Myth 11: The views of Virginia's citizens on Fort Monroe have been heard, respected, and accounted for via the "public input" process and last summer's Hampton "charrettes."
Reality: Virginia's citizens won't be heard without direct representation in the decision-making.
In the FADA's 22 July 06 public workshop, Victor Dover of the Dover, Kohl consulting firm hired by the FADA asked the citizen participants to unfetter their imaginations, and then undercut his own request by saying that their focus should be on the "what" (the details of Fort Monroe's re-use) and not the "how" (how and by whom the re-use will be determined, funded, and overseen). As a result, talk of a national park at Fort Monroe was inhibited and often actively discouraged. The national park concept still made its way into the group reports, but it didn't figure in Mr. Dover's July 27 summary presentation. On the other hand, the FADA's connection to Hampton carried the strong implication that Hampton would be the "how." The force of this unspoken idea was evident in the assumption of some participants that their vision for Fort Monroe must include an economic benefit to Hampton in the form of commercial and residential development.In his November 20 follow-up presentation Mr. Dover, Kohl showed two pie charts. One of them might be taken as vaguely supportive of the FADA's efforts: a large percentage of the participants in the July meetings considered the planning process to be "on the right track." But the other chart, which represented the stated preferences of the respondents, showed an overwhelming interest in historic preservation and open space. Only a very small slice of the pie indicated a desire for development. Thus Mr. Dover's continued attention to development does not reflect the views of the members of the public who participated in the July meetings, and whose apparently contradictory opinion that the process was "on the right track" would seem in context to be more a hope than a conviction. The dissatisfaction of participants is borne out by the negative character of the comments collected at the end of the November presentation. Also, Mr. Dover invited those in attendance to record their comments on large tablets, but he did not open the proceedings to a public discussion that might be reported by the media. In this way Hampton controlled the message.
(Home)