Ft. Monmouth isn't in District 6 Jimbo!
You caught me, the Fort is really over in District 12, but since it's oh so close to District 6, and employs thousands of people from our district, that makes it a local issue. Let us review what I know being a non-politician.

The "2005 Base Realignment and Closure Act" calls for the closure of Ft. Monmouth which is a US Army installation that sits in the areas of Eatontown, Tinton Falls and Oceanport. The "mission" is going to be relocated to Aberdeen, MD in order to somehow save the tax payer money and make the army more efficient (no laughing). The first permanent building was built in 1928 and aside from a few very impressive research efforts in the early half of the century, the fort hasn't exactly been the center of research and advanced concept, in fact, to my knowledge, but again, I'm just a software engineer, the fort was most recently home to the "United States Army Chaplain Center and School" and is basically 1100 acres of unused land and condemned buildings that would need to be razed and rebuilt rather than "restored".

So you advocate closing the base and moving it?
Only sort of kind of. The "problem" is that the federal government used our tax money, and tax money from across the nation, to acquire the land in the name of the US Army. The federal government then used our federal tax money to develop the property for the needs of the US Army. Had I been in office like Frank Pallone, I would have fought and raised the issues and defended the fort and involved the public nationwide in order to keep the fort right where it is. However, Frank once again failed the people of District 6 and allowed, pretty much without a fight, other members of the government to vote away a huge employment center, which will destroy what is left of our local economy.

Problem Number 1
As I said, federal tax dollars were used to purchase, and develop, the land. The federal government is now giving that land away to the local municipalities. I know this sounds good, but think about it, you paid for something, and that something is now going to be given away free of charge, and you get nothing back. Imagine if you give your friend Joe $5 to buy a room in his house. You go off to college and don't really need the room anymore so Joe decides to sell the room to someone else, BUT YOU STILL OWN THE ROOM! While I'd like to look out only for the people of District 6, the fact is that all tax payers need representation and I think it would be a tough sell to convince some tax payer in Alaska that they should have 1) paid for the land acquisition 2) paid for the land development 3) should give away their investment. I propose that IF the government is to close the fort, they owe us, the tax payers, our money back. Auction off the property, sell the property or some how raise the money we spent to fund the mission for 80 years and give us our money back, account for inflation as well. And it would be unreasonable for the federal government to "sell" the land to the local governments or state governments because the state and local governments certainly can't afford the millions of dollars that the land is worth, and another "$1 land deal" is not going to raise the money to repay the tax payers.

Problem number 2
Your local and state tax money is now going to be used to "repurchase" the land for you that you already purchased with your federal tax money. Your local and state tax money is then going to be used to raze the buildings you paid for and then more of your tax money is going to be used to redevelop the land into something that you may, or may not, want to have in the first place.

Problem number 3
There is all sorts of alleged corruption going on! So what does that mean? Well, it's simple, it means that the "cost" of relocating the fort has now quadrupled since 2005, but how could one have been so far off? Corruption in the alleged corruption I presume. The "cost" now includes the cost of all of the politicians and "experts" and lawyers and federal judges and state judges and local judges who all knew what BRAC was going to do, and all knew that BRAC would recommend closing the fort, but rather than defend the fort up front when it was "cheaper" for us tax payers, they waited so that they could line their pockets hearing the "case" and battling for control, at the expense of the tax payers nationwide, all while leaving workers at the fort in limbo over if, and when, they would be losing their jobs and leaving the rest of the area unsure about economic stability in the area. The "cost" only increased because of "politicians".

So who should buy the land?
NOT the tax payers I know that much. Allow private developers to bid on the land. I personally would be excited to hear that the Disney Corporation would like to acquire all 1100 plus acres and build "Disney Land Northeast" on the property. Let us not forget, the Jersey Shore area (where the fort is located) was once a popular resort area and such a park would surely bring our resort title back. It would also provide thousands of jobs and be a great boost to the economy, certainly a bigger boost than 1100 acres of luxury housing or "open" (useless/restricted) space. The property is served by two sets of train tracks, the operational NJ Coast Line to the East and the old (but currently used as a freight line) Lakehurst-Red Bank line. The property is close enough to bring extra business to the floundering Monmouth Park and real redevelopment could spur hundreds of thousands of jobs, from construction to the ride operator. If not Disney, maybe Six Flags would be interested in getting out of Jackson and have a location that is more accessible by train, bus, and even Newark Itn'l Airport via train.

Regardless of the actual use of the land in the future, certainly we the tax payers should NOT be tasked with buying land, only to have it given away. We the tax payers purchased something, and because Frank (and Rush Holt in district 12) failed to represent the people of NJ, and the entire US, when it was needed, our tax money is being given away in a manner which will cause a huge, negative impact on the workers in our community.