BY H.O. MALONE AND MARK PERREAULT
SPECIAL TO THE DAILY PRESS
July 16, 2006
With the Army poised to leave Fort Monroe in 2011, after 188 years of continuous presence at Old Point Comfort, the
29-member Steering Committee of Hampton's Federal Area Development Authority had its initial meeting on April 20 in the
fort's former officers' club. Hampton City Manager Jesse Wallace convened the proceedings with the greeting:
"Welcome to Fort Monroe, Hampton's newest neighborhood."
Many residents of Hampton Roads and beyond are wondering why historic Fort Monroe, reaching back to Capt. John Smith
and the origins of our nation in 1607, is not on track to become a national park instead of an economic
windfall for a single city. Hampton admits that a national park might be nice to have, but warns that it may not be
feasible.
The established way to determine feasibility of a site as a national park is for Congress to direct the National Park
Service - the designated custodian of our national heritage - to conduct a feasibility study. But instead of asking for
a study, Hampton leaders downplayed the desirability and likelihood of a national park, focused on development
possibilities and attempted - unsuccessfully so far - to have the General Assembly enact legislation transferring to
Hampton the state's reversionary rights to much of the fort.
Citizens of Hampton Roads and beyond, who believe that a national park would be the best solution among the options
being contemplated for reuse of Fort Monroe, should make their views known to their elected representatives in Richmond
and Washington, as well as at the public "charrette" being conducted by Hampton starting Friday in the
Hampton Convention Center. Vested interests who view the fort primarily as a private development opportunity will
certainly be represented there, so it is essential that supporters of the national park concept place their viewpoint
on the table.
Even without a formal study by the National Park Service, a look back at events since the end of World War II suggests
that legislation to identify Fort Monroe as a future national park is more than 30 years overdue. Over the past 50
years the Army repeatedly considered closing Monroe. Not long after the fort escaped a closure attempt during the
Eisenhower era, the National Park Service designated it as a national historic monument in 1960. On the Pacific Coast,
the Army's Presidio of San Francisco, which dates back to 1776, was likewise recognized as a national historic monument
two years later.
In the early 1970s, both Fort Monroe and the Presidio became "National Historic Landmark Districts," under
provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. These national-level preservation actions were widely
understood to reflect the expectation that both Army facilities would be brought into the national park system, if the
Army left. In the case of the Presidio, the local delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives succeeded in having
Congress enact legislation in 1972 ensuring that the Presidio would become a national park when the Army departed. But
no comparable legislation ever emerged on behalf of Fort Monroe.
After the first round of the Department of Defense Base Realignment and Closure process in 1989, the Presidio was
slated to close and the Army left there in 1994. Because of the 1972 legislation, the Presidio was transferred to the
National Park Service. Soon afterward, Congress created the Presidio Trust (a federal development corporation), to work
in partnership with the National Park Service as the agency to manage the extensive real property holdings at the
Presidio. As of last year, with more than 2,500 residents and more than 4,000 workers on the Presidio, the trust had
generated sufficient funds to cover day-to-day operating costs of the more than 1,100 acres in its care.
Meanwhile, Fort Monroe, which continued to dodge the bullet on successive closure attempts in the 1970s and 1980s, came
under serious risk of being placed on the closure list in the 1993 BRAC round. During that process, the print and
broadcast media reported a senior member of our congressional delegation arguing that the Army should not close Fort
Monroe, since Congress would be obliged to make it a national park, thus negating any savings. That argument helped
keep Fort Monroe open.
Subsequently, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell, channeled many millions of dollars into new
construction at Fort Monroe to make the 19th-century post capable of supporting TRADOC as the architect of the
21st-century Army. But the premise, which helped save the fort in 1993, had been forgotten by 2005. Consequently, in
accordance with BRAC decisions of 2005, Fort Monroe's existence as an active Army post will end by 2011, without
provision having been made for its transition into a national park.
That lack of implementing legislation - together with a deed drafted in 1819 providing reversion of the oldest parts of
Monroe to the state, in case the installation is no longer used for military purposes - left the door open for the idea
that one city could take over a National Historic Landmark District and use it as an engine for its economic benefit.
No installation ever closed by the Army, either before or after the BRAC process began, has greater historical,
cultural, social and architectural significance than Fort Monroe. In the 2005 BRAC round, Fort Monroe was the only
installation slated for closing that was a National Historic Landmark District. That national designation demands that
Fort Monroe receive special treatment, outside the regular requirements of BRAC.
America designates, protects and maintains places of extraordinary historical, cultural, architectural and scenic
significance, such as Fort Monroe, by making them part of the national park system. Fort McHenry in Baltimore or
Gettysburg Battlefield, for example, are not operated or managed by local governments.
No matter how well intentioned, local governments cannot be expected over the long run to withstand the inevitable
economic pressures to compromise the historical or natural integrity of a national landmark as the local authority
struggles to generate revenue for other pressing local needs.
National park status for Fort Monroe is the means to continue national oversight and responsibility for a national
treasure. Fort Monroe's value to the nation merits a small piece of the Park Service's $1.7 billion annual operating
budget, if that is needed, particularly in the transition years after the Army first leaves, and before a supporting
federal development trust is able to produce revenue up to its full capacity.
Further, national park status would, in the long term, be in the best interest of Hampton. For the first time, the city
would be on the tourism map in a way comparable to the "historic triangle" of
Jamestown-Williamsburg-Yorktown. Hampton could finally become a destination in its own right, instead of the place
people pass through en route somewhere else.
Equally important is the fact that national park status, with the assurance that Fort Monroe will be protected,
accessible and operated in a manner suitable to its status, will attract investment and desirable business activity in
areas surrounding the fort, such as downtown Phoebus, the Mallory Street corridor, Buckroe Beach, lower Mercury
Boulevard and even downtown Hampton.
What should be done now? Two related actions are required:
First, with regard to Virginia's reversionary rights to portions of Fort Monroe after the Army departs, the state
should indicate that it will not impose those rights as a barrier to Fort Monroe's transfer to the National Park
Service.
Second, Congress, led by Virginia's U.S. senators and its Hampton Roads delegation in the House of Representatives,
should correct the oversight of 30 years ago by authorizing the National Park Service to assume control of Fort Monroe
upon the Army's departure.
That legislation should simultaneously commission a National Park Service study to determine the best way to support
such a park. Recent history suggests that the key to reducing costs would be a joint venture between the park service
and a federal development trust, inspired by, but not necessarily identical to, the Presidio Trust. Such a park would
involve many people living and working at Fort Monroe, making it a stimulating and living place, but a place ultimately
operated in the public interest.
The goal should be for the federal legislation envisioned here to be announced in May 2007, concurrent with the
festivities commemorating the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown. That gesture would be especially symbolic
since that first permanent English settlement in the New World was protected by fortifications and ordnance in place at
Old Point Comfort.
Malone retired from federal civil service in 1994 as chief historian of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. He
is president of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, a nonprofit Virginia corporation promoting creation of a
national park at Fort Monroe partnered with a federal development trust. Send e-mail to hom@cox.net.
Perreault, an attorney for Norfolk Southern Corp., is president of the Norfolk Preservation Alliance and vice president
of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park. Send e-mail to perreault3@cox.net.