Gloomy DP editorial

Speak up on Monroe

Two opportunities to share your comments

Daily Press editorial

December 3, 2007

Chances are, the future of Fort Monroe will affect you in some way. What becomes of it after the Army leaves in 2011 will affect whether new recreational, job and housing choices are added to the area. [["Whether"? In what scenario would there not be new choices? This editorial is gloomy, and that sentence is the start of the gloom.]] It will determine how big a hit the local economy takes when thousands of Army workers and Army jobs depart. [[It has become a tradition for some regional leaders, including certain journalists, to focus only on an overstated version of the "hit" while ignoring the obvious fact that we can make Fort Monroe an economy-enhancing grand public place.]] If you live in Hampton, the effect will be felt close to home, in your tax-paying pocketbook.[[Well, it is true that Virginia's leaders will be placing Hampton's taxpayers at risk if the leaders don't ensure that Fort Monroe remains under some sort of federal backing. Should Hampton's taxpayers foot the bill when another Hurricane Isabel causes damage again totaling a large fraction of one billion dollars? That's what many of our leaders are assuming.]]

There have been and will continue to be chances for people to share their ideas, which run strongly in all directions. But the more planning advances, the more choices will be narrowed.[[Not necessarily. If the present set of leaders act unwisely, it must be noted that there'll be a new governor and a new legislature in place before 2011 that could correct their failures.]]

So it might make sense to seize one or both of the current opportunities to tell decision-makers what you think should become of Fort Monroe.[[Amen.]]

You can speak up in person at a meeting on Thursday. The main purpose is for the National Park Service to explain its first step toward looking at whether Monroe should become a national park. That step is a reconnaissance survey, as in reconnaissance of the fort's historic assets. [["Main" purpose? Who says? Here's what the National Park Service actually said: "to provide information regarding how the survey will be conducted, receive comments, and answer questions from interested citizens and organizations." In news reports, the Daily Press has persisted in framing this public meeting as merely informational. ALSO: It is true that the National Park Service press release seems to suggest that they will be looking mainly at historic assets, but the NPS's actual charge is wider, and includes the recreational and environmental aspects of Fort Monroe.]]

[[This paragraph's gloom is particularly unjustifiable.]] Folks eager to see the fort become a park shouldn't read too much into this: The Park Service hasn't shown any enthusiasm for that prospect [[But despite what many Virginia leaders say, the decision is no more up to the Park Service than the Iraq invasion decision was up to the Pentagon. As the National Park Service says in its press release, "The United States Congress designates new units of the National Park System through legislation."]], and it's undertaking this survey only because it was asked to by Congresswoman Thelma Drake, who was asked to make the request by the official group planning for Monroe, which only did that because the General Assembly told it to. [[The actual facts are in a key paragraph in Virginia's law about Fort Monroe: "In formulating a reuse plan for Fort Monroe, the Authority shall give due regard to (i) the site’s 400 years of public ownership, (ii) its status as a National Historic Landmark, and (iii) its unique natural resources and outdoor recreational opportunities located at the confluence of Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay. The Authority shall request the U.S. Congressional Representative in whose district Fort Monroe is located to seek a reconnaissance survey from the U.S. Department of Interior to help the Authority evaluate whether Fort Monroe should become affiliated with the National Park System to help manage and preserve the historic and natural resources at Old Point Comfort."]] But this "first look" is still important, because it will determine whether a full-scale evaluation of park status comes next.

[[This paragraph is a nice example of the thinking of those Virginia leaders, including journalists, who see the glass as a half-empty one belonging only to Hampton, when in fact Fort Monroe is a national site belonging to all of us and offering enormous potential for enrichment of various kinds, starting with financial enrichment for the region -- including Hampton.]] Park Service staff will talk about what they will be doing — and will listen, and answer questions. They'll undoubtedly hear from the group pushing to turn Fort Monroe into a national park. And perhaps from those who doubt whether that's a good idea, because the Park Service is already overextended, or because it could hamper efforts to develop some appropriate portion of the site, which would help Hampton make up for the thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue it will lose when the Army leaves.[[Doesn't the Army say that it is moving most of those jobs only to Fort Eustis? Doesn't that mean that there'll be a long transition period before those job losses take full effect in Hampton's budgeting? Doesn't that mean there'll be a transition period during which a federally backed grand public place at Fort Monroe can become an economic engine for the region, including Hampton?]]

There's another opportunity to comment, this time to the Army, which is working through its legal obligation to make sure its departure doesn't result in harm to the base's historic assets. Its latest confab, convened in Washington D.C., last Thursday, was probably not convenient for many locals eager to participate. [[Here the gloom is unfair to the Army. The Army held four public-involvement meetings, starting with one in Hampton (then Norfolk, Richmond, and Washington), because Fort Monroe is a national issue.]] But they still can, by e-mail.

So regardless of whether you say yes or no to the park idea, whether you want the whole base protected or some of it open to development, here are two chances to have your say.

To comment on Fort Monroe
•To the National Park Service: at a meeting at 6:30 p.m. Thursday at the Northampton Community Center, 1435-A Todds Lane, Hampton

•To the Department of the Army: e-mail by Jan. 9 to monr.106public@us.army.mil