Daily Press editorial survey and accompanying letters

What do you think?

National park status, or state custody, makes sense at Fort Monroe

Daily Press editorial (plus a selection of letters), August 2, 2006

Three public entities could be custodians of all or part of Fort Monroe: the federal government, the state and the city of Hampton. As the city revs up planning for reuse of the base after the Army leaves in 2011, a question has begun to circulate: Is the first of these entities - in the body of the National Park Service - the one that makes the most sense?

When the Editorial Board posed the question last week - should Fort Monroe become a national park? - we heard from 80 readers, from as nearby as Hampton and as far away as Minnesota.

The great majority - 80 percent - favor national park status; the rest either didn't answer the question or suggested another approach, such as a national cemetery.

Some of those advocating for park status would include the entire base, others only portions. Some were adamant that Hampton's track record with economic development argues against it as steward; several were fearful of what will happen if developers move in.

But overwhelmingly, the arguments of park advocates centered around the fort's historic significance and natural assets and were grounded in a belief that a national treasure requires and deserves a national-level steward.

That argument is the one that best makes the case for a national park: Fort Monroe is one of the nation's landmarks, witness to events that shaped its character for four centuries. The people and events that made history on this place were significant not just to Virginia or Hampton, but to the entire nation. The job of caring for and interpreting their legacy falls on national shoulders.

The park service has the necessary expertise and organization, experience and resources. It operates multiple historic sites in Virginia, many major Civil War-era sites and similar installations in Forts McHenry and Sumter. It has by far the biggest budget of the three contenders. Its staff is knowledgeable about the issues involved in operating complex historic sites and accommodating the visitors who want to see them.

But ... it's having trouble stretching the inadequate funding it receives to cover the obligations it already has. It's clear neither the Bush administration nor Congress thinks the national park system is a priority.

Still, it is a fitting steward. It's unfortunate that there has been no coherent push toward this option. Hampton should pursue aggressively the beginning point, a feasibility study, and recruit as its advance team the congressional delegation and governor.

A reasonable and, perhaps, more realistic option is the state of Virginia. Money for Monroe's upkeep is more likely to be found in the state budget, which runs to $35 billion a year and draws on many revenue sources, than in Hampton's, which is just 1 percent that large and hits hard on property owners. The General Assembly finds money for cultural and historic operations that are in the same budgetary ballpark as Monroe would be.

Virginia has the expertise to preserve, interpret and market history. It has demonstrated that at Jamestown and Yorktown, at well-respected historic sites, museums and state parks.

Consider, too, these arguments: Ownership of much of the historic area on Monroe will revert to the state, and it should be cautious about giving assets owned by all Virginians to one locality. Local officials and citizens can have more influence with a state than a federal bureaucracy, both in getting it to assume responsibility for Fort Monroe and as decisions are made in the future. But Hampton must step up to recruit the state, with citizens helping out by leaning on legislators and the governor.

Which of the custodial options makes the least sense? The city of Hampton. It hasn't the financial resources, nor the expertise, not the experience. Historic preservation is not likely to be a priority in a city government that is, necessarily, focused in other directions. It is too risky, leaving Monroe's fate in the hands of seven people - the City Council - any four of whom could make decisions in the future, about funding or development, that are radically at odds with historic stewardship.

---------------------

A sidebar with the editorial contained the following reader comments.

Jack Cowardin of Williamsburg: Fort Monroe is not and should not be the property of the city of Hampton. Its historical significance alone should be enough to indicate that this is a resource of the entire United States, not just Hampton or the commonwealth of Virginia. The core of the fort and its beaches and waterfront areas should be preserved for all citizens.

Carter Ficklen Jr. of Yorktown: The true benefit of Fort Monroe as a national park will not be to us but to our children, our grandchildren and future generations.

Victor H. Thompson of Hampton: Make the entire Fort Monroe into a national park. With its combination of major historic significance and natural beauty, Fort Monroe could become one of our country's major national parks. It would bring Hampton national attention and vastly expanded tourism, preserve significant green space, provide access to beach areas, and provide educational and cultural opportunities for all Americans

George R. Neil of Williamsburg: Of course it should be a national park. It is critical to protect the heritage of such a historic place. In the absence of national protection it will inevitably fall prey to developers and others with only shortsighted, near-term, self-centered interests.

-----------------------------------------

Other readers' responses to 'What do you think?':

Protect from council

August 2 2006

I remember the Grandview fishing pier and the beautiful unspoiled coastline. I was shocked to find private residences and almost no public access to the water. I went to look at Chesapeake Avenue and saw again no meaningful public access to the water. I see how Hampton is chomping at the bit to ruin Buckroe Beach.

Making Fort Monroe a national park is the first step to ensure that Hampton City Council cannot force its desires upon the nation or the voters of Hampton. We need to contact our elected representatives to make this happen.

Daniel J. Hernandez
Hampton

Wrong question

I am a citizen appointee to the Fort Monroe Planning Steering Committee. The views I express, however, are mine alone. I believe that the Daily Press is asking the wrong question.

There is no guarantee that the National Park Service has any interest in taking over Fort Monroe. There has been no indication from the state that it would be willing to foot the bill for a state park, either. Perhaps more importantly, saying "yes, we should turn it into a national park" does little to define the kind of facility the public would like to see, but seems to cut off further debate about the subject.

National parks vary in character from tracts of more-or-less undisturbed land (Yellowstone) to public-private partnerships involving the renovation, removal and consolidation of many buildings (the Presidio).

Citizens should first decide on their goals for Fort Monroe, and then decide what entity - be it the city, the National Park Service or the commonwealth - will be best able to accomplish those goals.

Kevin Grierson
Hampton

Cultural resource

As a National Historical Landmark District, Fort Monroe should, without question, be transferred to the National Park Service when the Army leaves.

Meanwhile, Hampton and the commonwealth should join with the public in asking Congress to authorize a study, working with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (an independent federal agency), to determine how to make this happen in a way that will bring the top talent in the nation to bear on the complex cultural and natural resource management issues involved in handling this national icon in conformance with federal law. Neither Hampton nor the commonwealth is equipped to deal with this national responsibility.

Monika Malone
Hampton

Hampton's history

Giving Fort Monroe to Hampton would be sheer insanity. The city is currently developing many other areas in Hampton. From what I have seen, these areas are all "high-dollar" residential areas. Now Hampton wants more upscale housing on Fort Monroe? Stop thinking about your tax base and start thinking about Joe Average!

Hampton city leaders have shown in the past how inept they are in the development and redevelopment area. Fort Monroe is too important to our nation's history. Please make sure it gets preserved by making it a national park.

Lori Zukerman
Hampton

Not for profit

There is too much national and Civil War history involved in that place to let the developers tear it apart simply for profit. It would be doing the entire country a disservice.

Sharon Young
Newport News

A national treasure

Fort Monroe belongs to the entire country! As a Yorktown resident, I would never presume that the battlefield belongs to just my neighbors. I always point out to my British and French friends that Yorktown is theirs too. Fort Monroe belongs to every citizen of the United States and that ownership should be cemented by the simple expedience of transferring and transforming Fort Monroe from a Department of Defense property to a national park. That way future generations of Americans can enjoy the benefits of truly national ownership of such a unique property.

Paul Brindza
Yorktown

Keep state out

There is only one solution, and that is that it becomes a national park. State control should be ruled out. Erratic funding and partisan politics are two reasons. Another is the disproportionate influence wielded in Richmond by developers, the building industry and real estate interests, who will exert pressure for encroachment that will slowly and insidiously gnaw away at a national treasure.

And by no means should the city of Hampton have control. As pointed out in an editorial "Fort Monroe," July 16, a majority of council, four local politicians, would have ultimate control over this historic place that belongs to all Americans, not just Hamptonians. The city of Hampton controlling the future of Fort Monroe is unthinkable.

Allan C. Hanrahan
Smithfield

NPS preview

A national park is the only way to go for the long term. I do not believe the city of Hampton has enough of the required resources to create what is the real potential of the fort.

Starting with a premise of a national park affords the best hope for an integrated whole. It would be most informative for the city and all citizens to have now a brief assessment by the National Park Service of what might be expected from their viewpoint.

Howard J. Curfman Jr.
Hampton

A public trust

It would be great if Fort Monroe could be converted to a national park, but that is never going to happen. The Congress is not going to appropriate the necessary funds to do that job properly. The silence of our representatives in Washington in this regard has been deafening. The National Park Service is not going to exercise proper stewardship over the property even if some funds are available. The only way that the historic fort proper and the other historic properties are going to be preserved for all of us to enjoy is to establish a special endowment fund to take care of maintaining and operating the fort as a museum and park.

The funds needed to maintain and preserve the historic portion of the Fort Monroe property are going to have to come from the public. We had better start trying to raise them now so an endowment or trust can be established.

Robert V. Doggett Jr.
Hampton

Keep it green

Fort Monroe should become a national park. We need this to make up for all the trees and land destroyed by developers. If developers get their hands on this property, it's gone forever.

Betty Lemon
Grafton

Perfect for college

While working at the fort I developed a love for its buildings and grounds. What a great place for a state or federal learning institution. It seems the waterfront offers a great natural waterway ideal for marine science study. The buildings are beautiful and could be used for classrooms as well as housing for students and faculty. Because of the size of the installation students could easily walk from class to class. The parade fields are ideal for marching bands and other social activities.

What an ideal place to study history, and if used as a learning institution, the Casemate Museum, or part of it, could remain in place. The picnic area offers an ideal place for student recreation as does the beach area.

Donald B. Conway
Gloucester

National scale

The preservation, maintenance and development of this site demands an approach that appeals to national interests and financial resources. This approach demands that the leaders ultimately selected to direct and guide this venture be those who reflect these national interests and financial resources.

The future of Old Point Comfort, including Fort Monroe, demands a greater level of leadership than any local group appointed by a single city can provide.

Bo Parker
Hampton