Myths vs. realities

Myth 1: The National Park Service has been asked and does not want Fort Monroe.

Reality: True only in the most technical sense. Park Service administrators do not have authority to establish new national parks, regardless of their value. Only Congress can establish a new national park. To pursue a national park at Fort Monroe, we must first get Congressional authorization for a resource study of Fort Monroe by the Park Service. Our Congressional delegation is more than willing to pursue this authorization if we join in asking them to do so.

Myth 2: The National Park Service has no money to establish any new national parks.

Reality: The Park Service, like many agencies and governmental units, has more needs than resources. Still it has a $1.7 billion operating budget for its 400 sites and adds new sites almost every year. The U.S. population is growing, and the National Park Service must grow with it - most of the U.S. population is in the east but most of the existing parks are in the west. The idea that this great nation cannot do the right thing by Fort Monroe reflects a pessimism for the future that Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park totally rejects. On the merits, for any number of reasons, a Fort Monroe National Park cannot be denied.

Please see also the National Park Service's press release about President Bush's historic initiative, announced in February 2007, to revitalize our national parks.

Myth 3: The National Park Service is a poor steward of its properties.

Reality: There are always instances of neglect or bureaucratic incompetence that can be identified in an agency with such far-flung and numerous assets. But Americans are by and large proud of their parks and the Park Service. To put it another way, I would paraphrase Churchill's comment on democracy: "The National Park Service is the worst choice for an entity to operate Fort Monroe except for all the others."

Myth 4: The costs of operating a Fort Monroe National Park are unaffordable.

Reality: Leasing out Fort Monroe assets, including the numerous historic houses and buildings, for residences and businesses, will capture a significant portion of the revenue needed to operate and maintain the property. If necessary to provide additional revenue, limited new development could be approved by the steward, but for lease only and only where consistent with mission statement and not to detract from the greater goals of preservation - maximizing open space and protecting the context and use of the entire site for the public. And we should seek a fair share of the Park Service operating budget for Fort Monroe - Fort Sumter and Fort McHenry, undeniably historic treasures in their own right, are tiny in comparison, are not as accessible, do not offer anything like the recreational and cultural opportunities that Fort Monroe does, yet they get $2.3 and nearly $2 million a year, respectively, in Park Service funding. It is easy to argue that Fort Monroe should get at least $5 million a year or more, simply on its relative merits to these two Park Service properties.

Myth 5: Most of the land at Fort Monroe reverts to the Commonwealth of Virginia when the Army leaves, so a National Park is not a feasible option.

Reality: That a large portion of the property reverts to Virginia is apparently true, but the conclusion posited above is absolutely false. The Commonwealth of Virginia benefits as much from doing the best thing at Fort Monroe as does Hampton Roads or the City of Hampton and should be an enthusiastic supporter of making Fort Monroe the grandest public place it can be, including being more than willing to support the necessary federal study and ultimately signing over any of its property rights incumbent to creating a national park. Other states fight hard to get properties that fall far short of Fort Monroe in their quality, value to the nation, and economic potential into the National Park System, and Virginia should do no less for Fort Monroe.

Myth 6: We don't have time to pursue the national park option.

Reality: There is always time to do the right thing - do we really want to explain to our children and grandchildren that Fort Monroe ended up as a diminished place because we did not have time to make it a great place for Hampton, the region and the nation? If time is an issue, it is to tell us that we do not have the time to dither further with unrealistic and cramped views for this national and regional treasure, such as the draft reuse plan, for the citizens of this nation, state and region simply will not accept a mediocre or worse outcome at Fort Monroe. It is that special and valued.

Myth 7: The Hampton FADA (Federal Area Development Authority) draft reuse plan captures most of the benefits the Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park seek.

Reality: The draft reuse plan reflects a much smaller vision for Fort Monroe, a vision of it as an affluent new residential neighborhood for Hampton, with the principal goal of bringing some new tax revenues to the City.  (Read more)

Myth 8: Hampton is desperate and hard pressed to replace tax revenues it will lose when TRADOC moves to Fort Eustis in 2011.

Reality: What tax revenues?

Real estate? Very few civil servants or off base military will relocate because the job
site moved one city over.
Business taxes? Very few business contracts with TRADOC will change because it
moved over one city.
Sales taxes? Very few military personnel on post were paying City taxes to begin with.

Old Point Comfort will not possibly sit idle when the Army leaves. If it even approaches its real potential as a Grand Public Place, this economic engine will generate taxes for Hampton, as well as business jobs and profits, from a heavy stream of recreational and heritage visitors to this spectacular national treasure. Residential development proposed by Hampton will favor the wealthy few.

Myth 9: Hampton is mainly interested in preserving FM, not in profiting from it:

Reality: Hampton's actions regarding Fort Monroe indicate that profit is the city's chief motive.  (Read more)

Myth 10: Hampton cares deeply about FM history.

Reality: Hampton has done a poor job of making known its own remarkable history, and it has physically neglected Fort Wool, Fort Monroe's companion island fort. (Read more)

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: Hampton's past performance proves that Virginia's citizens won't be heard without direct representation in the decision-making. (Read more)

(Home)