Last week, four supporters of the National Park Service’s plan to lease buildings at Fort Hancock on Sandy Hook to a private concern paid for a half-page advertisement in the Asbury Park Press to attack those who oppose the plan and restate their own reasons for supporting it.

One of those supporters, Mary Lou Strong, has since expressed sincere regret for the offensive comments they put into print.

A similar advertisement in another paper will appear this week with the most offensive statements removed.

Unfortunately, those who placed the advertisement will continue to misstate the lease opponents’ objections to the plan.

At no point during this four-year battle over the fate of Fort Hancock has new development been a central issue to the objectors’ concerns.

From the start, and to this day, the group Save Sandy Hook, and nearly everyone else who has spoken out against the lease plan, has placed allowing a private entity — in this case Sandy Hook Partners, an entity entirely owned by James Wassel of Rumson — to gain control of public property at the heart of their objections.

No one has expressed total opposition to the use of the buildings at Fort Hancock. Most particularly, no one has expressed opposition to the use of those buildings for public purposes by educational institutions such as Rutgers and Brookdale, two frequently mentioned potential tenants for the buildings.

What opponents of the lease plan have objected to, and with plenty of logic on their side, is cutting Jim Wassel in on the deal.

If the NPS goes ahead with its lease to Wassel, he stands to reap $17 million in a government subsidy in the form of saleable historic tax credits.

If he brings in as primary tenants the state university and the county college, he will then be receiving payments for the next 60 years as the middleman between what amounts to three government entities.

That’s ridiculous. If Rutgers wants facilities at Sandy Hook, the school is perfectly capable of coming to an agreement with the National Park Service without Wassel. The same is true for Brookdale.

Both would assuredly be viewed as appropriate tenants for public land, and Rutgers in particular has a lot to offer when it comes to operating in historic facilities. Since it is currently operating in quite a few historic buildings itself, there are undoubtedly people there who know a great deal about using such buildings in a way that respects their historic integrity.

The people supporting this lease plan need to stop making the issue a personal one and reflect a bit on what exactly it is they are supporting.