for those interested in veterans housing it becomes just another commercial 300 unit rental property, except that it is disadvantageously situated in a military weapons handling facility.
If one looks at this situation from, for example, a HUD (Housing and Urban Affairs) perspective, the question becomes did it make sense for HUD to invest “fresh money” into a housing complex sitting in the costly and risky environment of a Naval munitions handling facility. Unlike the Navy, HUD has no prior commitments or accountabilities, so it can invest where its money produces the greatest good for the greatest number. It certainly seems doubtful that HUD or some other agency would want to put $5 million of “fresh money” into building an access road to a 300 unit complex. The same amount of HUD money invested in rental facilities and tenants not burdened with military and security complexities and costs might provide more housing for more veterans. Further, if HUD funded tenants and perhaps some necessary property improvements, that help tenants and perhaps the property owner, but also requires the Navy to pay the many “below the waterline” costs that in our view made “Outleasing” a net loser to the Navy.
NOPE took a bipartisan (and non-partisan) view of the options that the Navy created, and I believe that our preference for buy-out was consistent with the best interests of the Navy and other stakeholders such as State and local government."
Not only that, but Fulton had dutifully served in our armed forces and has a wealth of experience in military intelligence matters, and at times was confronted disrespectfully (namely, during our trips to testify in Trenton, by veterans housing advocates who we might add were reprimanded by Senate committee members for inappropriate conduct during testimony). Our community is lucky to have such an upstanding citizen and is blessed by Fulton's leadership. He is a significant catalyst for why NOPE works.
Here is Fulton's perspective on why a recent "letter to the editor" from a Mr. James Manning was again out of line, and we hope his thoughts will appear on the Press' commentaries page in the days ahead.
***************************
"As a lifetime member of VFW as well as a business case “number-cruncher” supporting NOPE (Neighbors Opposed to the Privatization of Earle housing), I want to correct a misapprehension regarding the merits of renting Laurelwood housing located within Naval Weapons Station Earle to civilians and, more specifically veterans and homeless veterans.
Mr. James Manning in his recently published letter was mistaken in writing that “politicians did not know what is stake,” because the Navy very rigorously defined what was at stake note only for “Politicians,” but for citizens in NOPE. The Navy’s framing of the options did not invite nor permit any broad-based examination of a social or political nature. One reason NOPE itself was bipartisan (as was Congressional opposition to the Navy’s preference) was because the choices that the Navy defined simply defy conventional political categorization.
There is a misapprehension that because Laurelwood housing is “surplus” to Navy needs that, like other military surplus, it therefore must be “free” or at least “affordable” for use by veterans or in some other charitable context. Not only is Laurelwood housing not free, but because of its location within a working munitions handling facility it is burdened with extraordinary costs and risks compared to similar housing located outside such a military reservation. The Navy, out of worthy motives in the 1980s, inadvertently created a “money pit” from which it is presently trying to extricate itself, and it is hard to see the advantage of veterans groups jumping in.
The Navy described three options with respect to its “money pit,”, which perhaps can be thought of as Plan A, B and C. The Navy did not entertain the “Accettola Plan” as a Plan D., so what was at stake were the consequences of the Navy’s choice among these three options. Plan D could not win the Navy’s approval because the Navy defined what was in play.
To review briefly the Navy’s Plans A, B, and C.
Under plan A, known in the Navy’s jargon as the “Inlease” arrangement, the Navy contracted for the 300 Laurelwood rental units on a “take or pay” basis. After early full occupancy, for more than a decade under the “or pay” commitment the Navy has paid rent on hundreds of empty housing units. For both the Navy and the taxpayer, continuing to pay rent under Plan A for empty rental units made no sense. By the Navy’s account, it had investigated and satisfied itself that there were qualified and interested tenants for this “surplus” housing, so there was no prospect of occupying the 300 units. Although the Navy was determined to end paying rent under Plan A, it could not simply stop paying, so it wanted instead to implement Plan B – the “outlease” as described in the Navy’s terminology.
Under plan B, the private owner of the housing units would rent the 300 housing units within the civilian residential housing market. The Navy would therefore no longer have to pay rent to the owner, because the civilian tenants would do so. However, civilian tenants, their guests, tradespeople and others cannot access the secured base, so as a necessary part of plan B, the Navy had agreed to provide “unimpeded access” via an insecure entrance and access road from State highway 34. To isolate the insecure tenants from the secure base, the Navy at its expense would fence-in the 1.4 mile-long new road and the housing to create a civilian enclave within the otherwise secured base. The Laurelwood complex as well as what would be an extraordinarily expensive driveway all would remain under Navy/federal jurisdiction.
The Navy also possessed but did not admit to plan C - buy-out, meaning that the Navy would buy the 300 housing units (it never had relinquished ownership of the land). The buyout was always an elective option, but under the Navy’s contract, if by April 30, 2010 it had not put in place “unfettered access,” the Navy and the property owner both became obligated to end the relationship through buy-out. After buy-out, the Navy no longer has to pay rent under the “Inlease” terms nor will it incur the security risks and many costs associated with the “Outlease” and the unimpeded access road into the base.
NOPE’s primary objections to plan B - outlease and its reasons for preferring buyout were 1) security and safety advantages, and 2) the avoidance of many lifecycle costs, environmental impacts and complexities which made Plan B so expensive. For example, to meet Department of Defense and Department of the Navy security requirements, the Navy had to pick the longest, least convenient and most expensive of its access road options, increasing costs for both itself and the property owner and ultimately to prospective tenants. Consequently, the start-up cost of Plan B were quite large, beginning with a $10 million investment in the access road, roughly half to be paid by the Navy and half paid by the property owner.
Nothing that the Navy incorporated into its contract or into its public hearings regarding its preference for plan B was friendly to charitable endeavors, and at the time of the debates as to which option the Navy should choose all parties were struggling with how to reduce costs as opposed to having anything surplus to offer for “free” or at a discount. It appears that the Navy switched from its stubborn insistence on plan B – outlease to adopting plan C – buyout only because the complexities and startup costs of Plan B caused it to run out of time. Meanwhile, chronic terrorist interest in U.S. military facilities made it clear that meeting unavoidable security requirements is not an option, while Plan B added avoidable security obligations and competed for resources with mission-focused security.
In his letter, Mr. Manning expressed “shock” that NOPE or “politicians” encouraged the Navy to turn away from the “Outlease” option, but as the brief summary above highlights, the “Outlease” option itself was not deserving of NOPE’s support. What we know about the financial implications of “Outlease” does not suggest that it is friendly to the Accetolla Plan. For example, if the property went onto the rental market at market rates, for those interested in veterans housing it becomes just another commercial 300 unit rental property, except that it is disadvantageously situated in a military weapons handling facility.
If one looks at this situation from, for example, a HUD (Housing and Urban Affairs) perspective, the question becomes did it make sense for HUD to invest “fresh money” into a housing complex sitting in the costly and risky environment of a Naval munitions handling facility. Unlike the Navy, HUD has no prior commitments or accountabilities, so it can invest where its money produces the greatest good for the greatest number. It certainly seems doubtful that HUD or some other agency would want to put $5 million of “fresh money” into building an access road to a 300 unit complex. The same amount of HUD money invested in rental facilities and tenants not burdened with military and security complexities and costs might provide more housing for more veterans. Further, if HUD funded tenants and perhaps some necessary property improvements, that help tenants and perhaps the property owner, but also requires the Navy to pay the many “below the waterline” costs that in our view made “Outleasing” a net loser to the Navy.
NOPE took a bipartisan (and non-partisan) view of the options that the Navy created, and I believe that our preference for buy-out was consistent with the best interests of the Navy and other stakeholders such as State and local government."
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Patience
Anyone who has been involved with NOPE can attest that our effort to prevent the Department of Navy from turning NWS Earle into a civilian free-for-all has been a lesson in patience (three years and counting). To be sure, dissecting the layers of local, state and federal bureaucracy remains a Herculean task and one that serves as a good lesson in civics and patience.
Those of use who continue to lead NOPE have fielded a host of questions, namely: "when is this whole Earle mess going to end?" Great question...but, remember, this is your government at "work."
Here are a three "short" answers, touching upon what NOPE would like to see:
Those of use who continue to lead NOPE have fielded a host of questions, namely: "when is this whole Earle mess going to end?" Great question...but, remember, this is your government at "work."
Here are a three "short" answers, touching upon what NOPE would like to see:
- Expeditious completion of the Laurelwood buyout: From what we gather between media reports and updates from Congressman Smith's office, Mrs. Fischer, owner of Laurelwood Homes, LLC, filed a complaint with the Navy's Contracting Officer in April, setting the wheels in motion for a 60-day review in which the DoN and Laurelwood will discuss buyout terms. It is our understanding that Laurelwood would pursue legal action if the talks stall or fail to yield a settlement.
- (Remember, the buyout is solely the result of the DoN's incomprehensible decision in 2002 to give up its contractual right of cost-free contract termination when it allowed Mrs. Fischer to refinance her mortgage. [Someone needs their head checked, having signed off on such a provision less than a year after 9/11]. And DoN officials lied to U.S. citizens and a Congressman about its motives for shirking our call for simply terminating the deal; officials told us they did not want to be "bad business partners"...no mention of a relinquishment of its "ace in the hole" - we had to OPRA documents to learn this.)
- Demolition of the Laurelwood homes: The NOPE effort will not rest until the homes are leveled immediately after the contract buyout and the land is "restored to its original state," as spelled out in all privatized military housing agreements. Our biggest concern and overhanging mistrust of DoN leaders in the Pentagon is that some "new" decision maker or military commander will have ulterior motives that compromise local security, environmental and business-case interests, and that we could find ourselves engrossed in another Earle housing mess once again.
- Passage of S762-A2014 by the NJ legislature and Governor Christie by the end of this legislative year (i.e. January 2011): It seems that the District 12 legislative team, amazingly, is implicitly declaring victory in the Laurelwood housing case by keeping mum that their legislation still sits idle in an Assembly committee that passed the measure this year (but seemingly had a change of heart this year). By that, we mean the committee, which simply needs to "post" the measure to the full Assembly for a vote (the same exact measure passed the Assembly unanimously last year) before the Governor can sign S762-A2014 into law, had two shots at posting the bill but punted. Sources tell us that there is a small caucus of newer Assembly members that now questions the measure, which is ridiculous, considering the bill is merely to do a cost-benefits and security impact study on the state level, which would complement the federal GAO study already underway. We would recommend you call Senator Beck, Assemblyman O'Scanlon and Assemblywoman Casagrande (732-933-1591) and ask why they are silent on the Assembly committee's failure. It is important that this legislation pass, to not only assess the impact to N.J. of the current unfunded mandate (i.e. Laurelwood housing), but also to set a precedent for future military decisions that could have an obvious adverse impact on our state's taxpayers.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Getting Hammered?...Huh?
There's nothing new to share on the Navy's impending buyout of the Laurelwood housing contract, which as we understand it is still being negotiated. However, for the sake of fairness, we point NOPE supporters to a "Letter to the Editor" of the Asbury Park Press by a Mr. James Manning, of the VFW Dept. of NJ, whose misconstrued view of NOPE has always been as some sort of anti-housing advocacy.
This is entirely wrong, and Mr. Manning's contention that "veterans got hammered" because the Navy was alert enough to recognize that giving civilians, retired veterans or anyone able to cut a rent check unimpeded access and housing rentals through 2040 would have posed an utter distraction and potential threat to NWS Earle's core mission, which is to deliver ammunition to the U.S. Military fleet....PERIOD!
The commander and his team, plus private base security personnel and civilian contractors at Naval Weapons Station Earle, have an extremely important, specialized job to execute, and whether Mr. Manning and his group floating this mythical "Accettola Plan" (which none of us has seen, even though we've asked many times) agree with that logic frankly does not matter and hinges on being disrespectful, considering the two years of chronic bashing of NOPE, local politicians or others that do not share his cockeyed proposal of Earle as some sort of Department of Navy civilian-housing landlord as opposed to defender of our country.
This is entirely wrong, and Mr. Manning's contention that "veterans got hammered" because the Navy was alert enough to recognize that giving civilians, retired veterans or anyone able to cut a rent check unimpeded access and housing rentals through 2040 would have posed an utter distraction and potential threat to NWS Earle's core mission, which is to deliver ammunition to the U.S. Military fleet....PERIOD!
The commander and his team, plus private base security personnel and civilian contractors at Naval Weapons Station Earle, have an extremely important, specialized job to execute, and whether Mr. Manning and his group floating this mythical "Accettola Plan" (which none of us has seen, even though we've asked many times) agree with that logic frankly does not matter and hinges on being disrespectful, considering the two years of chronic bashing of NOPE, local politicians or others that do not share his cockeyed proposal of Earle as some sort of Department of Navy civilian-housing landlord as opposed to defender of our country.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Assembly Committee MIA...AGAIN...in Trenton
Relying on the legislature in Trenton to see through good legislation regarding the Laurelwood housing situation, at this point, is useless, because the Assembly's Military and Veterans Affairs Committee once again kicked the proverbial can down the road and yesterday failed to post, let alone pass, A2014 - the cost-benefits and security assessment measure put forth by Caroline Casagrande and Declan O'Scanlon. At the same time, there is not a peep from the District 12 team about their own measure or why it continues to fail to pass through the full legislature for passage by Governor Christie. This is inexcusable.
The whispers that we're hearing are that perhaps the bill is moot at this point, what with the Navy's decision to pursue a buyout of the Laurelwood contract, and that now one of the caucuses within the legislature is all of a sudden not so keen on the measure...presumably for the same ridiculous and unfounded logic of some local housing advocates that view a Naval weapons depot as an appropriate venue for civilians to live.
Either way, here we have our elected officials in Trenton, once again, failing to see through a measure that a) already passed through this same Assembly committee last year, b) passed through Senate committee in the last legislative session and c) passed through the full Senate by way of a 37-0 vote earlier this year. Yet, now there the Assembly committee sees fit to put A2014 on ice, even when it's clear that New Jerseyans will not incur any extraneous costs for the State Treasurer to go in and simply assess the situation.
Ah...Trenton once again proving to be a debacle, and continuously clueless about how the Pentagon continues to play New Jersey as an utter fool, with the Laurelwood civilian housing proposal and the nearly-criminal closure of Fort Monmouth as our most recent guide. Shame on the Assembly committee for failing to pass a no-nonsense measure that could serve as a viable precedent on which future NJ legislators can act the next time the Pentagon comes in and want to run roughshod over our fine state.
The whispers that we're hearing are that perhaps the bill is moot at this point, what with the Navy's decision to pursue a buyout of the Laurelwood contract, and that now one of the caucuses within the legislature is all of a sudden not so keen on the measure...presumably for the same ridiculous and unfounded logic of some local housing advocates that view a Naval weapons depot as an appropriate venue for civilians to live.
Either way, here we have our elected officials in Trenton, once again, failing to see through a measure that a) already passed through this same Assembly committee last year, b) passed through Senate committee in the last legislative session and c) passed through the full Senate by way of a 37-0 vote earlier this year. Yet, now there the Assembly committee sees fit to put A2014 on ice, even when it's clear that New Jerseyans will not incur any extraneous costs for the State Treasurer to go in and simply assess the situation.
Ah...Trenton once again proving to be a debacle, and continuously clueless about how the Pentagon continues to play New Jersey as an utter fool, with the Laurelwood civilian housing proposal and the nearly-criminal closure of Fort Monmouth as our most recent guide. Shame on the Assembly committee for failing to pass a no-nonsense measure that could serve as a viable precedent on which future NJ legislators can act the next time the Pentagon comes in and want to run roughshod over our fine state.
Monday, May 10, 2010
NOPE Supporters - Pick Up That Phone Today!!!
According to the N.J. Legislature website, the Assembly's Military and Veterans Affairs Committee is scheduled to meet this Thursday, May 13, at 10 a.m. in Trenton. NOW is the time for NOPE supporters to call Committee Chairman, Jack Conners (856-461-3997), and Vice-Chair, Cleopatra Tucker (973-926-4320) with a simple message: "please post A2014 in committee."
Supporters may recall us lambasting the Asbury Park Press editorial last week for heaping praise on the District 12 legislators for introducing their Laurelwood legislation in Trenton, but failed to state that S762-A2014 has not yet passed. Yes, the Assembly committee approved A2014's predecessor legislation in the previous Trenton session, and, yes, S762 passed the Senate this current session, but the current assembly committee needs to move A2014 forward before presumed passage by Governor Christie.
Of course NOPE applauds Senator Beck, Assemblyman O'Scanlon and Assemblywoman Casagrande for presenting the legislation and backs this measure, but continues to wonder why Trenton continues to drag its feet on passing A2014. Now, we need our supporters to remind Chairman Conners and Vice Chair Tucker of the importance of this measure, regardless of the Navy's impending buyout of the Laurelwood housing development at Naval Weapons Station Earle.
Even if S762-A2014 appears moot because of the Department of Navy's decision to buy out Laurelwood, NOPE suggests the legislation could prove vital in terms of protecting New Jersey's interests (i.e. establishing a precedent) in the event of future civilian housing proposals on our State's military bases. This needs to be reiterated by our supporters to the Assembly committee members that we call. Please make the call!
Supporters may recall us lambasting the Asbury Park Press editorial last week for heaping praise on the District 12 legislators for introducing their Laurelwood legislation in Trenton, but failed to state that S762-A2014 has not yet passed. Yes, the Assembly committee approved A2014's predecessor legislation in the previous Trenton session, and, yes, S762 passed the Senate this current session, but the current assembly committee needs to move A2014 forward before presumed passage by Governor Christie.
Of course NOPE applauds Senator Beck, Assemblyman O'Scanlon and Assemblywoman Casagrande for presenting the legislation and backs this measure, but continues to wonder why Trenton continues to drag its feet on passing A2014. Now, we need our supporters to remind Chairman Conners and Vice Chair Tucker of the importance of this measure, regardless of the Navy's impending buyout of the Laurelwood housing development at Naval Weapons Station Earle.
Even if S762-A2014 appears moot because of the Department of Navy's decision to buy out Laurelwood, NOPE suggests the legislation could prove vital in terms of protecting New Jersey's interests (i.e. establishing a precedent) in the event of future civilian housing proposals on our State's military bases. This needs to be reiterated by our supporters to the Assembly committee members that we call. Please make the call!
Thursday, May 6, 2010
NOPE, Supporters Deserve Their Due
The Asbury Park Press editorial "Navy Waves the White Flag," published May 5, egregiously ignores NOPE and its supporters.
The leaders of NOPE never got into the civilian housing fight against Naval Weapons Station Earle for self-aggrandizing or publicity, but the Press's editorial board did the thousands in Earle's host towns who came out to NOPE rallies or joined our mission a huge disservice by backpatting a select few legislators and entirely ignoring community pressure as the lynchpin of our unlikely victory versus the Department of Navy on the Laurelwood housing issue.
Candidly, had it not been for NOPE's involvement and tenacity since January 2008, bulldozers would be paving the proverbial road to nowhere, and civilians would likely be living inside NWS Earle by September at a half a billion-dollar cost to surrounding communities. At the same time, the local towns would have been embroiled in lawsuits and finger-pointing over who did who wrong back when the houses were built in the 1980s, or where civilian Laurelwood residents would go to school for the next 30 years.
In short, the APP editorial is a huge slight to the community activists and grassroots leaders of NOPE who dedicated thousands of volunteer hours between work and family obligations to the battle, while at the same time heaping credit on Colts Neck's governing body, which cost its townspeople roughly $300k (for a suit whose text looked similar at times to free research and views published by NOPE), and the District 12 team's legislation in Trenton, where the measure still lingers in Assembly committee almost a full year after introduction and may never be signed into law.
Whoever wrote the editorial really took their eye off the ball, in that the community spoke loudly and clearly enough for the U.S. Navy to hear and, augmenting the efforts of those we've thanked ad nauseum (our U.S. senators and congressmen, state and local officials, area school district leaders, businesses, and the thousands of nameless supporters, etc.) in the wake of the DoN decision to buy out the Laurelwood contract, together we are on the cusp of victory.
Perhaps the biggest "monkey wrench" (to coin the Press's parlance), NOPE supporters deserve their due.
Regards,
Bill Holobowski
NOPE Chairman
The leaders of NOPE never got into the civilian housing fight against Naval Weapons Station Earle for self-aggrandizing or publicity, but the Press's editorial board did the thousands in Earle's host towns who came out to NOPE rallies or joined our mission a huge disservice by backpatting a select few legislators and entirely ignoring community pressure as the lynchpin of our unlikely victory versus the Department of Navy on the Laurelwood housing issue.
Candidly, had it not been for NOPE's involvement and tenacity since January 2008, bulldozers would be paving the proverbial road to nowhere, and civilians would likely be living inside NWS Earle by September at a half a billion-dollar cost to surrounding communities. At the same time, the local towns would have been embroiled in lawsuits and finger-pointing over who did who wrong back when the houses were built in the 1980s, or where civilian Laurelwood residents would go to school for the next 30 years.
In short, the APP editorial is a huge slight to the community activists and grassroots leaders of NOPE who dedicated thousands of volunteer hours between work and family obligations to the battle, while at the same time heaping credit on Colts Neck's governing body, which cost its townspeople roughly $300k (for a suit whose text looked similar at times to free research and views published by NOPE), and the District 12 team's legislation in Trenton, where the measure still lingers in Assembly committee almost a full year after introduction and may never be signed into law.
Whoever wrote the editorial really took their eye off the ball, in that the community spoke loudly and clearly enough for the U.S. Navy to hear and, augmenting the efforts of those we've thanked ad nauseum (our U.S. senators and congressmen, state and local officials, area school district leaders, businesses, and the thousands of nameless supporters, etc.) in the wake of the DoN decision to buy out the Laurelwood contract, together we are on the cusp of victory.
Perhaps the biggest "monkey wrench" (to coin the Press's parlance), NOPE supporters deserve their due.
Regards,
Bill Holobowski
NOPE Chairman
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
APP: Laurelwood owner seeking $42.5 million
Laurelwood Homes, LLC, can ask all it wants for the Navy to buy out the 30-year civilian-use phase of its housing contract at Weapons Station Earle, but the request for $42.5 million reported on by the Asbury Park Press is ludicrious. In short, the Department of Navy proved a decent business partner in signing away a vital contract provision regarding contract revocation in 2002, all for the sake of Laurelwood's owner, who practically begged to refinance the Laurelwood mortgage at a much lower interest rate.
Now, we have this private Washington-based contractor that owns the 1980s-era Laurelwood Homes attempting to fleece the U.S. taxpayer for a buyout of homes worth far less than Laurelwood's demand, and at the same time that the owner knows full well the Navy could have continued with its charade to open the homes to civilians and potentially sent Laurelwood to insolvency (remember, the owner would have had to construct a nearly 2-mile road, upgrade infrastructure, renovate the 300 homes and procure insurance...on an active Naval weapons storage facility), the owner comes forth with this nonsense.
Clearly, Laurelwood Homes, LLC is going to try to get the most out of its sinking ship as possible, but the dollar value appears insultingly high, and let us not forget that this contractor has already made $75 million on this housing deal (closer to $4 million annually in recent years, contrary to the constantly reported number of "a little less than $3.5 million.") On the other hand, and assuming something prompted the letter and subsequent APP report, we can only imagine that the Navy's initial offer was insultingly low.
Come on, guys, get to the negotiating table and hammer out a fair deal already. Our community has been through more than enough with this Laurelwood headache. Arrive at a number, demolish the homes, and let's all move on with our lives already.
Now, we have this private Washington-based contractor that owns the 1980s-era Laurelwood Homes attempting to fleece the U.S. taxpayer for a buyout of homes worth far less than Laurelwood's demand, and at the same time that the owner knows full well the Navy could have continued with its charade to open the homes to civilians and potentially sent Laurelwood to insolvency (remember, the owner would have had to construct a nearly 2-mile road, upgrade infrastructure, renovate the 300 homes and procure insurance...on an active Naval weapons storage facility), the owner comes forth with this nonsense.
Clearly, Laurelwood Homes, LLC is going to try to get the most out of its sinking ship as possible, but the dollar value appears insultingly high, and let us not forget that this contractor has already made $75 million on this housing deal (closer to $4 million annually in recent years, contrary to the constantly reported number of "a little less than $3.5 million.") On the other hand, and assuming something prompted the letter and subsequent APP report, we can only imagine that the Navy's initial offer was insultingly low.
Come on, guys, get to the negotiating table and hammer out a fair deal already. Our community has been through more than enough with this Laurelwood headache. Arrive at a number, demolish the homes, and let's all move on with our lives already.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Revisiting one of NOPE's early themes against a proposed civilian town inside NWS Earle
By no means do we bring up this telling 2009 report from North County Times on crimes inside Camp Pendleton (Oceanside, CA) to disparage our military or to suggest this is comparable in any way to how military bases such as NWS Earle, etc. inside New Jersey operate from day to day.
To the contrary, we merely present it as an anecdote to one of NOPE's original objections to the Department of Navy's EIS-stated plan to provide unimpeded civilian access and housing to the Laurelwood complex at NWS Earle and how, functionally, opening the development to 300 new civilian families would have been the equivalent of running a small town inside an extremely secure Naval Weapons Station.
One of the notions lost on people who misguidedly charged NOPE as some kind of anti-affordable housing or anti-veterans contingent was that 24-hour policing of a civilian town inside a weapons facility, even to the layperson with no experience in military matters or law enforcement could easily see, would have been no easy task on Earle's commander and could clearly have compromised base force protection.
This is merely one reason why NOPE applauds the DoN's decision to buy out the Laurelwood contract, an outcome we eagerly anticipate and will keep supporters posted on in the days ahead.
To the contrary, we merely present it as an anecdote to one of NOPE's original objections to the Department of Navy's EIS-stated plan to provide unimpeded civilian access and housing to the Laurelwood complex at NWS Earle and how, functionally, opening the development to 300 new civilian families would have been the equivalent of running a small town inside an extremely secure Naval Weapons Station.
One of the notions lost on people who misguidedly charged NOPE as some kind of anti-affordable housing or anti-veterans contingent was that 24-hour policing of a civilian town inside a weapons facility, even to the layperson with no experience in military matters or law enforcement could easily see, would have been no easy task on Earle's commander and could clearly have compromised base force protection.
This is merely one reason why NOPE applauds the DoN's decision to buy out the Laurelwood contract, an outcome we eagerly anticipate and will keep supporters posted on in the days ahead.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Update on Status of Navy-Laurelwood buyout negotiations
As NOPE supporters know, April 30, 2010, was the contractual completion date of the military-use phase of the 52-year Laurelwood housing agreement, with May 1, 2010, marking the transition to the Department of Navy's original plan to provide unimpeded civilian access to housing through 2040. However, the Navy's announcement earlier this month of a buyout of the lease totally suspended the transition to the so-called "outlease" portion of the contract and civilian housing at NWS Earle.
In reaching out to Congressman Smith's office this morning for an update on the status of negotiations between the Navy and Laurelwood Homes, LLC, we learned that, likely a procedural move, owner Teri Fischer filed a complain last week with the Navy's Contracting Officer. In short, we are told that this gives the parties 60 days to figure out parameters of the buyout...and in no way marks a reversal from the expected outcome. We speculate failure to reach a deal in that time could spark a lawsuit by Mrs. Fischer against the Department of Navy, but that is merely speculation on our part.
Rest assured, NOPE will continue to provide updates on this case and, as always, reminds supporters - negotiators for the Navy and Laurelwood as well - of our business case analysis that the homes are likely worth $17-$20 million when factoring a host of financial considerations. The sooner the better for a buyout, in our opinion, and ultimately the leveling of the Laurelwood development and restoration of the property to its initial state. In the meantime, we wish everyone a good weekend!
In reaching out to Congressman Smith's office this morning for an update on the status of negotiations between the Navy and Laurelwood Homes, LLC, we learned that, likely a procedural move, owner Teri Fischer filed a complain last week with the Navy's Contracting Officer. In short, we are told that this gives the parties 60 days to figure out parameters of the buyout...and in no way marks a reversal from the expected outcome. We speculate failure to reach a deal in that time could spark a lawsuit by Mrs. Fischer against the Department of Navy, but that is merely speculation on our part.
Rest assured, NOPE will continue to provide updates on this case and, as always, reminds supporters - negotiators for the Navy and Laurelwood as well - of our business case analysis that the homes are likely worth $17-$20 million when factoring a host of financial considerations. The sooner the better for a buyout, in our opinion, and ultimately the leveling of the Laurelwood development and restoration of the property to its initial state. In the meantime, we wish everyone a good weekend!
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Request of ALL NOPE supporters to make a few more calls
After the NOPE leadership team met Tuesday night to discuss regular business, legislative liaison Elaine Mann recommends supporters make phone calls ASAP to ensure that legislation on the Earle housing issue (and on the verge of reaching Governor Christie's desk) gets thru the Assembly and protects the state in the event that contract buyout talks between the Department of Navy and Laurelwood Homes LLC collapse.
As you may recall, owing to widespread community support, NOPE has been instrumental in getting our legislators in Trenton to recognize the significance of the Department of Navy's Laurelwood civilian housing proposal at NWS Earle and the inherent security, economic and environmental detriments to NJ. Assembly measure A2014 is sitting idle in Trenton as we speak, months after the full Senate unanimously approved the companion senate version, S762, and needs to be signed by the Governor to have lasting impact.
The Assembly Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, which approved A2014's predecessor legislation in the previous Trenton session, needs to move A2014 forward, and we ask that you call the following committee members with the simple message - "please post A2014 in committee":
We thank you for continued support, and encourage you to call Mr. Conners and Ms. Tucker.
As you may recall, owing to widespread community support, NOPE has been instrumental in getting our legislators in Trenton to recognize the significance of the Department of Navy's Laurelwood civilian housing proposal at NWS Earle and the inherent security, economic and environmental detriments to NJ. Assembly measure A2014 is sitting idle in Trenton as we speak, months after the full Senate unanimously approved the companion senate version, S762, and needs to be signed by the Governor to have lasting impact.
The Assembly Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, which approved A2014's predecessor legislation in the previous Trenton session, needs to move A2014 forward, and we ask that you call the following committee members with the simple message - "please post A2014 in committee":
- Chair: Jack Conners, 856-461-3997 (voted "yes" last session)
- Vice-Chair: Cleopatra G. Tucker, 973-926-4330 (abstained last session)
- Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, 973-395-1166 (voted yes in the full Assembly last session)
We thank you for continued support, and encourage you to call Mr. Conners and Ms. Tucker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
