Pol’s plan to save quiet Fort Ham? Make it more useful

for The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

Fort Hamilton should be transformed from a sleepy Army base best known for its private swimming pool into the city’s national security hub, politicians and base officials said this week.

In a preemptive strike against an upcoming round of federal base closures, Army brass and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand demanded that federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security relocate to the 180-year-old Bay Ridge base.

“New York remains the number one target for terrorists around the world,” said Gillibrand, a Democrat who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Fort Hamilton must be in the absolute strongest possible position to withstand any cuts.”

The fort is the only Army post in New York City, and one of two in the whole state — but it hasn’t actually defended the city in decades.

The fort handles tests and physicals for new recruits before sending them off to their first post. It also houses a recruitment office and the Army Corps of Engineers — though the Corps spent much of the year trying to move away from the fort.

“It’s more administra­tive,” said base spokesman Bruce Hill of the fort’s tenants. Roughly 1,500 people live there, he said, but, “there aren’t a lot of active duty soldiers here.”

As such, locals were confused as to what actually goes at Fort Hamilton and why it needs to be saved.

“They keep troops there? Actually, I have no idea,” said Maria Petsini, 40, of Bay Ridge.

The fort’s commander joined Gillibrand on Wednesday in calling for a new strategy for the base, saying it has potential to become an important hub for national security agencies to meet in case there is an emergency.

The commander, Col. Michael Gould, maintained that Fort Hamilton plays a role in defending the city.

“We certainly provide the federal government the capability to bring resources if asked,” he said.

But no one is asking.

The Army Corps, the fort’s biggest tenant, tried to pull up stakes for Manhattan earlier this year before Rep. Michael Grimm (R–Bay Ridge) put the kibosh on the plan by adding language to an appropriations bill barring it from moving.

Without the Corps, it would have been even harder to justify the fort’s existence, and with the Pentagon looking to shave $400 billion off its budget over the next decade, base closings will likely make up part of the savings.

Fort Ham was on the chopping block when the federal base closing panel last met in 2005, but was ultimately spared — partially because of the presence of the Army Corps of Engineers.

Gillibrand said having anti-terrorist agencies on the base would help justify its role.

“To have Homeland Security here would actively keep New York safe,” said Gillibrand.

Homeland Security — a massive network of 22 separate federal agencies — already has offices across the river. Gillibrand did not explain how a move to far-flung Bay Ridge could keep the city safer. The agency did not respond to requests for comment.

An FBI spokesman confirmed that his agency had discussed moving some national security operations to the fort, but plans were preliminary. If it did move, it would likely only be one department — not the whole headquarters.

“It works for us now, so I’d be a little surprised if we moved a bulk of our operations to Brooklyn,” said spokesman Jim Margolin, adding that his office is already centrally located. “Part of the reason we’re in lower Manhattan is our proximity to federal courthouses.”

— with Alfred Ng

Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

Reader Feedback

Ed from Bay R says:
Why SHOULD they move to Brooklyn?
Aug. 19, 2011, 2:07 pm
anywho says:
Old fort = old crap! That's right Senator pander, pander, pander.
Aug. 19, 2011, 6:01 pm
Mancow says:
"Fort Hamilton... best known for its private swimming pool"

LOL so true. What is the big deal about this base? It serves no purpose! If it's got to go, it's got to go. C'est la vee!
Aug. 19, 2011, 8:24 pm
Annie from BR says:
These proposals are absolutely ridiculous. I don't see any legit military-security reason for them at all.
Aug. 20, 2011, 7:53 am
Alex from Downtown says:
"The fort is the only Army post in New York City, and one of two in the whole state — but it hasn’t actually defended the city in decades." I count three active duty Army reservations in NY state, Fort Drum, Fort Hamilton, and the United States Military Academy at West Point. As for the last time any Army Fort defended anything in the lower 48 United States, that was roughly before WW1 to be of any real significance. So it gives a false impression to single out Fort Hamilton as not having defended the city.

On the other hand, this is a perfect example of how the debt gets out of control: A Congresswoman pandering to her constituents with money(ie a selfish interest in power), rather than taking a serious look at the country and the need for fiscal responsibility.
Aug. 23, 2011, 8:59 am
jared from bay ridge says:
Alex -- and what about Rep. Grimm, who kept the Corps from moving? It's pandering to crimp the Army and-or keep an idle fort open, just so that some politico can say 'see what I did' (and mislead people into thinking that the fort somehow serves as a fort). There's more than one panderer in this silliness.
Aug. 23, 2011, 10:02 pm
Mike from Bay Ridge says:
Two ways to save: close this unnecessary base and sell the site to Wal-Mart!

You want to see economic stimulation? You want to see job creation? You want to see people save more of their hard earn money? You want to see an increase in local tax revenue?

Of course it won't happen with so many pols in the unions' back pocket so how about opening a casino on the site (also not going to happen because of the pols)? That would generate most of the same benefits of a box store, minus "...people save more of their hard earned money," but, hey, the money has to come from somewhere.

Fort Ham does nothing for the community as-is and that's why it's going to stay For Ham: because it doesn't rock the boat by requiring people and politicians to make hard choices that might actually benefit people. (And spare me the talk of how such businesses ruin neighborhoods. How many people move AWAY when a Wal-Mart or a casino shows up in the area?)
Sept. 7, 2011, 2:57 pm

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Don’t miss out!

Stay in touch with the stories people are talking about in your neighborhood:

Optional: Help us tailor our newsletters to you!