You are here

Private Party At Charlestown Navy Yard Doesn't Lack Alcohol

Share

Party-goers at the Charlestown Navy Yard weren't left thirsty.

So cash-starved are some units of the national park system that they're resorting to leasing out their facilities for private parties. One of the latest bashes, at the Charlestown Navy Yard in Boston earlier this week, didn't lack for alcohol, reportedly involved one arrest, and generally impeded the public in places.

Yet officials at Boston National Historical Park, of which the Navy Yard is part of, are focusing on the bottom line, which, in this case, are the fees they collect for renting out the facilities.

The affair, which BNHP spokesman Sean Hennessey told me represented "a more entrepreneurial way of managing, providing revenue streams over and above what is provided to us in our operating allocations," was hosted by McKesson Corporation, a health-care company. The guest list, Mr. Hennessey told me, numbered 3,500.

Now, in the past the Navy Yard has hosted some pretty big affairs, like the Tall Ships celebration in 2000, and the bicentennial salute to the USS Constitution in 1997. However, unlike the McKesson bash, those were public events, open to the public. Access to the McKesson party was controlled, I understand, by wristbands, there were "Private Event" signs, and the many tents they set up impeded public access to parts of the Navy Yard.

While my conversation with Mr. Hennessey led me to believe this was going to be a somewhat low-key affair lasting only two evening hours or so, I understand it took crews three days to set up all the tents and run electrical cables across the Navy Yard. Some of the cables ran in front of gang planks leading to some of the ships, including the USS Cassin Young. The party itself apparently didn't wind down until 1 a.m.

Throughout the day of the event delivery trucks were seen cruising up and down Pier 1. As you can see from the accompanying photo, some of the deliveries involved quite a bit of alcohol. I understand that one of the attendees possibly imbibed a bit too much, got into an argument with an interpretive ranger and even the park's chief of interpretation, and later was seen being escorted off the grounds in handcuffs.

While Mr. Hennessey told me none of the grounds, outside of the tents set up for McKesson, would be off-limits to other park visitors, I understand that at one point there was an effort to block non-McKesson visitors from accessing the USS Cassin Young. In the end, though, a decision was made that if the ship was going to be open for McKesson's guests, it had to be open for everyone in the park.

To help arrange these types of affairs, Boston National Historical Park officials a few years ago retained Amelia Occasions, a company that specializes in special events and wedding planning. Amelia's agreement with the park is similar to the concessionaire contracts parks like Yosemite, Yellowstone and Grand Canyon have in that they require the company to pour a certain amount of money back into the park.

According to Mr. Hennessey, who didn't know how much McKesson was charged for using the Navy Yard, Amelia spent $30,000 last year on roof repairs to the commandant's house at the Navy Yard, and some funds were also spent on plumbing repairs.

"It’s that kind of contingency uses of the funds that are being encouraged through this kind of arrangement," he told me. They "provide a revenue stream to help us with the upkeep, maintenance, education programs. That kind of thing. It augments what is provided to us.”

Is the National Park Service so broke that $30,000 is a reasonable amount to allow a private company to take over a unit of the national park system, bring in truckloads of alcohol, and close off sections to the general public?

National Park Service Director Mary Bomar has promised to operate the agency "more like a business," but I question whether this sort of affair, and the one earlier this month at Alcatraz, while helping the NPS pay its bills, is an appropriate business use for the national park system.

Is it appropriate when there's drunkenness involved, as supposedly was the case at both events, and drug use, as allegedly took place at the Alcatraz event?

I would say not.

Comments

Kath, this kind of crap that you have mentioned would of never happened under Steward Udall's watch (and his under secretaries).


We'd never be waging a $12 billion dollar a month war under any other administration either. Gotta take the dollars where you can find 'em because the Chinese ain't gonna lend us dough forever.


No. Movie making in the National Parks has been going on for a long time, under all administrations. Think of 'Shane' in Grand Tetons, numerous Westerns in Death Valley, 'Maverick' in Yosemite. Parts of "Jurassic Park, Part II were filmed in the redwoods on the northern California coast. So 'renting out' the national parks for private companies profit-making is nothing new.


Yes there are other parties at the Yard but they are usually contained and do not deny the park to the people. The problem is the only company allowed to do plnning business is Amelia Occasions and no other companies. That is the perfect definition of a monopoly. Microsoft was sued for creating a monopoly and yet the Regional Office of the Park Service is creating one for a Florida Company. I know of other wedding planners who are not allowed to even do business by the Regional Office. From my information that this "party" was a business deal through Amelia Occasions and didn't benefit the Park at all. Yet the park had to pay for personnel to shut the park off from the public (something the taxpayers own). Mr Darlington that is the problem and the crux of the matter. I could care less about the alcohol, because the weddings I see at the yard must have alcohol. Rather the fact that the park was used to benefit a California Company and any money that exchanged hands went to a Florida company and not even the National Park Service regardless of the Charlestown Navy Yard. Where is the Massachusetts or Navy Yard connection? Did this money even stop at the yard? The Park Service has leadership that ignore that they are in charge of national treasures and want to run them like a corporation. This isn't working!

I was at the Old North Bridge in Concord recently and didn't see any uniformed interpretive rangers at all and was told that when they retire or transfer they aren't being replaced, but rather volunteers who are not employees are being utilized for these paid positions. These are people who are not being paid but expected to perform a job in which people are expected to be experts with advanced degrees. I respect the volunteers and they are doing a good job but it is a job for paid park rangers. This is scary, the birthplace of the revolution is not having professionals to interpret the park but senior management are getting bonuses for making the park financially secure by reducing payroll and associated overhead costs but putting at risk for being ignored. That is my fear about this party and Amelia Occasions and ultimately the National Park Service. Are we putting our national treasures at risk for bonuses and making someone look good? I can assure you that Amelia Occasions saw a profit because of a lack of overhead costs but the Park Service shouldered the cost. How did this raise funds for the park?

I too was at the yard for the Democratic National Convention and saw democracy in action. I saw that people in Wyoming, South Dakota etc. were being given access to a major news story, the choosing of an American President. This use brought the park to the Nation and is consistent with the mission of the National Park Service. How was that a bad thing? The reporters and dignitaries were respectful to the park ans it cultural treasures and the use benefited the nation rather than two private corporations. Whether or not you agree with the convention's politics the park was left open for people and the footprint of the CNN area was small and contained with visitorship increasing afterwards in the park. The McKesson party overtook the entire park denying the park to citizens and from what I understand people were told they couldn't even park in the park if they were employees of the Constitution Museum or NPS. Why? For a private party? That seems far more disturbing than allowing people to make an informed choice of who their next leader will be.

The park is a beautiful area and I love going to the Yard as often as I can, but seeing it used for the McKesson party is a major disaster for the park. How much money did the park get? McKesson espouses that it is company that cares about its community, how much did they give to the park as a donation? A reading of McKesson's press releases will tell you they used public land to announce a business deal which caused its stock to rise. Again I'm confused how a San Francisco California Company chose a national park across a continent unless they were told they could get it cheaply and it looks pretty. It seems that everyone but the actual park itself came out on the positive side of this deal, Amelia Occasions got almost a 100% profit and sent that money to Florida and McKesson got good press at a gorgeous place and the result was a huge increase in their stock and the profits went to California. Instead the park used its limited operating budget to cover security, personnel and provide the safety for anyone in the area and received probably received very little if anything for services rendered. Then there is that small point that the taxpayers property was used as a personal playground for a corporation who had to go across the country to announce a business deal. There is the little fact that people without wristbands who are taxpayers were not allowed into their own property. With Santa Monica at least they had the park open for the people and the money benefited the park. I firmly believe the employees of the Charlestown Navy Yard are hard working dedicated public servants and the party was against their wishes and given to them by a higher headquarters.

Does any of this sound like the leadership of the National Park Service Boston Regional office and Washington Park Service used any sort of logic or reasoning? Again it boils down to the feeling that the National Park Service is a corporation. Which simply it is not.

Our National Treasures cannot be outsourced and are not for sale to the highest bidder! National Park Service Director Mary Bomar must not view this party as a sucess because this party cost all of us to loose something. We lost the confidence that our land set aside for the use of all of the citzens will be protected but gained the knowledge our govenrment is no better than ebay.


Why does is it seem so blasphemous, to so many, whenever it is even suggested that private non-profit foundations could possibly do a better more focused job of running many individual NPS units? Why is the first response always that "we'd be selling off the parks to the highest bidder". It seems from many of the comments in this thread, so far, that is EXACTLY what is happening at many units.

Let's face it folks the federal government is essentially broke. The debts of Bush & Company have sunk our dollar to record lows and the $12 billion a month spent on war doesn't leave a whole lot left to run our park system much less lavish the love and attention that many of these places deserve. Why not at least entertain the idea that there are other concerned and dedicated people out there that care more about individual park units than career focused bureaucrats in the Interior Department. I think that many places would benefit greatly from private, semi-private and non-profit governance, as well as partnerships among state, county, municipal, corporate and volunteer management teams.

Monticello and Mount Vernon are priceless national heirlooms that are run in this way and I must say they do a wonderful job of bringing the story of these places to life. The grounds and buildings of both places are immaculate and fully restored and wonderfully interperted. This type of managemant could be realized for many currently neglected sites that the federal government is unable or unwilling to run in the manner in which they were originally intended to be by their proclamation as national parks.

It's worth looking into. The federal government ain't gonna get more efficient or focused anytime soon.


Beamis,

Bless your heart for being here.

Stone Mountain State Park near Atlanta Georgia is another example of a private corporation doing an excellent job and in some aspects a much better job than the NPS would do in the same scenario. I'll take a park that is run "like a business" versus one that is run like a stagnant bureacracy anytime.

This event at the Shipyard is nothing new or special. Renting out picnic grounds and closing off portions of parks for events like weddings is a routine occurence in all parks including national ones. Repeat after me: "For the enjoyment. For the enjoyment. For the enjoyment." It's a shipyard for heaven's sake. Look at the background in the picture. It looks like someone's backyard. This isn't a pristine natural resource here. Lord, why are we crying over beer spilt on the lawn?


I beleive that Mr. Repansheck should verify all of the facts before he puts out false information on the internet.


I read your comments regarding Minute Man NHP and the North Bridge and they are not correct. Uniformed Rangers ARE at the North Bridge daily during the spring, summer, and fall and give talks at the benches by the bridge at the times posted. These Rangers all go through a training program before the season begins to ensure they are up to speed with the account of the events of April 19, 1775. Like most parks - employee numbers at Minute Man fluctuate, but the seasonal Ranger numbers have remained constant over the last few years and are expected to rise in coming years.

Regarding senior personnel getting bonuses - if it wasn't so very insulting it would be funny. But it is insulting and once again not at all correct. The thing that is "scary" - to use your words - is putting out such information without verifying your facts first. You should have taken the time to do your homework. But since you didn't I have little faith in your other comments.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.