The legislation labeled S. 2742 aims to establish two distinct sites, namely the Fort Ontario National Monument and the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historical Park, in the State of New York as parts of the National Park System. This initiative is spearheaded by Mrs. Gillibrand and Mr. Schumer. It seeks to preserve the historical and cultural significance of Fort Ontario and its surrounding lands, recognizing their historical relevance from indigenous settlements and military conflicts to serving as a refuge for nearly a thousand people during World War II.

General Summary of the Bill

The bill's primary objective is the creation of two sites, each with distinct purposes. The Fort Ontario National Monument will focus on safeguarding the area’s overall historical significance, including indigenous and military history. Simultaneously, the National Historical Park will highlight the narrative of World War II refugees who found sanctuary in Fort Ontario. The Secretary of the Interior is given the mandate to manage these sites, ensuring their preservation, public accessibility, and educational use through potential cooperative agreements.

Summary of Significant Issues

Several issues present themselves within the bill’s text. There is ambiguity concerning the funding and the total cost required for establishing these sites, posing potential challenges for budget transparency and accountability. The bill does not clearly delineate how the determination of "sufficient quantity of land" will be made, which could cause disputes or hinder progress.

Moreover, the guidelines surrounding cooperative agreements with private entities are not detailed, raising concerns about possible financial or operational disadvantages for the National Park Service. Public access is another point of concern, as the term "reasonable public access" is subjective and open to varying interpretations, possibly affecting public use.

There are also questions about how existing athletic facilities within the national monument’s boundaries will coexist with conservation efforts, potentially leading to conflicts between recreational and preservation priorities.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, the establishment of these sites may increase awareness and education about important historical events, preserving them for future generations. These sites could potentially become attractions for tourists interested in America's diverse history, thus promoting local economic activity.

For specific stakeholders, state and local governments stand to benefit from the rise in tourism and the associated economic impacts. Educational institutions might find new resources and opportunities for research and public education initiatives. Local residents near the sites may experience improved infrastructure and increased business activity.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

On the other hand, the lack of clarity concerning land acquisition funding and management might lead to financial and administrative strain on federal and state resources. The vagueness around cooperative agreements and public access rights could lead to potential conflicts or lawsuits, affecting stakeholders involved in land management and local communities.

The bill’s focus on historical preservation aligns with national interests in safeguarding cultural heritage, yet it must be meticulously structured to ensure clear guidelines and responsibilities, to avoid negative implications for stakeholders entangled in legal ambiguities or financial burdens.