You are here

Private Party At Charlestown Navy Yard Doesn't Lack Alcohol

Share

Published Date

July 12, 2007

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

Why isn't this comment edited? I find this highly offensive.


Anonymous,
Thanks very much for coming back with a constructive comment. Your questions about park funding are key to the purpose of this website. We have been trying to answer the same questions every week for the last couple years. I have a very strong feeling that our National Parks should be funded entirely through taxes. Federal taxes have been the only 'fair' method of funding federal programs for 200+ years. But, as you point out, the infrastructure of some parks are crumbling, and they are left in a position where they must think creatively about making money by any means necessary. The point I think this article claims, is that this method of fund raising ultimately defeats the purpose of a public park.

It is worth asking, are all private events at a park wrong? I'd say no. Closing the Charleston Yard for Laura Bush probably has more to do with security than it does private fund raising, and I don't have a problem with that. But, closing the Yard for a private wedding is, in my opinion, exclusionary of the public for the sake of profit, which is wrong in a park operated on public funds. As stated in my earlier comment, I believe the museum event I attended probably was appropriate, because it had more to do with a shared professional outreach than partying in the Yard. But, I'm sure there are folks which would disagree with my position.

Yes, the "Kennedy liberals" comment is offensive, and does nothing to contribute to the discussion. It was added as a retort to the Cheney comment, which was at least related to the article. I considered both to be political criticism which is a little different than describing another commenter as a 'jackass' (the comment that had been deleted).


Yeah! one point for Snowbird!!


You should have been there for this...I was. I am a resident of the area and was told I could not walk down the Pier (which I do every night) by someone in a yellow shirt. I spoke with one of the Park Service officers and they told I could still ultilize the park even with this event.

I don't mind the Park Service having weddings and small events but to try and close that section of the Navy Yard so some private organization can have a PARTY! Heard rumors that the Park officers should have arrested more people.


The misuse of the Navy Yard seems to be a matter of the government forgetting the purpose of our National Parks. The National Parks were developed to preserve our heritage either the historical or environmental heritage. These national treasures are the property of the taxpayers of the United States and the use of them for a private party is as offensive as political muckraking that has been thrown around here. I was at the Charlestown Shipyard for the Constitution's Sunset Parade which is to show homage to our Declaration of Independence was interrupted by an Amelia Occasions wedding where the DJ blasted music to drown out such tunes like The Star Spangled Banner and other patriotic tunes. It took two tries from the Navy and Park Rangers before the DJ and wedding planner (Amelia Occasions) turned down the music so the public could celebrate our country.

The heart of the matter is that the legislative and executive branch populated by both parties have ignored our treasures and placed a for sale sign on them. With one click it is seen that Amelia Occasions is not even a Boston based company but rather a Florida company. Whatever happened to sustaining the local economy? I must believe Boston wedding planners would drool at the monopoly Amelia Occasions has on the Regional supervisors of the Park Service. This obscenity of McKesson's "party" is a symptom of a culture of contempt of the taxpayer’s property by our elected leaders and a system of privilege for those who can afford influence to our elected leaders. Whether or not McKesson is a villain here is up for debate but rather should two branches whose leaders have sworn an oath to essentially protect the taxpayers and their interest have failed and left our national treasures vulnerable and available to the highest bidder. One wonders if the Navy Yard will see any money from this party and who will cover the overtime that must have been over and beyond what the contract was for.

If we are putting National Treasures I'm waiting for the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be sold as wrapping paper for Christmas maybe the present will be my national treasures placed into hands that realize that these treasures are to be nurtured and not bartered like an illicit street deal.


I have been a uniformed volunteer at the C-town Navy Yard, and Bunker's Hill, since 1999. (I'm currently on medical leave.) I also served aboard USS CONSTITUTION, first as a member of the US Marine Guard and later as a special historical assistant to the 67th and 68th in Command. During my active tenure, there have been literally hundreds of "private parties" at CNY. The most popular place to celebrate a special event is at the Commandant's House. The next best spot is the Hull Room in Building 5; smaller, but has one hell of a view of Old Ironsides. A heck of a lot of veterans groups hold meetings and reunions up there, and I guarantee the spirits flow at almost every one. Sure, once and a while some dummy gets out of hand (who was it at YOUR last office Christmas party??), but mostly the problems are minor annoyances. The Park, along with the museum, need financial help, thanks to a steadily declining budget in the past; why shouldn't they allow a few raves in what used to be a tough, gritty, working shipyard? Hell, this ain't Arlington National Cemetery, and I can assure you that that spot has been host to more parties in its 200+ year history than has Boston's Combat Zone and Old Scolly Square combined!

Now if you want to talk about wildness, public disruption and general mayhem, you should have been there during the Democratic National Convention. I was, and it was quite a sight - dozens of heavily armed federal law enforcement teams mixing with hundreds of partying conventioneers- prominent citizens, business tycoons, Congresspersons, etc.- do the math. And quitcher whining about one li'l ole bash that got a bit rowdy. Remember, the Navy Yard, BNHP and the entire National Park System belongs to ALL Americans, not just the Righteous Temperance Movement. 'Nuff said.

J. Darlington


Why the outrage over this? The Santa Monica National Recreation Area is rented out for movie production. Picture me one Saturday afternoon trying to take a hike, when suddenly helicopters hover overhead with 'commandos' scaling down ropes onto what was supposed to be a quiet picturesque mesa. It was the filming of "Mission Impossible 3". For the filming, the park had allowed part of the mesa to be paved over for roads, stunt car ramps and a mock up of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. Another area was filled with the trailers, canteens and trucks needed to make a few minutes segment of the film. This is in a park that has rare plants. The ranger told me it was all to be put back the way it was after filming concluded. The production company did have to pay to use the park, but the ranger wouldn't tell me how much that was.


Oh, and the film crew tried to keep me off certain trails and areas on public lands so that they could film their movie.

It's certainly not the first time National Parks have been rented out for movie making. Yes, they do make lovely movie locations, but how much damage does putting what amounts to a movie factory (even temporarily) on park lands do?

At least with the Charlestown Yards, environmental damage wasn't done.


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.

Your support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

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

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.