Received as of April 18, 2008
Received as of April 11, 2008
Received as of March 27, 2008

April 18, 2008

1. Who are the planners actually responsible for the master plan, names please,? what are their backgrounds? what other redevelopments have they accomplished.
   RESPONSE: The planning team is headed up by EDAW www.edaw.com Also, we have information on this website at: http://www.nj.gov/fmerpa/edaw/present/. Tim Delorm, a Principal in EDAW New York City office, is the lead.
   
   
2. How would EDAW and FMERPA envision the average housing density changing at the Fort and what mixes of different types of housing are being considered?
   RESPONSE: This information will be forthcoming in further iterations of the plan.
   
   
3. Given the current density of housing at the Fort, what do EDAW and FMERPA see are the advantages and disadvantages of increasing that density, e.g., greater density might mean more open space?
   RESPONSE: Density is based on market analysis, input from the public and the individual host municipalities and infrastructure constraints, therein lie the advantages and disadvantages.
   
   
4. What are the various factors which EDAW considers in making recommendations to preserve housing on the Fort? Do FMERPA members agree with these factors and the specific recommendations?
   RESPONSE: Decisions were made on facility assessments and good planning principals. FMERPA members have been involved throughout the planning process and have voiced their opinions. We expect that they will continue to provide input and comment on the plan as it evolves.
   
   
5. How does EDAW or FMERPA envision incorporating affordable housing into the Master Plan, e.g., by identifying specific locations for affordable housing, and/or by assuming that developers will be required to set aside a pre-specified (by COAH?) number of units, and/or by having developers build the units along with the rest of their development, and/or by developers subcontracting the building of units to non-profit organizations? If all of the above, what is the priority order of these?
   RESPONSE: All of the above and no priority has been set at this time.
   
   
6. In EDAW's experience with other Master Plans guiding housing development at other base closings, what are the key success factors in ensuring that appropriate amounts and types of good-quality, affordable housing are built-in as part of the implementation of the plan?
   RESPONSE: Referred to EDAW
   
   
7. When will questions submitted after March 27th be answered?
   RESPONSE: They were answered on April 4.
   
   
8. Questions on particular slides:

   Slide #8: Could EDAW or FMERPA please provide a summary listing of the existing buildings which are not proposed for reuse? It would be helpful if these were grouped by the 5 development locations proposed in slides 58-67, and categorized by their original, intended use, i.e., commercial, retail, housing, recreational, maintenance, etc.. The context for this request is Principle 7 shown on slide 54: Leverage Existing Fort Monmouth Assets, including buildings.
   RESPONSE: FMERPA has not compiled such listings. If we do we will make them available.
   

   Slide #23: From the answer to the prior question on this slide, I understand that the 177 existing units shown on this slide are the total proposed for reuse. This means that upwards of 1,000 existing housing units will not be reused, but will presumably be demolished. This is in addition to the estimated 300 units that have already been demolished in the Charles Woods area. I also understand that the Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design (LEED) green standard discourages the demolition of existing buildings. Did EDAW take the LEED standards into account when proposing the small number of Fort buildings for reuse?
   RESPONSE: We disagree with your total number of current housing units. The number is much less and any number presented needs to be qualified as far as what it includes and what would qualify as a dwelling unit. We are considering those units that have reuse potential as residential dwelling units. Click here for a breakdown of available housing at Fort Monmouth. Yes LEED and other considerations have gone into these decisions.
   

   Slides #20 & 21: Please provide additional background and explanation of this market analysis. Was the purpose of this analysis to assess how many new jobs, households and housing units in the Fort and surrounding area would be needed after the current jobs and some of the workers (military personnel and civilians) relocate to Maryland? What was the geographic area which was taken as the market analysis study area, i.e., which municipalities were included? Are the assumptions of employment and housing growth used for this study consistent with the assumptions used to develop projections for the COAH third round housing obligations? If not, why not?
   RESPONSE: Please reference our Market Analysis Document http://www.nj.gov/fmerpa/library/TM/ERA/ERA_master.pdf

   
   Slide #27: How many acres were assumed to be allocated to the each of the office/commercial, retail and housing and hospitality land uses in this chart? Wouldn't the estimate of real tax revenue shown in the far right column depend on the amount of land included in these categories? Why the difference between the 450 acres shown in this chart for open space versus the total of 622 acres shown in slide 69 (152 acres at Sun Eagles Golf Course plus 470 acres of greenbelt parks)?
   RESPONSE: We are investigating this.
   

   Slide #48: Principle # 1 states in part the objective to create mixed-use live/work/leisure centers. Why doesn't that objective lead to a better balance in the preliminary master plan between the number of jobs created (5,044+ from slide 28) and the number of housing units proposed (1,500 total in slide 29)?
   RESPONSE: We do not believe that every job will require a new dwelling unit. Even more out-of-balance is the proposed development between now and 2018 (slide 69) which shows only 600 dwelling units proposed for the first 10 years along with an estimated 2,500+ jobs (not including construction) to replace some of the jobs moving from the Fort.
   

   Slide #54: The converse of the question above on slide 8 is which of the existing buildings are slated for reuse? Again, it would be helpful to have these grouped by the five proposed development areas and categorized by their original intended use and their proposed reuse.
   RESPONSE: FMERPA has not compiled such listings. If we do we will make them available.
   

   Slide #57: There appears to be a typo in the square feet of office/R&D space for Oceanport. I believe the 60,000 should be 360,000.
   RESPONSE: We are investigating this and will correct it in further iterations of the plan.

April 11, 2008

1. The Preliminary Master Plan for Fort Monmouth presented on March 19, 2008, included 375 affordable housing units to be provided at a rate of about 18-19 per year over 20 years, 2008-2028.

I am disappointed that despite the information provided by the Monmouth Advocacy Team and New Creations in Christ, Inc., on the critical need for affordable housing, you have chosen not to address this need as comprehensively as possible.

While any number of affordable housing units are certainly welcome in Monmouth County, we would urge you to consider including 1,500 affordable units in the master plan over the next 5 years, 2008-2012. This number is more consistent with public goals for affordable housing recently advocated by Gov. Jon Corzine, Public Advocate Ron Chen, DCA Commissioner Joseph Doria, and by the New Jersey Supreme court over the last 20 years. This number is also consistent with the historic role of the Fort in providing up to 2,500 government-subsidized housing units. Finally, it is consistent with the precipitous decline in the amount of reasonably priced renter- and owner-occupied housing in Monmouth County since the year 2000.

The redevelopment of the Fort's land, after the transfer of its military mission, presents a huge opportunity for the county and surrounding communities to take a giant leap forward in fulfilling our housing obligations to those most in need of safe, decent, convenient housing. We call upon you to provide the leadership and foresight to make the most of this opportunity.

2. I am very disappointed in the decisions of your group in regard to affordable housing. How can you pass up this opportunity alleviate the shortage of housing for people who provide important services to our community? Please reconsider the number of units you plan to establish. It will make a difference to Monmouth County.

3. I am writing to you because I am against any further housing development of any kind in Tinton Falls, but especially at the Fort. When I first moved to Tinton Falls I was told this was a nice small town that would not turn into another Middletown with high density housing going up on every corner. Unfortunately, this small town is exploding at the seams. The farms & treed lots that existed 6 years ago, are now Mcmansions and way too many high density housing units. Our schools can not handle an influx of students that any new housing units would hold, let alone the 1500 that a special interest group is screaming for. When the Fort closes, many people in this area will be out of work. Will building new, high density housing units put food on the table? We need to attract big business to the area that will employ a majority of people who will have lost their jobs. In my neighborhood alone there are 7 houses for sale within walking distance of each other that have not sold in almost a year on the market. How could anyone justify building any volume of housing units in such a volatile market where foreclosure is a daily occurrence.
   
   Tinton Falls is also facing another problem if Earle opens their base to civilian housing. If Trenton does not get off it's butt and help us nullify our previous agreement with Earle, then we will get stuck educating children of civilians that live in Colts Neck, but at our expense. We were told that all programs would be cut from our schools, particularly kindergarten! I would have to pay for a private school to send my daughter to b/c there will be no room to educate our children. That is appalling. Residents of this town can not afford to be abused by the government from both ends- it's just too much! This town would never recover from such a travesty of justice. Tinton Falls will be a ghost town b/c residents could no longer afford to live here.
   
   I also can not see how any businesses would be enticed by sharing space with affordable housing units of any size? They just don't go together. Tinton Falls needs a town center with thriving businesses to help put people back to work. We have enough housing for such a small town!

4. I am the owner/operator of the Waterfront Museum and would be interested in talking with you about providing both temporary and permanent docking space for historic vessels and their programs in education and the arts.

5. After the monthly FMERPA meeting in January (1/16/08), XXXXXXX XXXXXX and I asked you about meeting with you or the Planning and Development Advisory Committee (P&DAC).

You declined to meet with us individually. You said that the P&DAC hadn't met yet, but I think you said that it might be meeting after the preliminary master plan was released. We pointed out that we had been told about a year prior that issues of housing, and specifically affordable housing, would be handled by the P&DAC.

So the questions to you are:

Will the P&DAC be meeting now that the preliminary plan is available? RESPONSE: We will be scheduling a public meeting to specifically address housing concerns relative to the preliminary plan. The date has not been set yet as we are trying to ensure that the right folks are able to attend, to ensure the appropriate level of attention this issue deserves.

If so, could you please let me know when and where it will be meeting? RESPONSE: See above.

March 27, 2008

Comments and some quotes received

1. “Well Done!”
   
   
2. “Thanks for a good presentation”
   
   
3. “Don’t wait for the Fort to close before bringing in industry”
   
   
4. “Every effort should be made to move that (Little Silver Train Station)station!”
   
   
5. The total of 375 affordable units that are proposed over 20 years, 2008-2028 (see slide #29 of Preliminary Plan Public Presentation from 3/19/08), only begins to address the critical need for affordable housing that we documented last June (see attached Affordable Housing Fact Sheet). In the fact sheet, a need for 1,500 affordable units is projected for the next 5 years (by 2012).
   
   
6. Of the 375 affordable units in the plan, 187 are labeled “age targeted” which I take to mean age-restricted. This is clearly inconsistent with the revised 3^rd round COAH rules which limit the age-restricted affordable units to 25% of the total.
   RESPONSE: The plan will abide by whatever the final COAH requirements are and we do mean age targeted not age restricted.
   
   
7. I estimate that there are about 1,200-1,500 housing units (occupied and vacant) remaining on the Fort (down from about 2,500 just a few years ago). Of these it appears that only 200 will be renovated and reused (slide #21, Residential category #5. Ex. Base Residential). Given the local need for affordable units, I believe the master plan should include enough affordable housing units in the next 5 years to replace the 1,200-1,500 existing government-subsidized, affordable units on the base.
   RESPONSE: We disagree with your total number of current housing units. The number is much less and any number presented needs to be qualified as far as what it includes and what would qualify as a dwelling unit. We are considering those units that have reuse potential as residential dwelling units. Click here for a breakdown of available housing at Fort Monmouth.
   
   
8. 5,000-6,000 jobs will be created at the Fort (see slide #28). The preliminary master plan appears to ignore the COAH growth share formula of 1 affordable unit for every 16 jobs created. If the rationale for this is the replacement of existing jobs, I would take serious objection to this interpretation. For example, looking at the list of “Major Industry Groups within Park” on slide #44, I see a number of groups that have jobs that could be new to the Fort, including: alternative and renewable energy, professional services (consultants), financial back office and health care. Even for those industry groups which might appear to use the skills of the current civilian employees at the base, the possibility of a significant match of those employees with industry job positions is highly speculative.
   RESPONSE: The plan will recognize whatever the final COAH requirements are regarding requirements based on jobs created. However, it is our understanding that there will be credit for jobs lost initially.
   
   
9. By my estimate, the number of acres allocated to “greenbelt parks and the golf course” is proposed to increase in the master plan from roughly 375 acres currently to 622 acres or 55% of the Fort’s area, an estimated increase of about 66%. This is where a reasonable assessment of traditional and proposed land uses within the Fort would be helpful. This assessment should take into account the estimated 2,500 base housing units, including those in Charles Woods that were demolished, those in Howard Commons and other areas of the base that have been abandoned, and reasonable “yard areas” around all housing units (and other structures), not just the bare footprint of structures on base land. I think this comparison would show that the amount of land designated for housing in the preliminary master plan has decreased substantially which is not deemed appropriate given the overwhelming need for housing in the area, especially housing which is affordable to very low, low and moderate income households under COAH’s definitions.
   
   
10. Why not set aside HOUSING for our Soldiers from the AREA (NJ) coming back from war, an REAL opportunity to buy a home here. Why not offer the soldiers a 2% Mortgage to buy, First time Homebuyers! It will help the housing in NJ and give our soldiers a BREAK! They are fighting for us-- we OWE them - we owe them a VA hospital!! with state of the art facilities.
    
    
11. Will the consortium work between Oceanport, Eatontown and Tinton Falls. I have visions of the Monmouth Race Track. Oceanport had all the benefits and Eatontown had all of the headaches with no benefits. I certainly don't want a repeat of that.
    
    
12. I ask these questions from a completely selfish viewpoint! I have lived in my house on that lovely quiet dead-end street for 43 years and I would hate now, in my old age, to have the tranquility of my neighborhood upset by thru traffic and my own privacy jeopardized by a row of houses facing my own from what now is sylvan Fort property!
    

Questions (Responses in bold text)

1. Slides #18 & 19 – What is meant by the label “Potential Petroleum Product Disposal or Release Area”? Is this a documented existing environmental condition or a potential future condition? What impact would this have on the use of this area for recreational space, or housing, business or commercial use or development?
   All environmental Areas of Concern (AOC) have been taken into account in our preliminary plan. The slides depict existing AOCs, many of which are undergoing remediation or have been categorized as “No Further Action” (NFA)
   
   
2. Slide #20 – Please indicate by name, position and company the “local specialists and developers” who were interviewed for the market analysis. I’m interested in whether those persons represent a reasonable cross-section, including for-profit and non-profit specialists and developers. We are confident that the list does represent a good cross section.
   
   
3. Slide #21 – Regarding the Residential component of the market analysis, it appears that the proposed 2000 Residential units includes 1800 new homes and 200 units from “existing base residential”. How does this relate to the 1500 DU shown on slide #57? These are not related – slide 21 depicts an existing condition market analysis that was used as a data point in development of the preliminary plan. Also, what is the estimated number of jobs associated with each of the other categories, including Office, Industrial Flex Space, Retail and the two Hotel categories? This data will be reflected in the forthcoming draft plan.
   
   
4. Slide #23 – Under Residential, the 177 units on site – how do these relate to the total of 200 “Ex. Base Residential” units shown on slide #21? Are they the same or in addition? How do both of these relate to the total number of housing units currently on base, both occupied and vacant? There is no relation. Again, slide 21 is an existing conditions market analysis. Slide 23 depicts those residential units proposed for reuse. We will be releasing the current number of housing units currently existing on the post shortly. The 177 represents the historic housing on the main post (117 units), Hemphill and Megill Housing in Charles Wood.
   
   
5. Slide #27 – Does the Real Tax Revenue estimate shown only include new construction or would it also include re-used real property on the base? Is there an estimate of the real tax revenue expected after the base closure, split out by the amount within the boundaries of each of the three surrounding towns? These figures will be projected when we get closer to a final plan and will be broken out by municipality.
   
   
6. Slide #28 – Is there a timeline which indicates when the 3043 permanent job seekers shown in the far right column would be looking for work and when the 5044+ new job positions would be available? No, however, we are working closely with the Army to project their job shifts.
   
   
7. Slide #29 – How do the 1,500 total dwelling units here relate to the 2000 Residential units on #21? They don’t. Does “age targeted” mean age-restricted? No, it means age targeted. What are the definitions of COAH Low and COAH Mod? Do these cover all household income levels from 0-80% of median income? This is yet to be decided by COAH. Is there a projected split of COAH units shown in this table between renter-occupied and owner-occupied units? How could I get more information on the source listed at the bottom as “Residential Demographic Multipliers Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research”? Click here.
   
   
8. Slide #33 – Does this chart include contract personnel? No If it does not, how would including them impact the numbers shown? What are the median wages associated with each of the occupational categories?
   This is under review.
   
   
9. Slide #37 – What are the occupational categories and median wages of the workers in the “locally serving industries” mentioned at the bottom of this slide?
   This is under review.
   
   
10. Slide #38 – same question as above regarding the occupational categories and the median wages of the 9 Top Growth Industries in Monmouth County. This is under review.
    
    
11. Slide #42 – Just an observation regarding the strong correlation between the housing cost indices and the cost of living indices on the previous slide.
    
    
12. Slide #44 – Based on the list of projected major industry groups within the park, what is the estimate of the percent of the 3043 permanent job seekers which will find employment in these industry groups at comparable wages and how many new workers might be required to fill the remaining openings?
    Any answer at this time would be most speculative.
    
    
13. Slide #45 – What are the practical (or operational) definitions of "green construction" and "green redevelopment"? Visit www.usgbc.org for some current definitions and examples that we have considered. We will be working with the various state and federal agencies to determine the level of standards required in connection with any available programs, grants, or funding.
    
    
14. Slide #46 – What are the preliminary estimates of the total tax revenues and the total municipal expenses for the Fort property over the 20-year timeframe? Not currently projected but will be in subsequent iterations of the plan.
    
    
15. Slide #48 – If the development density is increasing from east to west, why doesn’t the housing development do the same, beginning with 700 residential units in eastern area and increasing to about 1,500-2,000 units in the Charles Woods area? Our preliminary plan is based on various input from the public (VPS/Charettes), including the plans referred to us by the three municipalities and reflects projected market conditions.
    
    
16. Slide #52 – Bikeways should also be included as part of redeveloped road infrastructure, in order to provide a healthy, pollution-free alternative to traveling locally to stores, schools, employment sites and transit hubs. This was verbalized in our presentation and bikeways are included in the preliminary plan.
    
    
17. Slide #53 – This principle of reconnecting the Fort to the communities is an important one, but seems contradictory to Principles 4 & 5.
    
    
18. Slide #54 – States “98% of Historic Housing to be reused, 694,948 GSF”. Will this all be used for residential units? Yes If so, how many units and where are these reflected in previous slides, such as #21 & 29? These are reflected in the numbers on slide 29Regarding the 50 non-residential buildings, how does this 2M+ GSF relate to the floor space shown in slides #21, 27 and 57? It does not. We have existing conditions market analysis which was considered in what is currently proposed in this preliminary plan. What is the proposed allocation of land use by acre for the top six categories shown? Not currently projected. This is not seen to be a useful calculation at this stage of planning.
    
    
19. Slide #56 – What types of residential dwelling units are proposed for each of the areas, e.g., along lines of the 5 categories shown on slide #21? This was verbalized in the presentation and will be detailed in our Draft Plan.
    
    
20. Slide #63 – Why are there no residential units in this area? Are there no existing housing units here? Wouldn’t this be conveniently located to both employment and other amenities? College “campuses” typically include housing. This is a commercial industry area. Housing is located nearby and, in fact, can be seen on this slide. Some of the land shown is limited for development due to natural and environmental conditions.
    
    
21. Slide #69 – Why can’t 100% of dwelling units be built in first 5-10 years? They very well may be – depends on how the market evolves. At this time we felt the need to be more cautious. Was a study made of vacancy rates in renter- and owner-occupied housing in the surrounding area – by monthly rents and owner costs? Yes If the vacancy rates for the lower monthly rentals and owner cost housing units are very low, isn’t that an indication that the local housing market could absorb them more quickly and easily? Not according to our analysis.
    
    
22. Viewgraph 17 - The condition of the stormwater drains was verbally described as poor due to infiltration. That is not shown on the viewgraph. The infiltration referenced is in the wastewater system.
    
    
23. Viewgraph 21 - There is an error for the Land Use Type Office on the lines for 2. Professional Service/Live Work and 3. Class A 9 (Build to Suit). The entries for Yr-11 and Yr-12 are on the incorrect line as can be seen by the totals. Will be corrected.
    
    
24. Viewgraph 29 - The projection of school age children is not broken out by borough. That must be done for borough planning purposes. This has been done and will be documented with each iteration of the plan.
    
    
25. Viewgraph 32 - The projections of retirement eligibility stops at year 2011.
    It is probable some employees near retirement age may accept jobs at Aberdeen until they retire, commute on weekends, and remain in the Monmouth County area after retiring from the government. They then may want follow-on employment. That should be considered in your planning and added to this summary. This is being considered.
    
    
26. Viewgraph 38 - The Economic Development Analysis for 2005-2006 is remarkedly different than the summary provided in an EDAW briefing to FMERPA during 2007. That briefing showed health care and public employment as major growth sectors. Does using the summary from just 2005-2006 give a distorted view? Each reflects a very different data sector, the 2007 was the largest employers in Monmouth County.
    
    
27. Viewgraph 44 - It is common knowledge that the primary developers of the systems managed by Fort Monmouth were and are prime contractors located outside of this area. Much of the "engineering work" at the fort consisted of managing those contractors. Are the fort's personnel ready to assume the role of primary developers for the technologies shown? Neither FMERPA or EDAW can answer this question and it is unlikely that we will be able to answer it.
    
    
28. Viewgraph 46 - The "Regional Approach to Cost & Revenue Sharing" will be a controversial topic. Without a time phased estimate of revenue and expenses by location, this issue will not be resolved. See answer to question 14 above.
    
    
29. Viewgraph 49 - Monmouth Park Station is a seasonal stop and operational and then only during certain hours. Is FMERPA implying this will become a permanent stop? It would delay traffic on a major east-west road and cause delays similar to those at the Little Silver train stop. If this is not proposed, it should not be shown as a transportation connection point. We are aware of this.
    
    
30. Viewgraph 54 - The caption for Barker Circle reuse shows buildings for an "Eatontown Municipal Complex". That is Oceanport. This has been corrected.
    
    
31. Viewgraph 60 - The map needs to have the power line corridor added and figured into the planning effort. I don't believe that corridor is owned by Fort Monmouth. Easy access to the power line is required for maintenance, etc. There is a cell tower and a water tower located in this area. [A second water tower is located alongside the Myer Center]. Will these towers remain? The towers are currently in the reuse plan. We are currently investigating any and all easements and lease agreements with the Army.
    
    
32. Viewgraph 63 - The bowling center is not in Oceanport. It is in Eatontown. This will be confirmed. This border may need to be realigned as it currently transects some buildings.
    
    
33. 12. Viewgraph 64 - The Lifestyle Town Center sits atop the geothermal fields. What is the impact of encroaching or convering those fields if the reuse of the geothermal wells/system is contemplated? The office buildings shown between Mallette Hall and the post theater are located on the land which is currently the only regulation sized baseball field in the area. That seems to remove a one-of-a-kind recreational facility. [P.S. The Yankees Whitey Ford pitched there when he was in the service.] The plan will accommodate the well fields.
    
    
34. Viewgraph 66 - The just completed Tinton Falls Municipal Complex doesn't have a connector road through the redeveloped area out to Hope Road. That would seem to be a natural corridor. The open space shown on the north side bordering Tinton Avenue is not a high value use for that land. High end townhomes would add ratables and not adversely impact the school system. I'm sure the Army's negotiator will see that. This area of the plan is currently being rethought and may result in some changes in the next iteration of the plan.
    
    
35. Viewgraph 67 - The previous viewgraph (#66) shows a convenience/retail establishment at the Pinebrook Corner. That is in Eatontown and not Tinton Falls. The table on viewgraph 67 does not list that type of use for Eatontown but does show it for Tinton Falls. This has been corrected.
    
    
36. Will the Army pay (with our money, of course) to repair the waste water system at Fort Monmouth? If not, who is picking up that tab? The waste water system will most likely need to be replaced for this, and other reasons such as location of the distribution system and any new sewage treatment facilities planned or required. This will factor into the negotiations between the Army and any potential buyer.
    
    
37. If the redevelopment plan is really going to focus on being green, will you be considering solar powered composting toilets for the buildings on base? Also, will you provide airlocks (foyers, outside or inside, that save heating and cooling fuel expense by offering a buffer between outside doors and inside doors) or revolving doors on buildings? These details have yet to be documented or decided.
    
    
38. Is your plan going to be so scenic that windmills (a great source of renewable energy) will be forbidden as seems to be the case for those suggested in or near the ocean (although the ones outside of Atlantic City have become tourist attractions)? This issue has not been discussed. There are no windmills proposed in our current plan.
    
    
39. If, as was stated at Pollack Theater, the Army expects “full market value” for this property, how can charitable or even civic uses be accommodated? In light of the bursting of the real estate “bubble,” has the appraisal been adjusted? Or will it be? FMERPA is not privy to the Army’s appraisal. We do have every reason to believe that a significant number of charitable and civic uses, proposed in the Notices of Interest (NOIs) received by FMERPA will be accommodated.
    
    
40. Is the Federal Government going to sell Eatontown the property or give it to us. If we have to pay for it, how will we do that? Eatontown is going to be a depressed area for quite some years. Eatontown has asked for a Public Benefit Conveyance for Mallette Hall which could be conveyed at no cost. The rest of the property that will eventually fall within Eatontown may be sold to developers or conveyed in some other fashion in accordance with our plan and our zoning. We do not believe that Eatontown is interested in buying the land. 
    
    
41. Are you moving the Little Silver train station to Oceanport? We thought that was a very good idea, since we take the train to NYC once in awhile. Oceanport seems more out of the way than LS, therefore more parking, etc. This is not a FMERPA decision. At this time no train station is proposed in our plan.
    
    
42. I attended the meeting Wednesday night and from the illustrations presented, it appeared that there are apartments being planned for the portion of the Fort that sits northeast of the dead-end streets of Park, Villa and Watson. My question is: If these dwellings are indeed built, will the above-named streets be opened up to accommodate the tenants or will access be attained through other entrances (perhaps those already in place throughout the area). Some of the streets will be opened up into the current Fort property. Access to the housing proposed and which streets will be opened has not been determined at this time.
    
    
43. Also, these same illustrations show the ballfield and the dental clinic opposite my home on Park Avenue to be undisturbed. Will they be preserved as they now are? They are currently planned to remain and have been asked for by the County in an NOI.
    
    
44. What is going to happen to the CIVIL AIR PATROL on the Fort - which is important to our children in the area, we do not have ROTC in most schools. The Civil Air Patrol gives our boys and girls great opportunities. Please do not ignore those who have helped & continue to help keep our Freedom- We will investigate the status of the Civil Air Patrol.